Fear and Loathing......

Those same states would vote slavery back in if it was on the ballot.

[QUOTE=mungkay]Those same states would vote slavery back in if it was on the ballot.[/QUOTE]

You're probably right. And considering that in my part of the world, Texas, were whites are slipping into the minority, I best be brushing up on my Spanish and Vietnamese.

i'm shocked at the percentage in which ohio passed the gay ban amendment. i really thought there was more support for gay rights in ohio. what is our problem with people of different sexual persuasions?

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]i'm shocked at the percentage in which ohio passed the gay ban amendment. i really thought there was more support for gay rights in ohio. what is our problem with people of different sexual persuasions?[/QUOTE]

It's probably more of a problem with sexual issues in general than sexual orientation or persuasion. Americans are prudish when it comes to sex, and that prudishness starts with teaching children sex is wrong, using scare tactics on young kids in junior high school on up, and using religion to back up the scare tactics.

But why are Americans so prudish? In my opinion, it's because parents have collectively decided that they are not going to deal with their children getting pregnant or STD's because they don't want to spend the money on it. Face it, a fourteen year old expecting her first child has no way to pay for raising a child, so it would up to the parents to pay for it, and there's no way they are going to pay for it...why that would fuck up the college funds and retirement. The obvious solution would be for sexual awareness eduction at much earlier age levels with a focus on practicing safe sex.

But, that's not going to happen anytime soon.

[QUOTE=vandamage]It's probably more of a problem with sexual issues in general than sexual orientation or persuasion. Americans are prudish when it comes to sex, and that prudishness starts with teaching children sex is wrong, using scare tactics on young kids in junior high school on up, and using religion to back up the scare tactics.

But why are Americans so prudish? In my opinion, it's because parents have collectively decided that they are not going to deal with their children getting pregnant or STD's because they don't want to spend the money on it. Face it, a fourteen year old expecting her first child has no way to pay for raising a child, so it would up to the parents to pay for it, and there's no way they are going to pay for it...why that would fuck up the college funds and retirement. The obvious solution would be for sexual awareness eduction at much earlier age levels with a focus on practicing safe sex.

But, that's not going to happen anytime soon.[/QUOTE]
that has nothing to do with denying rights to gays. nothing at all. we don't have a problem with providing services for people who are straight, people who still deal with sex. what is america's problem with alternative sexual relationships? we've talked this to death in the politics forum, there's no rational thought to use for imposing one's religious and personal beliefs using legislative means.

really this is worse than just bush getting re-elected, and worse than just 11 states passing the gay marriage ban. bush will be enjoying a republican majority in the senate, making it easier for him to pass the nationwide gay marriage ban, making it easier for him to retool this society for more wars, for corporate greed, and against the working middle class. i'm extremely disappointed in this election, because at the very least we know that bush will try to fuck things up with the middle east even more, and continue imposing his religious beliefs on america.

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]that has nothing to do with denying rights to gays. nothing at all. we don't have a problem with providing services for people who are straight, people who still deal with sex. what is america's problem with alternative sexual relationships? we've talked this to death in the politics forum, there's no rational thought to use for imposing one's religious and personal beliefs using legislative means.

really this is worse than just bush getting re-elected, and worse than just 11 states passing the gay marriage ban. bush will be enjoying a republican majority in the senate, making it easier for him to pass the nationwide gay marriage ban, making it easier for him to retool this society for more wars, for corporate greed, and against the working middle class. i'm extremely disappointed in this election, because at the very least we know that bush will try to fuck things up with the middle east even more, and continue imposing his religious beliefs on america.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you, but I really feel that the general prudishness of the people of this country is exactly what is keeping gays from having equal rights. I believe increased sexual awareness could actually lead to a greater tolerance of people with a different sexual orientation. Fixing the gay rights issue is just like putting a band-aid on the overall problem, when in fact, the whole sexual prudishness issue just needs a big old shot of penicillin in the dingus.

But, like I said earlier, the whole issue will not change anytime soon, so a band-aid is the best anyone can do at this time.

[QUOTE=DrGonzoHST]Thats it folks. I give up. Not only did about half of our country vote for a moron, but 11 states passed gay marraige bans in their states by overwhelming margins. I can't believe people can hid their bigotry behind a curtain of faimly values. I can't believe that half of this country has turned a blind eye to the incompetence and corruptness of a president who has done nothing to better America.

I fear and loath this country. I fear and loath the people in it.

On a side note if Election 2000 was not enough to make the American people and it's politicans demand UNIFORM electio0n standards then this is it. Enough is Enough. Can we please just get a everyone to vote on the same goodamn format. This is fucking insane.[/QUOTE]

How many states had Gay marriage on the ticket?
All I know is we didn't down here in Ala-fuckin shitty ass-bama.

I can agree on a uniform election standard. This is getting a bit out of hand.

ok well now we know what happens when uneducated, bible thumpin' cowboy bigots are allowed to vote...and unfortunately they are the majority...

It definitely is the prudishness. Like the embarrassment nearly everyone gets talking about sex, and that's just normal sex, not the crazy shit some people are into. I'm sure most people know the guys who talk about this who always have to throw in the "But I'm not gay" thing, and then pause to let you acknowledge that fact heh.

I think homosexuality itself hasn't come far enough out of being taboo for everyone to accept them completely. I only really started hearing about the push for gay marriages this year, maybe last year...it's just too soon. It'll happen, eventually. I knew it wasn't going to happen this year definitely. Look who we elected, for one thing.

[QUOTE=PsychoKeety] I'm sure most people know the guys who talk about this who always have to throw in the "But I'm not gay" thing, and then pause to let you acknowledge that fact heh. [/QUOTE]

What blows my mind about this sentiment is that homosexuality seems to be the pinnacle of sexual perversion. Like you could do no worse. You never hear anybody finish off a story about frat-house hazing with "I mean, I don't fuck babies or anything..."

What is it about homosexuality that makes people take it so personally?

[SIZE=1]Not that I'm gay, or anything.[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]i'm shocked at the percentage in which ohio passed the gay ban amendment. i really thought there was more support for gay rights in ohio. what is our problem with people of different sexual persuasions?[/QUOTE]
i thought the same thing about michigan. Apparently i was wrong as well.

Personal opinion coming up so look away.

I don't fuckin care if gays get married. It has no impact what so ever on my life. Fuck it they can get married in the middle of the street if they want, as long as I'm not in a hurry to get where I'm going and happen to be on that road. Someone could get hurt.

I'm assuming "gay homo sex" is looked down on because it's a "complete perversion" of nature. Not that nature is very natural these days, but anyway. And youre completely correct. In my opinion fuckin babies is worse. But what do I know, I've never been gay or fucked a baby.

Not that I'm gay or anything.

[QUOTE=DillingerEscape]Personal opinion coming up so look away.

I don't fuckin care if gays get married. It has no impact what so ever on my life. Fuck it they can get married in the middle of the street if they want, as long as I'm not in a hurry to get where I'm going and happen to be on that road. Someone could get hurt.

I'm assuming "gay homo sex" is looked down on because it's a "complete perversion" of nature. Not that nature is very natural these days, but anyway. And youre completely correct. In my opinion fuckin babies is worse. But what do I know, I've never been gay or fucked a baby.

Not that I'm gay or anything.[/QUOTE]
"gay homo sex" isn't a "complete perversion of nature". nature itself harbors a fair percentage of homosexual animals, even up to 14% per species. but yea, it shouldn't matter if gays get legally married, you'd thinkt he republicans thought that gay marriage meant that their churches had to preform gay marriages.

and i'm secure enough not to have to say "and i'm not even gay".

THOSE DiRTY PENGUINS

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]"gay homo sex" isn't a "complete perversion of nature". nature itself harbors a fair percentage of homosexual animals, even up to 14% per species. but yea, it shouldn't matter if gays get legally married, you'd thinkt he republicans thought that gay marriage meant that their churches had to preform gay marriages.

and i'm secure enough not to have to say "and i'm not even gay".[/QUOTE]

I was joking when I said "gay homo sex". Not saying it is. I'm kinda trying to assume what the people that vote against it are thinking.
But seriously, 14%? Didn't know it was that much. Maybe they will have to burn their churches if there's gay marriage.

[QUOTE=glamhoth]THOSE DiRTY PENGUINS[/QUOTE]

those philandering felchers

[QUOTE=DillingerEscape]I was joking when I said "gay homo sex". Not saying it is. I'm kinda trying to assume what the people that vote against it are thinking.
But seriously, 14%? Didn't know it was that much. Maybe they will have to burn their churches if there's gay marriage.[/QUOTE]
the most interesting part about it is homosexuality in animals is more common in the wild than in captivity. the thinking is that in captivity the instinct for preservation of the species takes over.

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]the most interesting part about it is homosexuality in animals is more common in the wild than in captivity. the thinking is that in captivity the instinct for preservation of the species takes over.[/QUOTE]

Makes sense... As much as gay sex makes sense... haha

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]the most interesting part about it is homosexuality in animals is more common in the wild than in captivity. the thinking is that in captivity the instinct for preservation of the species takes over.[/QUOTE]

I'm gonna plead total ignorance here. In what other species of animal is homosexual activity common? Where did you learn that it's more common in the wild than in captivity?

[QUOTE=wfd]I'm gonna plead total ignorance here. In what other species of animal is homosexual activity common? Where did you learn that it's more common in the wild than in captivity?[/QUOTE]

watches to much Discovery.

[QUOTE=wfd]I'm gonna plead total ignorance here. In what other species of animal is homosexual activity common? Where did you learn that it's more common in the wild than in captivity?[/QUOTE]
i've looked it up in national geographic, and read several books on the topic. in the past it's been kept pretty hush-hush due to it's political implications.

what species?
well, pretty much all of them. this topic was brought to a head (no, not like that) earlier this year with the gay marriage ban debate and central park's famous penguin duo, "Silo" and "Roy", both male, who've since successfully raised a fertalized egg on their own. particularly cited as having a fair precentage of homosexuals are bonobos (apes), western gulls (both silver and black headed - particularly the females), bottlenosed dolphins (young males especially), rhesus macaques (a monkey), galahs (a sort of cokatoo), manatees, the aforementioned penguins, even vampire bats and so forth. the averages of it occurring in the wild are around 5%-6% but have been shown in certains species up to around 14%.

where'd i find out about the frequency of wild versus captivity?
the Bagemihl book listed below, and many of it's sources listed in it's bibliography, among other places.

books -
Bruce Bagemihl published "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" - documents homosexual behavior in over 450 species out of about 1000 species documented).

Frans de Waal published "Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape"

read in national geographic, and in nature, it's a topic with increasing interest in the scientific community.

The Jackass won, and I'm not surprised. I figured he'd win (he really hit the faggot hatin'/Gun lovin'/Bible thumpin' demographic).

This is bullshit, and the world is fucked (not to mention the poor bastards who are now officially deviants in 11 states).

I'm going to find a rock to hide under until 2008.

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]this topic was brought to a head (no, not like that) earlier this year with the gay marriage ban debate and central park's famous penguin duo, "Silo" and "Roy", both male, who've since successfully raised a fertalized egg on their own...the averages of it occurring in the wild are around 5%-6% but have been shown in certains species up to around 14%.
[/QUOTE]

Are these cited occurances referring to same-sex parenting, or (and forgive me for using such a technical term here) "gay homo sex?"

I don't doubt for a sec that two males of a species might raise a child, but I've never of any species that engage in sexual activity with other members of the same gender. Especially considering that very few animals mate for pleasure, besides us horny-ass humans, I find it pretty hard to believe. Course then again, sounds like you've done more research than I have, so I'm open for some enlightenment.

ya know, what I don't get is this: Marriage is a christian tradition. most religions that have marriages like that, by and large, condemn homosexuality.

now, why would you want a chrisitan marriage if you were gay.

that's like saying I want a jewish marriage but I'm a born again, pork eating, uncircumsized pentecostal christian. There's some things I'd have to give up before I'd get a jewish marriage. Most people that want to be wed in a certain type of church have to go through some motions for that church to recognize the marriage. It doesn't make sense to want a christian marriage if you're gay, because the religion, by and large, condemns that lifestyle. That's like insisting a biker club let you join while you drive a volvo sedan. it's two different worlds.

I think gays should come up with their own type of union. be creative. call it whatever you like. it could be a perfectly legal marriage without having to be recognized by a church. do they really need the approval of the church anyways? cause that's not likely to happen on a large scale any time soon.

[QUOTE=wfd]Are these cited occurances referring to same-sex parenting, or (and forgive me for using such a technical term here) "gay homo sex?"

I don't doubt for a sec that two males of a species might raise a child, but I've never of any species that engage in sexual activity with other members of the same gender. Especially considering that very few animals mate for pleasure, besides us horny-ass humans, I find it pretty hard to believe. Course then again, sounds like you've done more research than I have, so I'm open for some enlightenment.[/QUOTE]

actually, dolphins are the only other animal scientists believe to have sex for any reason other than procreation. (although I think dogs are probably a runner up)

[QUOTE=wfd]Are these cited occurances referring to same-sex parenting, or (and forgive me for using such a technical term here) "gay homo sex?"

I don't doubt for a sec that two males of a species might raise a child, but I've never of any species that engage in sexual activity with other members of the same gender. Especially considering that very few animals mate for pleasure, besides us horny-ass humans, I find it pretty hard to believe. Course then again, sounds like you've done more research than I have, so I'm open for some enlightenment.[/QUOTE]
these occurances are mostly in relation to same sex partnering, sexual play, and sexual relations among animals. the bottlenosed dolphins, young male calves, form partnerships, and stay in these partnerships (with touchy touchy) until they mature. female bonobos are rather promiscous with one another. so it's varying degrees of contact. homsexuality in animals isn't a universal idea, it's varying depending on the species, but is prevalent none-the-less. as for animals not mating for pleasure, well, that's debateable. it's said that most sexual activity isn't about procreation, especially in humans, nor is it necessarily about pleasure. many times it's about relationships, control, anger, sadness, and so many other things. dolphins mate for pleasure, as do dogs and many other mammals. sexuality in animals has been considered to be taboo for the most part beyond procreation. the reason people think it doesn't exist beyond procreation is because it's just been avoided in scientific discourse.

[QUOTE=ireLocus]ya know, what I don't get is this: Marriage is a christian tradition. most religions that have marriages like that, by and large, condemn homosexuality.

now, why would you want a chrisitan marriage if you were gay.

that's like saying I want a jewish marriage but I'm a born again, pork eating, uncircumsized pentecostal christian. There's some things I'd have to give up before I'd get a jewish marriage. Most people that want to be wed in a certain type of church have to go through some motions for that church to recognize the marriage. It doesn't make sense to want a christian marriage if you're gay, because the religion, by and large, condemns that lifestyle. That's like insisting a biker club let you join while you drive a volvo sedan. it's two different worlds.

I think gays should come up with their own type of union. be creative. call it whatever you like. it could be a perfectly legal marriage without having to be recognized by a church. do they really need the approval of the church anyways? cause that's not likely to happen on a large scale any time soon.[/QUOTE]
this is christian assimilation at it's best. marriage was never just about religion. most religions assililated it well after it was a common practice. marriage has always been a legal process, a legal process relating primarily to posession. well before religion was brought into the marriage mixture, people were face with aquestion of what belongs to whom in the event of the daughter leaving the parents for a mate. marriage was essentially the contract that was drawn up to bind these two people together, and to define what belonged to these two persons. christian/jewish ceremonies were only brought into the mixture after christianity/judaism arose as religions. people were getting married long before these religions were around. paganism was involved in it a minute bit, but that was after the fact. paganism in it's infancy always sought to explain daily occurances with supernatural means. marriage was one of those occurances.

can you maybe site some of this info, because it's really new to me and I'd rather not argue on if I'm totally wrong. what cultures had marriage outside of their religion?

and I guess I'm wondering this: Do gays want more than simply a legal union? I mean, I guess it's come across that many want church marriage too, but if it's more a legal thing anyways, I don't see what the big deal is. again, what do they care if a church doesn't recognize their union if the state does?

[QUOTE=ireLocus]can you maybe site some of this info, because it's really new to me and I'd rather not argue on if I'm totally wrong. what cultures had marriage outside of their religion?[/QUOTE]
christ, cite sources? try just about any history book that's not biased to the religious right. but seriously, it's all over history. marriage was practiced well before the jews and christians adopted the practice. even today marriage isn't a religious practice essentially. in america when you get married religiously, you have to file the papers with your city government, or it's not recognized by society, and in some cases, even by your own religious denomination. but to be married in the eyes of society, you don't have to marry in a religious setting. see also vegas, justice of the peace etc...

you want sources, look it up, i know i've read several books on the subject, but i also know that when i was reading up on christianity, several of those books i read attempted to establish that marriage practices began with christianity, which is regularly disproven throughout most history textbooks, and historical accounts of pre-monotheism.

[QUOTE=ireLocus]and I guess I'm wondering this: Do gays want more than simply a legal union? I mean, I guess it's come across that many want church marriage too, but if it's more a legal thing anyways, I don't see what the big deal is. again, what do they care if a church doesn't recognize their union if the state does?[/QUOTE]

I think they want more than a legal union. They probably want their church to recognize their union as equal as a man and womans marriage. Since the church doesn't seem too willing to change it's doctrines (especially since it would go against theological interpretation of the Bible), the only other path of least resistance would be to make it a legal union. (Of course, that's probably going to be the path of most resistance here shortly.)

I'm guess that most gays and lesbians are religious...why wouldn't they be? Most churches condemn homosexuality, but since they love God, and yet they sin, and they are not going to change their sinning ways, maybe they feel as though God (the church) should turn the other way for them, and make homosexuality not a sin. (I personally don't think it should be a sin, but then again, I also think extramartial sex shouldn't be either.)

Perhaps they should think more like myself. I'm catholic, and I sin quite a bit. I don't want the church to change the way it's been doing business for thousands of years just because I feel like my sins aren't that important and should be overlooked because I love God and really, isn't that all that matters. I take full responsibility for my own actions, and don't expect anyone to make redemption any easier.

gays are asking that courts recognize their legally binding contracts, it has nothing to do with their their religious preferences, or religious ceremonies. that would be absurd. the gay marriage ban effectively allows courts to not recognize the property rights among homosexual couples (were they to be married), disallows health care benefits among homosexual couples (were they to be married), and to a lesser extent, hospital visitation rights. maybe this is why the bans passed so easily, good old fashioned american ignorance. this has nothing to do with churches, only with recognition in the american legal system. now maybe you can see why it's so ridiculous to have a gay marriage ban based on one's religious beliefs.

Not even half of the country voted!

[QUOTE=erving-j-poulette]Not even half of the country voted![/QUOTE]
true, but over 60% of those able to vote did. can't blame the toddlers for not voting...

How absurd is it that gay couples are not allowed to marry because staight couples don't approve.

The gay community needs a Rosa Parks. Seriously.

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]what is our problem with people of different sexual persuasions?[/QUOTE]

i understand its against what (the White) God wants

[QUOTE=Wesley Sonck]i understand its against what (the White) God wants[/QUOTE]
Following the example of history, perhaps there is a solution...

[url]http://www.local6.com/news/3887764/detail.html[/url]

The whole "Christians hate gays!" argument is as tried as the acceptance of genocide, the oppression of women, etc. Let's face it: gays weren't helping Rome. Men taking men as lovers was becoming too common a practice; hell, a grown man was the pinnacle of virtue if he could resist molestation spending a night with a young boy. Eventually the population dwindled, as men preferred their gay lovers. It's the same case as birth control: times change and the Catholic church hasn't adapted, even though if they hadn't advocated abstinence to the same degree, the society's morale (or perceived; arguable, naturally) would have suffered from young girls birthing children out of wedlock.

Besides, rituals of men engaging in sexual activity with other men was common in pagan worship, especially to female deities. Extremely prohibited.

Now, all of this might be a crock, but I'm going off of memory here.

Instances condemning homosexuality in the bible all contain other activity that was frowned upon, such as rape, mindless lust, etc., and not only the preference itself. There are instances that indicate monogamous, consentual homosexual relationships, but conservative Christians tend to ignore them: Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, Daniel and Ashpenaz. Of course, as the entire document should be, all these relationships are open to interpretation.

Anyway. Back to legislation.

What bothers me most is the outlawing of civil unions, which have no religious connotations and only offer the rights allocated by the law to straight lovers. I can understand how a conservative Catholic, Christian, Protestant or any affiliation could see marriage as involving a church and that their interpretations condemn and disallow this practice, and they have the right to believe so. Once you pass into the realm of tax breaks and disallowing partners to see each other should one fall terminally ill, this has gone beyond religion and infringes on basic human rights.

I'm glad you decided to sign up at the Cult. Great post.

someone was saying on tv that just because it makes homophobic people uncomfortable to think of one man fucking another, thats not a good reason to vote against it. he also said gay marriage brings no harm to anyone.

i agree and i bet half of these same assholes who voted against gay marriage have no objection to lesbian porn.

[QUOTE=griffinitis]someone was saying on tv that just because it makes homophobic people uncomfortable to think of one man fucking another, thats not a good reason to vote against it. he also said gay marriage brings no harm to anyone.

i agree and i bet half of these same assholes who voted against gay marriage have no objection to lesbian porn.[/QUOTE]

Yes.

It's funny how the people who protest things the loudest are often the very ones brought to justice for violating their own imposed doctrines.

I mean really think about this. Porn is a multibillion dollar industry. Does that mean there's just one perverted billionaire buying it all up each year?

[QUOTE=vandamage]
I mean really think about this. Porn is a multibillion dollar industry. Does that mean there's just one perverted billionaire buying it all up each year?[/QUOTE]
i'm looking at you, karbunkle!

I agree with judas. legal unions are perfectly ok with me. I don't want to deny and couple human rights like property ownership and the like just because they live a different lifestyle than I would choose to. I'm a Christian and I say this knowing I'm not necesarily a representative of a mojaority of Christians. The problem we encounter is that the media makes it seem so cut and dry. either you want gay marriage or you're a right wing conservative prick.

there are a lot of Christians who would probably agree with the legal union thing if the media didn't constantly distort people's perceptions of Christians. They're not all abortion clinic bombing pshychos. Most of them are pretty reasonable. some are close minded, but so are a lot of liberals, that's really a non-point. Many Christians just get defensive because the media paints them as idiots, so of course it's a knee jerk reaction to oppose whatever issue is associated with that criticism. If the media didn't make these issues so black and white, they'd get a lot more support from those terrible Christians.

plus the fact that there are a lot of christians that share my view that legal unions are totally acceptable, but you'll never hear that on the tv. just because you never hear good news about christians doesn't mean we're all close minded villains. it just mean you're as dependent on the media as everyone else, and that instead of sucking "manufacture cool" from MTV or whatever, you're sucking on manufactured disdain. it's the other side of the same coin.

we're not all against it, we just don't want to be distorted in the media anymore than you do.

on the daily show last night john stewart expressed exactly what i was thinking all day. that despite all the lies, deceit, corruption and the attacking of a defenseless third world country and then having the audacity of calling them insurgents and terrorists for trying to protect their land and families...none of this seemed to to trump the idea of two guys kissing.

the problem with religion is that it is about power and control by means of guilt and fear. guilt is the perpetual fuel that empowers religion. you are given a strict 'moral' guidelines that, as normal functioning humans, are impossible to follow without making mistakes. and the more strict those guidelines are and the more zealously they are imposed, the more guilt one will feel. guilt fuels disappointment, depression and the desire to be forgiven. forgiveness is based on ones repentance which is indicated by the individuals level of donations and service to the church.

we all have desires which can be right or wrong depending on your perception such as homosexuality or (god forbid) masterbation. and failure to live up to those dogmatic moral ideals means gods disapproval. fear fear fear and more fear. ask any gay person and they will tell you that what they do sexually feels as normal our heterosexual acts. and yet there are states where the act of anal sex is against the law...even between a man and a woman.

what i'm trying to say here is that there are far greater concerns in this world than being concerned over archaic ideals such as who's fucking who and how they're doing it.

to expand i would like to know this:
what personal ideoligy would you be willing to sacrifice if it meant an honest politician was in power acting on what is truly good for the people of the nation and gobal unity?

what do you think a national poll like this would tell us?

[QUOTE=wfd]Are these cited occurances referring to same-sex parenting, or (and forgive me for using such a technical term here) "gay homo sex?"

I don't doubt for a sec that two males of a species might raise a child, but I've never of any species that engage in sexual activity with other members of the same gender. Especially considering that very few animals mate for pleasure, besides us horny-ass humans, I find it pretty hard to believe. Course then again, sounds like you've done more research than I have, so I'm open for some enlightenment.[/QUOTE]

Did you even think about this after you typed it. My friend's dog humps my leg on a daily basis. Is he trying to raise a fucking baby? No, he's doing it for pleasure, Sex = Pleasure.

[QUOTE=trenton welles]the problem with religion is that it is about power and control by means of guilt and fear. guilt is the perpetual fuel that empowers religion. you are given a strict 'moral' guidelines that, as normal functioning humans, are impossible to follow without making mistakes. and the more strict those guidelines are and the more zealously they are imposed, the more guilt one will feel. guilt fuels disappointment, depression and the desire to be forgiven. forgiveness is based on ones repentance which is indicated by the individuals level of donations and service to the church.

we all have desires which can be right or wrong depending on your perception such as homosexuality or (god forbid) masterbation. and failure to live up to those dogmatic moral ideals means gods disapproval. fear fear fear and more fear. ask any gay person and they will tell you that what they do sexually feels as normal our heterosexual acts. and yet there are states where the act of anal sex is against the law...even between a man and a woman.

what i'm trying to say here is that there are far greater concerns in this world than being concerned over archaic ideals such as who's fucking who and how they're doing it.[/QUOTE]

Now, hold on here. I consider myself a Christian, but I sure as hell don't beat myself up over my faith, nor the sexual predisposition I find myself born to. Personally, I believe a spiritual relationship should be between a deity and an individual. I don't go to church because I don't believe in a middle man; I don't believe in the Pope, and I sure as hell (pun? Yes? No?) don't live by anyone's interpretation of the Bible but my own. I do not act in fear of God, I act in responsibility to myself and, in a sense, I do suppose in responsibility to a higher being than myself.

But I'd never let myself [i]live[/i] for anything but myself. In my faith, I still come first.

People've screwed it up, not necessarily the Bible. Just some priests, popes, and mankind in general.

you may feel this way (in which case i'm happy to hear), however the voting majority seem to feel differently. they have imposed their idea of morality on the rest of the nation by their vote.

they have put the morality of their collective religions ahead of the obvious corruption of their leader in power. why? so that gay people can't marry.

its just sad

oooh, now let's blame it on the indeterminate "they" which is nearly impossible to argue about. "They" have been the cop out for many people who do't know what they, themselves are talking about.

I've just given you an example of a "they" who doesn't do that. me. and many people I know.

not everyone that voted for Bush did it so that "they" will keep gays from marrying. the implication is faulty at best. that wasn't even the biggest issue in these elections. yes, it was an issue, but many other things took precedent over that.

[QUOTE=ireLocus]oooh, now let's blame it on the indeterminate "they" which is nearly impossible to argue about. "They" have been the cop out for many people who do't know what they, themselves are talking about.

I've just given you an example of a "they" who doesn't do that. me. and many people I know.

not everyone that voted for Bush did it so that "they" will keep gays from marrying. the implication is faulty at best. that wasn't even the biggest issue in these elections. yes, it was an issue, but many other things took precedent over that.[/QUOTE]
this "they" did vote for bush though, and if "they" did it with an educated and informed mind, "they" knew what the consequences would be (gay marriage ban). if "they" voted for bush without an informed and educated mind, then, and we're agreed on this, they screwed up royally. even though many other things were brought to the forefront other than gay marriage, you'd have to admit, it's a major issue, despite the media's coverage of it. the constitution was created to PROTECT rights of it's citizens. how does a gay marriage ban protect anyone else's rights? really, it has no impact on anyone other than those who want a same-sex union. this is an ammendment that is RESTRICTING the rights of it's citizens. I'm 100% certain that if it make it to the supreme court before it's passed, the supreme court will shoot the ban down in record time. there is absolutely no legislative reason or purpose to a ban on gay marriages. and you're trying to tell me that this isn't a big issue? that those voting for bush (who's [B]already[/B] tried to pass an ammendment to ban gay marriage) didn't know what they were doing in voting for him? re-evaluate your post good sir.