# Hate ads on national television



## J-Machine (Mar 26, 2013)

So I woke up today to find the news talk about this American telivision ad regarding a "Rainbow coalition against gay marriage".



Apparently the leader of this movement believes he is fighting against this "lovingly" but all I see is a unconstitutional (in my country) advert.

My question is if this is an isolated case or if this is normal for American television and if those from other countries have seen similar ads. It just seems unreal something like this could happen in this day and age.


----------



## willebug (Mar 26, 2013)

Freedom of speech doesn't imply that it has to be intelligent or even nice.  People all over America say mean and stupid things day in and day out.  It's one of the things that makes this country hated by others.  It's the most treasured right here.  The ability to speak your mind.  Even if your mind is backwards.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Mar 26, 2013)

Was it on an American Channel like ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.? Because that would explain why you saw it even you you live in Canada.

Oh and before I forget.

inb4christianityhateflamewar

EDIT: Totally misread your post. Ugh. Mornings.


----------



## dickfour (Mar 26, 2013)

I have no problem with this. People are entitled to have their own opinion. This isn't China, at least not yet. I think the gay marriage bullies wish that wasn't the case though


----------



## Gahars (Mar 26, 2013)

This commercial is years old. Even Colbert got a good segment on it.

Get with the times, Canada!



dickfour said:


> gay marriage bullies


----------



## NightsOwl (Mar 26, 2013)

I don't see why people need commercials complaining about gays considering they're already pretty much rejected by "Normal" people. 

If anything the opposite needs to be shown on TV, since a bunch of bumbling idiots believe everything they see on TV, from UFOs to Conspiracy Theories.


----------



## Depravo (Mar 26, 2013)

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/6eddb255b2/a-gaythering-storm


----------



## J-Machine (Mar 26, 2013)

willebug said:


> Freedom of speech doesn't imply that it has to be intelligent or even nice. People all over America say mean and stupid things day in and day out. It's one of the things that makes this country hated by others. It's the most treasured right here. The ability to speak your mind. Even if your mind is backwards.


strange. In Canada we have a freedom of speech so long as it does not discriminate on a person's race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.  There are exceptions of course but freedom of hate speech as a whole are not a part of our constitution.


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 26, 2013)

Seriously, this is 2013. Homosexuality shouldn't be an issue anymore.


----------



## J-Machine (Mar 26, 2013)

Gahars said:


> This commercial is years old. Even Colbert got a good segment on it.
> 
> Get with the times, Canada!


I'll admit I wasn't showing my a game in the game of undivided attention. They could have meant that stuff like that was made in the past or maybe the commercial is being rebroadcast-ed due to the whole supreme court thing regarding two cases that have something to do with gay marriage. I'll try to catch the story again to see what they were talking about.


----------



## Gahars (Mar 26, 2013)

J-Machine said:


> strange. In Canada we have a freedom of speech so long as it does not discriminate on a person's race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. There are exceptions of course but freedom of hate speech as a whole are not a part of our constitution.


 
Freedom of speech, even if its disagreeable, is held as one of our most important, invaluable rights.

That's not to say there aren't limits. Obscenity can still be subject to censorship (it varies on a case-by-case basis), and speech can be restricted if it's seen as inciting violence (This ad is "fine" since it advocates for political action only. If it instead called for people to "Burn the faggots!" or something along those lines, the situation would be completely different). There's some more technicalities and nuances, but in general, speech in the US is less limited than in many other countries.

Free speech is considered to be a fundamental right, and as much as organizations like NOM (or the KKK, or Neo Nazi groups, and so on) might sicken me, that's just the trade off. When everyone can speak their mind, what you hear won't always be pleasant.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Mar 26, 2013)




----------



## J-Machine (Mar 26, 2013)

Well I just saw the news spot again and they say nothing about this being an ad from the past or even if it's currently being shown in America. They do however are presenting it as simply one of the examples of the opposition seen. It's almost as if they are suggesting it's a current ad but at the same time hiding any information beyond the fact it exists.

Edit: Just called the cbc asking for clarification on whether that commercial is being shown currently or not. If they address this I'll post it later.


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 26, 2013)

Guys this is a serious issue! If I am allowed to marry my boyfriend we might actually live our normal lives in our normal manor, and nothing catastrophic will happen to the world!
Our lives will be normal and continue to have no effect on anyone other than ourselves!

Think of the normality!


----------



## Gahars (Mar 26, 2013)

The Catboy said:


> Guys this is a serious issue! If I am allowed to marry my boyfriend we might actually live our normal lives in a normal manor and nothing catastrophic will happen to the world!
> Our lives will be normal and continue to effect no one other than ourselves!
> 
> Think of the normality!


 
Bully.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 26, 2013)

Oh yeah?  Well...


----------



## DiabloStorm (Mar 26, 2013)

Commercials: why I stopped watching t.v. completely and got adblockplus on my computer.


----------



## DinohScene (Mar 26, 2013)

Personally I don't believe in marriages.
I got me reasons.

But seriously.
Let people be who they are!
Malexmale/femalexfemale is no different from malexfemale ._.

If they want to get married and are happy that way then who are you to decide!?
You can't control peoples happiness.


----------



## pyromaniac123 (Mar 26, 2013)

This thread will end well.


----------



## J-Machine (Mar 26, 2013)

I think the real problem is the word "marriage" itself and what it means to people. The religious to a fault (has anyone ever met a true christian?) believe marriage is the holy union between a man and a woman for the sole purpose of allowing those two to have sex but only for family making (sex for fun is shunned while sex for kids is supported).

Meanwhile you have the average persons definition of marriage which is an act in which two people show their love for one another by sharing their lives and everything they come to own/experience. The law furthers the role of marriage by grouping these peoples identities and assets (census, taxes, benefits etc.. depending on where you live/work). Also, depending on where you live the prerequisites for who can marry are different.

I just feel if we kept the term "marriage" as a religious thing but allowed legal unions between two people under a different name it would ease some of the butt hurt but then again marriage is a powerful word that many see as a personal positive to attain in life, irregardless of personal orientation so I doubt it's a simple matter of semantics though it would be a start.


----------



## XDel (Mar 26, 2013)

Spoiler



Here is my stance on the whole subject. What you





Spoiler



​do in your private life should be your business. I​​live in the states and it pisses me off that our​​grandparents here were lied to and issued a Social​​Security card on the good faith that it was only a​​temporary means to help them out of the (seemly​​premeditated) economical collapse and promised​​that it would never be used as a means of public​​identification or for keeping tabs on your person,​​wealth, health, activities and what not. Now we​​live under the eye of an empire who has it's nose​​is every aspect of your life and who's media is​​constantly present to bombard your sense with​​propaganda, double think, and persuasions of all​​manner, and most of those are not necessarily in​​place for the benefit of the individual, or by the​​will of the various social collective that make up​​the whole. We are offered brand A, B, or C, and​​the rest are dismissed, thrown out the window,​​ignored, and forgotten.​​That being said, this whole issue with "sexual​​freedoms". America, like any other conquered land,​​may not have the brightest and most cheerful​​history. Being part Shawnee and Cherokee, and I​​can say that I had a keen interest growing up in​​regards to what both (actually there are usually​​more than two sides, but anyhow) sides of the​​story are. A great deal of American history, and​​the history of European Colonization (the spread​​of the proverbial Rome) in general, has to do with​​controlling the mind set of the masses, getting​​everyone on the same general philosophical page​​and moving together with the same general vision,​​towards the same general goal. Hence the reason​​nearly all of the pure blooded natives of this​​land, Mexico, South America, and Canada are now​​extinct, along with their various social,​​cultural, and spiritual spirit. What ever stands​​in the way of progress must be either assimilated,​​and if that is not possible, then destroyed and​​made a new.​​Mind you, not everyone is a mindless drone​​subservient to state and media influences, and​​there are many cases (most untold) in regards to​​fellowship found between the natives, the​​Africans, and those who moved here to the Americas​​to start a new life (for better or worse). One of​​face of those bonds was found in each culture's​​deeper spiritual beliefs, values, and practices.​​Mind you I am not talking about a specific system​​of religion but am referring to the individuals​​personal religious experience and how it worked in​​a synergetic manner with their new found friends.​​Something many of these folk found they had in​​common was their humbleness before their Creator​​(the mystery of mystery), a respect for The​​Creation, family/tribe, society, and our selves as​​individual gods (Psalm 82:6). Mind you, not​​everyone is so noble or as true on the inside as​​they are in the public eye, but for now I am​​referring to those cases who were noble and did​​rise above racism, cultural stereo typing, ego,​​and so forth.​​It is in fact many people of this or a like​​manner (well in regards to protecting the sovereignty of family/tribal unit and it's personal values anyhow) who the media began to cater to when it first began to become wide spread. In the early days, I.E. the 19th century, most Americans of all age and sex were very literate and celebrated their most well known authors as we do rock stars​​or TV celebs.​​In fact it was the likes of Charles​​Dickens who helped remold Christmas into what it​​is today (after it's dark sexual history, and it's​​many years of being banned by Christians them​​selves). The public generally gravitated towards​​media that reflected their aspirations. When radio​​shows became all the rage, again the majority of​​the radio shows reflected the personal desires and​​aspirations the public at large. The same goes for​​Tell-lie-Vision in its early years. The media​​giants had to play it safe in those days, if they​​did not cater to the public, then they would have​​no audience, no one to listen, no one to read, no​​one to watch.​​The thing is though that the media is very​​subversive, just as any movement can be,​​Communism, Socialism, Democracy, Totalitarianism,​​Technocracy, and so on. They have a way of​​convincing the public that they stand for​​everything other than what their actions say of​​them, and have a way of creating false boogie men,​​false impressions, etc. They can take a totally​​isolated incident and the next day have half the​​world convinced that it is happening everyone, in​​the same context, for the same reasons, and with​​the same mental/emotional attitudes. It has the​​subversive power of turning brother against​​brother, sister against sister, and wife against​​husband and so forth.​​One technique the media, or anyone who is in the​​business of generational conditioning and social​


​​engineering uses, is the taking of people's baser desires, and amplifying them. Desire, Anger, Lonliness, Confusion, etc., amplifying them and injecting them with a boost. At first subtly, then gradually, bit by tiny bit, in larger proportions.​​This is in fact the very methods used by the Communist party to incite anger and a competative slant in women against their male counter parts. They women were harolded as being equal (which we all are in our own different ways), but not in a loving, compassionate, tolerant way, but with more vice and guile. This in turn turned wife against husband, and husband in against wife. This newly developed friction was then used to encourage the woman into the work place with them men and left the children left in the hands of the state educators and state media who in the end raised them.​​The same thing took place in the early 20th century. As economical changes were put into place within the States, many women had no choice but to abandon the home/nest and assume a role in the work force in order to make ends meet. In fact children were used for this purpose to, but we outlawed that making child labor only acceptable when conducted across seas (out of sight out of mind).​​Later in the mid 20th century the likes of Gloria Steinman and others arose to inject a false indoctrination into women's literature and provide them with a largely distorted history, and a sense that the healthy family unit as it existed was now a threat to their personal ambition and desires.​​Free sex (without responsibility or consideration for the welfare of the offspring) was injected into the social consciousness with the hippie movement, then became a philisophical point in our modern Darwinian House Hold Programs like Oprah, Ellen, and Dr. Phil.​​I have seen all three shows run programs stating that it is every male's "natural" urge to mate with as many women as possible. That it is part of our animalistic drive and part of what makes us who we are ultimately. They then went on to point out that in most relationships, the male eventually cheats that that the woman would be ahead to find a close female friend to bring home to their husband in order to bring stability to the family unit and keep her man at her side.​​This of course is suggestive of homosexual activity, and encourages the male to want his cake and eat it to, regardless of the emotional and mental impact it may have on him, his children, or his wife.​​Then of course the whole homosexual within the media seems to chant the phrase that everyone is merely coming out of the closet now so late in time because we are socially evolved enough that they finally feel safe enough to do so.​​Well if you watch any movie, nearly any TV program, or listen to today's music, especially that within the world of pop which used to be considered safe and neutral, merely for fun and dancing; you find many provocative and often times contradicting songs in relation to sex, passion, love, marriage, devotion, promiscuity, and of course, homosexual experimentation, especially with the girls. Young teen girls can't seem to get enough of Katie Perry's I Kissed a Girl...​​Again this movement if based upon an exaggerated history, smoke and mirrors, making islated incidents apply to all, and so on and so forth all in the name of creating a martyr, an underdog, a victim incapable of malice or mischief for everyone to feel sorry for whilst feeling guilty them selves.​​The funny thing about history though is that if you look at humans and their vices, vices being what ever is socially taboo at the time and place; humans will do what ever it necessary to get their way, and they have no shame when it comes down to it. Take prohibition for instance. Alcohol was put in a very bad light in the early 20th century and people were looked down on for drinking as pot smokers generally are today, but regardless, people rose up and fought for their right to drink. The same goes for opium, slavery, public orgies (read Greek, Roman and the Catholic/Christian history that stemmed from that), and so forth. Yet, ironically, there was no homosexual revolution ever.​Not till the mid 20th century. There were no slave homosexuals, they were not segrigated, and in fact, it was not a thought on many people's minds. I know the thought never dawned on me till I saw it reflected in the outter (not inner) world. Granted, not everyone is the same, some people are led to different original thoughts than others before they are exposed and therefore influenced by the outside world (which happens too quickly anymore), but still, this was a very small group and generally it stems from people who were raised in a broken home, were molseted, etc. etc. As psychologists were once at liberty to make note of, the compassionate, non-biased ones of course, not those who tended more to create a philosophy that conformed to their personal views.​Either way, it don't matter now, the world of Psychology was forced to alter its books for the sake of not offending someone by suggesting that their homosexual tendencies may have roots in events that transpired sometime after their birth.​​Anyhow, my point to all this is is that while I do not agree with this video, these people should let others live how they want to live and just learn to be brothers and sisters to them as best they can....​​... I also see a culture that was once predominantly courteous when it came to dealing with sexual powers and relations between the two sexes, and who also valued the sanctity of the family unit as well as it's privacy...​​...invaded by a media whose motives have been subvserive, and who's intentions have noting to do with the culture, needs, or desires of the majority who they broadcast to. War time amongst other things have divided us, shaken us up, caused us to doubt, fluster, and desperately seek solace in everywhere but where our family or tribal ancestors saw best fit for use to seek in regards to mental/emotiona/spiritual equilibrium. Is it any wonder that everyone is at odds with everyone else anymore, that no one knows what they are talking about but all assume to know it all, or that no one can hold a marriage together or raise healthy happy kids? Well amost anyone, there are still a few who shine in the darkness.​​I dunno, I'm tired of typing so this ends my rant for the day. Peace! ​​

Spoiler









Spoiler



​​
​​
​​


​​The media's selling you more than just products apparently, they are selling you a mind frame.​


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 26, 2013)

J-Machine said:


> I just feel if we kept the term "marriage" as a religious thing but allowed legal unions between two people under a different name it would ease some of the butt hurt but then again marriage is a powerful word that many see as a personal positive to attain in life, irregardless of personal orientation so I doubt it's a simple matter of semantics though it would be a start.


That has actually been tried and really no side wants that. It goes under the idea of "separate but equal," which doesn't even sound that promising on paper.
If anything marriage not only predates Christianity, but really isn't just exclusive to them. So allowing them to have it is only a slap in the face of all those who aren't part of the Christian faith.
In reality the Church really only acts the middle man between the marriage contract with the state and two people getting married, but people can get married outside of the Church. Most chose not to because most churches only recognize marriages not done by them.
The state allowing homosexuals to marry doesn't mean the churches are forced to do them nor forced to recognize them, why? Because of separation of Church and state.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 26, 2013)

Gahars said:


> This commercial is years old. Even Colbert got a good segment on it.
> 
> Get with the times, Canada!


 
Dammit Ga...wtf how do you come up with a nickname for you? Gah-ey? Makes me think of Ben Chang saying GAAAYYY

Anyways, there's no video showing on that url. I love Colbert, but damn, no video. Could be because of Comedy Centrals hate towards our awesome bacon and beer and free health care though.


----------



## Gahars (Mar 26, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Dammit Ga...wtf how do you come up with a nickname for you? Gah-ey? Makes me think of Ben Chang saying GAAAYYY


 
Ga-horse could work. Gay-hars also. Ga-hard, if you're into that sort of thing.



> Anyways, there's no video showing on that url. I love Colbert, but damn, no video. Could be because of Comedy Centrals hate towards our awesome bacon and beer and free health care though.


 
I think that's the reason. Your bandwidth just can't handle our freedom, fireworks, and fried food.


----------



## J-Machine (Mar 26, 2013)

The Catboy said:


> That has actually been tried and really no side wants that. It goes under the idea of "separate but equal," which doesn't even sound that promising on paper.
> If anything marriage not only predates Christianity, but really isn't just exclusive to them. So allowing them to have it is only a slap in the face of all those who aren't part of the Christian faith.
> In reality the Church really only acts the middle man between the marriage contract with the state and two people getting married, but people can get married outside of the Church. Most chose not to because most churches only recognize marriages not done by them.
> The state allowing homosexuals to marry doesn't mean the churches are forced to do them nor forced to recognize them, why? Because of separation of Church and state.


True enough. I'm probably just biased since I don't believe in marriage as I feel organizing a celebration for a declaration of love seems a little too extravagant an act for such a humble and pure emotion.

I don't care if others do want marriage and will support their cause if asked to but unless my significant other (Whomever that may be) wants to get married, I wont pursue it myself.

I also apologize in advance if I upset anyone with my comments. that is not my aim.


----------



## Deleted member 318366 (Mar 26, 2013)

Gahars said:


> This commercial is years old. Even Colbert got a good segment on it.
> 
> Get with the times, Canada!


----------



## yuyuyup (Mar 26, 2013)

These ads exist because of our corrupt campaign financing rules. The money to air those commercials is gathered from a PAC (Political Action Committee.) These "PACs" act as a middleman between corporations and campaigns in order to skirt the little amount of regulations that exist. If you don't like seeing ads like this, then fight for campaign finance reform.

Which corporations would be anti-gay anyways ?  How about the Cr*stian Church profiting off of the word of God ?  OOPS can't offend the dear blessed Cr*stian Church aka GBATEMP.NET report this


----------



## marcus134 (Mar 26, 2013)

What you're describing is just a difference in culture between the US and Canada.

The idea that "somebody's freedom stops where others freedom starts" (french proverb) is part of Canadian culture and that is why we don't see the same kind of message this side of the border.  People just don't go out and say ugly stuff in public because it would be offensive to others and the last thing we want to do is hurt somebody when expressing our opinions.

See what I mean:


J-Machine said:


> I also apologize in advance if I upset anyone with my comments. that is not my aim.


 
the backside of that mindset is that some thing don't debated in public in full depth because of the ugly things that may be said like the ethnic minorities rights debate


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Mar 27, 2013)

I propose that to solve this homosexuality problem, we create a separate "Gay America" so the rest of us folks can live in peace without to having to witness such vile sins.


----------



## Alexrose (Mar 27, 2013)

@XDel: Wtf is up with your post, what resolution is your browser running at, 640x480? Why would you hit return at the end of every line? It already loops. Derp.


----------



## pyromaniac123 (Mar 27, 2013)

I first thought by the thread title that you meant you hate ads on national television.


----------



## Coltonamore (Mar 27, 2013)

I hate ads. They piss me off.


----------



## Eerpow (Mar 27, 2013)

^ thought you were prowler for a second there


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 27, 2013)

cherryw17 said:


> I hate ads. They piss me off.


 
TBH this is what I thought the whole topic was about.


----------



## Fishaman P (Mar 27, 2013)

This definitely isn't normal for American TV.
The only time I've seen this type of thing before is when Rick Santorum was running campaign ads.


----------



## alex_0706 (Mar 27, 2013)

everybody does hate them
--------
even on sites there are those anoying tabbs ( a biiiiiiiiig friendly download button this is spam, scam, virus, malware.)


----------



## willebug (Mar 27, 2013)

I wonder how big the argument would be if getting married didn't afford any benefits?  That aspect is part of the DOMA lawsuit.  If getting married just meant you now have to be miserable with your spouse I'm not sure that everyone would be rushing to the courthouse to sue so they could get married.  Tax breaks and things of that nature are used to control the masses and their behavior here in the states.  I'm sure elsewhere as well.  They encourage people to pump out kids regardless of the circumstances.  They encourage you to buy a house regardless of whether you can afford it or not.  They encourage you to incur college loan debt.  Simplify the tax code and stop making us fight each other over stupid shit.


----------



## narutofan777 (Mar 27, 2013)

this wat happenz wen u live in a country w/ a bunch of christians.

but hey at least people can do it in a safe way. as in...at least no1 is gonna get death by stones like dem crazy pplz in the middle east for speakin' their opinions.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 29, 2013)

J-Machine said:


> I think the real problem is the word "marriage" itself and what it means to people. The religious to a fault (has anyone ever met a true christian?) believe marriage is the holy union between a man and a woman for the sole purpose of allowing those two to have sex but only for family making (sex for fun is shunned while sex for kids is supported).
> 
> Meanwhile you have the average persons definition of marriage which is an act in which two people show their love for one another by sharing their lives and everything they come to own/experience. The law furthers the role of marriage by grouping these peoples identities and assets (census, taxes, benefits etc.. depending on where you live/work). Also, depending on where you live the prerequisites for who can marry are different.
> 
> I just feel if we kept the term "marriage" as a religious thing but allowed legal unions between two people under a different name it would ease some of the butt hurt but then again marriage is a powerful word that many see as a personal positive to attain in life, irregardless of personal orientation so I doubt it's a simple matter of semantics though it would be a start.


Nope, National Organization For Marriage is basically a hate group, they don't want marriage, civil unions or really anything legal for same sex couples.


----------



## dickfour (Mar 29, 2013)

The purpose of marriage is to perpetuate the human race. The notion that marriage is for any two people who wish to get the government's stamp of approval is less than 20 years old. Lets face it homosexual marriage is not the same and it's not equal. Yeah I know it's all about love and you can't deny people love but yes you can.A big fat government that can pick my lightbulb, the car I drive, the size soda I drink all for the good of the collective can absolutely decide this is the type of marriage they recognize and sanction. In fact they've been doing it since the founding of the nation. Besides if we don't put a special emphasis on the perpetuation of the species who's going to pay for all the big fat government entitlements? Who's going to take care of the aging population? I guess we can put them down when the time comes or maybe gays will be able to clone offspring putting them on equal footing with hetero couples


----------



## Gahars (Mar 29, 2013)

dickfour said:


> The purpose of marriage is to perpetuate the human race. The notion that marriage is for any two people who wish to get the government's stamp of approval is less than 20 years old.


 
Which is exactly why we've never let the infertile or the elderly get married. Oh wait...

Also, let's just pretend that this is a totally new idea. How does it being new make it any less valid?



> Lets face it homosexual marriage is not the same and it's not equal.


 
Because...?

What, will allowing two consenting adults of any gender enter in marriage suddenly destroy the moral fabric of society? What's the threat exactly?



> Yeah I know it's all about love and you can't deny people love but yes you can.A big fat government that can pick my lightbulb, the car I drive, the size soda I drink all for the good of the collective can absolutely decide this is the type of marriage they recognize and sanction. In fact they've been doing it since the founding of the nation.


 
Or those are completely, utterly separate things that have no basis on this topic whatsoever? Plus, a lot of that is either a) overstatement, b) pure fantasy, c) state managed, or d) some combination of points a,b, or c.

But hey, if you want to pretend that those things are in any way comparable to the civil rights of any entire group of people who continue to face institutionalized discrimination, knock yourself out, buddy.

Also, the logic is kind of faulty here. We practiced slavery and denied women the right to vote at the founding of the nation - does that somehow exempt them from being horrible fucking practices? I love the Founding Fathers as much as the next 'Murican, but acting as if they were infallible is absolutely asinine.



> Besides if we don't put a special emphasis on the perpetuation of the species who's going to pay for all the big fat government entitlements? Who's going to take care of the aging population? I guess we can put them down when the time comes or maybe gays will be able to clone offspring putting them on equal footing with hetero couples


 






And now we've gone completely into la la land. When you want to talk about reality, hey, I'll be waiting!


----------



## smile72 (Mar 29, 2013)

dickfour said:


> The purpose of marriage is to perpetuate the human race. The notion that marriage is for any two people who wish to get the government's stamp of approval is less than 20 years old. Lets face it homosexual marriage is not the same and it's not equal. Yeah I know it's all about love and you can't deny people love but yes you can.A big fat government that can pick my lightbulb, the car I drive, the size soda I drink all for the good of the collective can absolutely decide this is the type of marriage they recognize and sanction. In fact they've been doing it since the founding of the nation. Besides if we don't put a special emphasis on the perpetuation of the species who's going to pay for all the big fat government entitlements? Who's going to take care of the aging population? I guess we can put them down when the time comes or maybe gays will be able to clone offspring putting them on equal footing with hetero couples


That's religious marriage not state marriage....and plus it seems you are trying to be conservative, yet you want big brother government? You are quite confusing....plus the court kinda struck down NYC's soda law...plus the car laws and light bulb laws, tend to help the environment.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 29, 2013)

Gahars said:


> And now we've gone completely into la la land. When you want to talk about reality, hey, I'll be waiting!


You'll be waiting for a while then Gahars....many of his posts are as strange as this one.


----------



## Veho (Mar 29, 2013)

dickfour said:


> The purpose of marriage is to perpetuate the human race.


No, that's the purpose of _sex_.


----------



## Issac (Mar 29, 2013)

Gahars said:


> What, will allowing two consenting adults of any gender enter in marriage suddenly destroy the moral* fabric* of society? What's the threat *thread* exactly?


Fix'd!

Jokes aside, I agree with your post and think dickfour is... yeah...


----------



## ComeTurismO (Mar 29, 2013)

If people are trying to form together and make some campaign to end the gay marriage trend, fuck them. I am a straight person, but I respect any person in whatever sexual orientation they are. No one has any type of right to go against them. No one should go against what people are, and they have nothing to do. Yeah, ladies, if you found this guy 'hot' and you were going to go and hit on him, but you realize he's gay, you'll hate that person. Well guess what? IT'S NOT YOUR LIFE, BITCH! Damn, what if the hater's father turned gay, and what if his mother turned gay? YOU'D still love them since their your freaking parents. Stop the freaking hate, dudes. 
I can say more clever shit, but I need to go and run to get a ice cappuccino from Tim Hortons.  
And what the fuck to forming people up to go for the hate.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 29, 2013)

You can go to a bar and get sloshed and "perpetuate the human race". Who needs marriage anyway?


----------



## ComeTurismO (Mar 29, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> You can go to a bar and get sloshed and "perpetuate the human race". Who needs marriage anyway?


 I just came back from Tim Hortons.
Even though I am a religious Muslim, I still respect opinions. But forget religion and all of that religious requirements, but think of it this way: 
Instead of getting married, staying with your girlfriend for your whole life, it's possible she would leave you for another guy. And some times, even if you don't want to go matrimony, the lady would want, possibly.


----------



## Issac (Mar 29, 2013)

ComeTurismO said:


> I just came back from Tim Hortons.
> Even though I am a religious Muslim, I still respect opinions. But forget religion and all of that religious requirements, but think of it this way:
> *Instead of getting married, staying with your girlfriend for your whole life, it's possible she would leave you for another guy.* And some times, even if you don't want to go matrimony, the lady would want, possibly.


 
Well, this can happen wheter you get married or not. 

Anyway... If two people love eachother and want to marry eachother. Who are ANYONE to care about it? The only ones who are allowed to have opinions about it are close family and friends. (Note that I didn't state the gender of any of the two people, this goes for homo and hetero marriage).


----------



## ComeTurismO (Mar 29, 2013)

Issac said:


> Well, this can happen wheter you get married or not.
> 
> Anyway... If two people love eachother and want to marry eachother. Who are ANYONE to care about it? The only ones who are allowed to have opinions about it are close family and friends. (Note that I didn't state the gender of any of the two people, this goes for homo and hetero marriage).


Indeed, i agree with you. But I must go and destroy my DreamCast.


----------



## Issac (Mar 29, 2013)

One thing a very smart member of this community said to me outside of this forum: "It shouldn't really even be called gay marriage, just marriage." And I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Engert (Apr 2, 2013)

Bible is pretty clear about this guys.


----------



## Maxternal (Apr 2, 2013)

Engert said:


> Bible is pretty clear about this guys.


People could argue separation of church and state here ... but some of those same people would argue for no marriage at all on that same basis.


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 2, 2013)

Engert said:


> Bible is pretty clear about this guys.


I have a few issues with that statement.
1. Before you even think about quoting Leviticus 18:22 on me, beware of a few facts. If you are going to follow Leviticus, it also prohibits eating port or touching the flesh of pigs, eating shellfish, and tattoo to name a few. All of which are equal if not worse sins than 18:22.
2. Sodom and Gomorrah was not about homosexuality, it was about hospitality.
4. The Bible is also clear that a Women needs to marry her rapist and children who speak out against their parents should be killed.
3. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality and when he died the Old Testament only became a guild and books like Leviticus were no longer needed.

There is a lot in the Bible, it has a lot of great stories and some interesting wisdom. But at the same time it also has a lot of faults and shouldn't be taken as seriously as people take it.

If you were just being sarcastic, then I apologize in advance for sounding rude.


----------



## Maxternal (Apr 2, 2013)

Sarcastic or not, I think what makes this issue so heated is the fact that there are some people that still DO take the Bible that seriously, whether others feel they should or not (Yes, I know of people that still even refuse to eat pork and think tattoos are evil, etc ... )


----------



## koimayeul (Apr 2, 2013)

The Catboy said:


> I have a few issues with that statement.
> 1. Before you even think about quoting Leviticus 18:22 on me, beware of a few facts. If you are going to follow Leviticus, it also prohibits eating port or touching the flesh of pigs, eating shellfish, and tattoo to name a few. All of which are equal if not worse sins than 18:22.
> 2. Sodom and Gomorrah was not about homosexuality, it was about hospitality.
> 4. The Bible is also clear that a Women needs to marry her rapist and children who speak out against their parents should be killed.
> ...


 
Sexuality as God norm it and as the Bible teaches is exclusive to married husband and wife within a monogamous covenant, as Christ reaffirmed.
Nothing less, nothing more. Any unmarried sexual activity is fornication and with another person than your spouse is adultery. Homosexuality included, can't be unfair discrimination.


----------



## Maxternal (Apr 2, 2013)

*sigh*


I'm not taking sides here ... but the tension definitely continues to rise. (kinda what I was talking about)


----------



## Engert (Apr 2, 2013)

Maxternal said:


> Sarcastic or not, I think what makes this issue so heated is the fact that there are some people that still *DO* take the bible that seriously, whether others feel they should or not (Yes, I know of people that still even refuse to eat pork and think tattoos are evil, etc ... )


 
Exactly. And some people carry a gun with that Bible. A dangerous combo, one that can only be overcome by pitting another religion against the one that's bothering you. 
 I'm such a nice guy huh.

But really, my job here is to enhance critical thinking that's all.


----------



## DiabloStorm (Apr 2, 2013)

General Off-Topic Chat>Commercials>marriage>religion



> General Off-Topic Chat


 
Everything seems to be in order here. 

Anyway here's my input, I don't like commercials, I don't like religion that imposes on others, marriage is an overrated waste of time, but if that's what floats your boat, go right ahead.


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 2, 2013)

koimayeul said:


> Sex as God's norm and as the Bible teaches is exclusive to married husband and wife as a monogamous covenant, as Christ reaffirmed.Nothing less, nothing more. Any sexual activty outside of it, is adultery. Homosexuality included, no unfair discrimination.


Where?

Also what about people who don't follow the Bible? How does this have any effect on them?


----------



## koimayeul (Apr 2, 2013)

The Catboy said:


> Where?
> 
> Also what about people who don't follow the Bible? How does this have any effect on them?


 
In this word : "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh."

Right after the creation of Eve, God reveals the purpose of sexuality as intimacy to bond the man to his wife, and its procreative nature. It was the first Marriage.

For people who don't follow the Bible, as the Bible teaches about spiritual laws and their effect for our instruction, we are all subjected to them just like natural laws anyway.   

I find this link a sensible and honest answer about what does the Bible says about homosexuality : http://www.twopaths.com/faq_homosexuality.htm


----------



## Rydian (Apr 2, 2013)

koimayeul said:


> we are all subjected to them just like natural laws anyway.


No we're not.  I can try to stick my dick in another guy's butt and succeed, while if I try to jump at sea level and achieve escape velocity unaided, I will fail.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 2, 2013)

Rydian said:


> I can try to stick my dick in another guy's butt and succeed


 
You just better hope the nature police don't find out!


----------



## koimayeul (Apr 2, 2013)

Rydian said:


> No we're not. I can try to stick my dick in another guy's butt and succeed, while if I try to jump at sea level and achieve escape velocity unaided, I will fail.


Lol what an exemple but they are both natural laws, sure you can! Spare my butt, though.. Furvert.


----------



## Issac (Apr 2, 2013)

DiabloStorm said:


> General Off-Topic Chat>Commercials>marriage>religion
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
It was never about hating ads, but hate ads (as in hate speech and hate crime). And the topic of the hate ads were gay marriage, often hated by those connecting it to religion. sooo yeah  It's always been on topic.


----------



## Maxternal (Apr 2, 2013)

I think all that NATURAL law says is "he won't get pregnant." and doesn't go much farther than that.

I think the SPIRITUAL law he's talking about says something like "he'll go to hell" (albeit later on.)

Not quite the same kind of law but if you believe in both of those laws you'll also believe that both are without exception and basically automatic.
The only difference would be that one is scientifically provable and the other is not.


----------



## air2004 (Apr 2, 2013)

J-Machine said:


> strange. In Canada we have a freedom of speech so long as it does not discriminate on a person's race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. There are exceptions of course but freedom of hate speech as a whole are not a part of our constitution.


Thats not freedom then .... What makes this country great , is the fact that you have the right to be offended.


----------



## air2004 (Apr 2, 2013)

J-Machine said:


> I think the real problem is the word "marriage" itself and what it means to people. The religious to a fault (has anyone ever met a true christian?) believe marriage is the holy union between a man and a woman for the sole purpose of allowing those two to have sex but only for family making (sex for fun is shunned while sex for kids is supported).
> 
> Meanwhile you have the average persons definition of marriage which is an act in which two people show their love for one another by sharing their lives and everything they come to own/experience. The law furthers the role of marriage by grouping these peoples identities and assets (census, taxes, benefits etc.. depending on where you live/work). Also, depending on where you live the prerequisites for who can marry are different.
> 
> I just feel if we kept the term "marriage" as a religious thing but allowed legal unions between two people under a different name it would ease some of the butt hurt but then again marriage is a powerful word that many see as a personal positive to attain in life, irregardless of personal orientation so I doubt it's a simple matter of semantics though it would be a start.


Irre what ?


----------



## DiabloStorm (Apr 2, 2013)

Issac said:


> It was never about hating ads, but hate ads (as in hate speech and hate crime). And the topic of the hate ads were gay marriage, often hated by those connecting it to religion. sooo yeah  It's always been on topic.


Ah, my bad ^^' Hate ads, or ads in general...I still hate them all


----------



## air2004 (Apr 2, 2013)

XDel said:


> Here is my stance on the whole subject. What you​​do in your private life should be your business. I​​live in the states and it pisses me off that our​​grandparents here were lied to and issued a Social​​Security card on the good faith that it was only a​​temporary means to help them out of the (seemly​​premeditated) economical collapse and promised​​that it would never be used as a means of public​​identification or for keeping tabs on your person,​​wealth, health, activities and what not. Now we​​live under the eye of an empire who has it's nose​​is every aspect of your life and who's media is​​constantly present to bombard your sense with​​propaganda, double think, and persuasions of all​​manner, and most of those are not necessarily in​​place for the benefit of the individual, or by the​​will of the various social collective that make up​​the whole. We are offered brand A, B, or C, and​​the rest are dismissed, thrown out the window,​​ignored, and forgotten.​​That being said, this whole issue with "sexual​​freedoms". America, like any other conquered land,​​may not have the brightest and most cheerful​​history. Being part Shawnee and Cherokee, and I​​can say that I had a keen interest growing up in​​regards to what both (actually there are usually​​more than two sides, but anyhow) sides of the​​story are. A great deal of American history, and​​the history of European Colonization (the spread​​of the proverbial Rome) in general, has to do with​​controlling the mind set of the masses, getting​​everyone on the same general philosophical page​​and moving together with the same general vision,​​towards the same general goal. Hence the reason​​nearly all of the pure blooded natives of this​​land, Mexico, South America, and Canada are now​​extinct, along with their various social,​​cultural, and spiritual spirit. What ever stands​​in the way of progress must be either assimilated,​​and if that is not possible, then destroyed and​​made a new.​​Mind you, not everyone is a mindless drone​​subservient to state and media influences, and​​there are many cases (most untold) in regards to​​fellowship found between the natives, the​​Africans, and those who moved here to the Americas​​to start a new life (for better or worse). One of​​face of those bonds was found in each culture's​​deeper spiritual beliefs, values, and practices.​​Mind you I am not talking about a specific system​​of religion but am referring to the individuals​​personal religious experience and how it worked in​​a synergetic manner with their new found friends.​​Something many of these folk found they had in​​common was their humbleness before their Creator​​(the mystery of mystery), a respect for The​​Creation, family/tribe, society, and our selves as​​individual gods (Psalm 82:6). Mind you, not​​everyone is so noble or as true on the inside as​​they are in the public eye, but for now I am​​referring to those cases who were noble and did​​rise above racism, cultural stereo typing, ego,​​and so forth.​​It is in fact many people of this or a like​​manner (well in regards to protecting the sovereignty of family/tribal unit and it's personal values anyhow) who the media began to cater to when it first began to become wide spread. In the early days, I.E. the 19th century, most Americans of all age and sex were very literate and celebrated their most well known authors as we do rock stars​​or TV celebs.​​In fact it was the likes of Charles​​Dickens who helped remold Christmas into what it​​is today (after it's dark sexual history, and it's​​many years of being banned by Christians them​​selves). The public generally gravitated towards​​media that reflected their aspirations. When radio​​shows became all the rage, again the majority of​​the radio shows reflected the personal desires and​​aspirations the public at large. The same goes for​​Tell-lie-Vision in its early years. The media​​giants had to play it safe in those days, if they​​did not cater to the public, then they would have​​no audience, no one to listen, no one to read, no​​one to watch.​​The thing is though that the media is very​​subversive, just as any movement can be,​​Communism, Socialism, Democracy, Totalitarianism,​​Technocracy, and so on. They have a way of​​convincing the public that they stand for​​everything other than what their actions say of​​them, and have a way of creating false boogie men,​​false impressions, etc. They can take a totally​​isolated incident and the next day have half the​​world convinced that it is happening everyone, in​​the same context, for the same reasons, and with​​the same mental/emotional attitudes. It has the​​subversive power of turning brother against​​brother, sister against sister, and wife against​​husband and so forth.​​One technique the media, or anyone who is in the​​business of generational conditioning and social​​engineering uses, is the taking of people's baser desires, and amplifying them. Desire, Anger, Lonliness, Confusion, etc., amplifying them and injecting them with a boost. At first subtly, then gradually, bit by tiny bit, in larger proportions.​​This is in fact the very methods used by the Communist party to incite anger and a competative slant in women against their male counter parts. They women were harolded as being equal (which we all are in our own different ways), but not in a loving, compassionate, tolerant way, but with more vice and guile. This in turn turned wife against husband, and husband in against wife. This newly developed friction was then used to encourage the woman into the work place with them men and left the children left in the hands of the state educators and state media who in the end raised them.​​The same thing took place in the early 20th century. As economical changes were put into place within the States, many women had no choice but to abandon the home/nest and assume a role in the work force in order to make ends meet. In fact children were used for this purpose to, but we outlawed that making child labor only acceptable when conducted across seas (out of sight out of mind).​​Later in the mid 20th century the likes of Gloria Steinman and others arose to inject a false indoctrination into women's literature and provide them with a largely distorted history, and a sense that the healthy family unit as it existed was now a threat to their personal ambition and desires.​​Free sex (without responsibility or consideration for the welfare of the offspring) was injected into the social consciousness with the hippie movement, then became a philisophical point in our modern Darwinian House Hold Programs like Oprah, Ellen, and Dr. Phil.​​I have seen all three shows run programs stating that it is every male's "natural" urge to mate with as many women as possible. That it is part of our animalistic drive and part of what makes us who we are ultimately. They then went on to point out that in most relationships, the male eventually cheats that that the woman would be ahead to find a close female friend to bring home to their husband in order to bring stability to the family unit and keep her man at her side.​​This of course is suggestive of homosexual activity, and encourages the male to want his cake and eat it to, regardless of the emotional and mental impact it may have on him, his children, or his wife.​​Then of course the whole homosexual within the media seems to chant the phrase that everyone is merely coming out of the closet now so late in time because we are socially evolved enough that they finally feel safe enough to do so.​​Well if you watch any movie, nearly any TV program, or listen to today's music, especially that within the world of pop which used to be considered safe and neutral, merely for fun and dancing; you find many provocative and often times contradicting songs in relation to sex, passion, love, marriage, devotion, promiscuity, and of course, homosexual experimentation, especially with the girls. Young teen girls can't seem to get enough of Katie Perry's I Kissed a Girl...​​Again this movement if based upon an exaggerated history, smoke and mirrors, making islated incidents apply to all, and so on and so forth all in the name of creating a martyr, an underdog, a victim incapable of malice or mischief for everyone to feel sorry for whilst feeling guilty them selves.​​The funny thing about history though is that if you look at humans and their vices, vices being what ever is socially taboo at the time and place; humans will do what ever it necessary to get their way, and they have no shame when it comes down to it. Take prohibition for instance. Alcohol was put in a very bad light in the early 20th century and people were looked down on for drinking as pot smokers generally are today, but regardless, people rose up and fought for their right to drink. The same goes for opium, slavery, public orgies (read Greek, Roman and the Catholic/Christian history that stemmed from that), and so forth. Yet, ironically, there was no homosexual revolution ever.​Not till the mid 20th century. There were no slave homosexuals, they were not segrigated, and in fact, it was not a thought on many people's minds. I know the thought never dawned on me till I saw it reflected in the outter (not inner) world. Granted, not everyone is the same, some people are led to different original thoughts than others before they are exposed and therefore influenced by the outside world (which happens too quickly anymore), but still, this was a very small group and generally it stems from people who were raised in a broken home, were molseted, etc. etc. As psychologists were once at liberty to make note of, the compassionate, non-biased ones of course, not those who tended more to create a philosophy that conformed to their personal views.​Either way, it don't matter now, the world of Psychology was forced to alter its books for the sake of not offending someone by suggesting that their homosexual tendencies may have roots in events that transpired sometime after their birth.​​Anyhow, my point to all this is is that while I do not agree with this video, these people should let others live how they want to live and just learn to be brothers and sisters to them as best they can....​​... I also see a culture that was once predominantly courteous when it came to dealing with sexual powers and relations between the two sexes, and who also valued the sanctity of the family unit as well as it's privacy...​​...invaded by a media whose motives have been subvserive, and who's intentions have noting to do with the culture, needs, or desires of the majority who they broadcast to. War time amongst other things have divided us, shaken us up, caused us to doubt, fluster, and desperately seek solace in everywhere but where our family or tribal ancestors saw best fit for use to seek in regards to mental/emotiona/spiritual equilibrium. Is it any wonder that everyone is at odds with everyone else anymore, that no one knows what they are talking about but all assume to know it all, or that no one can hold a marriage together or raise healthy happy kids? Well amost anyone, there are still a few who shine in the darkness.​​I dunno, I'm tired of typing so this ends my rant for the day. Peace! ​​​
> ​​
> ​​
> ​​
> ​The media's selling you more than just products apparently, they are selling you a mind frame.​



Was that a copy and paste from somewhere ?


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 2, 2013)

koimayeul said:


> In this word : "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh."
> 
> Right after the creation of Eve, God's reveals the purpose of sexuality as intimacy to bond the man to his wife, and its procreative nature. It was the first Marriage.
> 
> ...


First your quote has nothing to do with homosexuality. In fact that statement looks more like it deals with just marriage.

Your second statement contradicts itself, not everyone follows the teachings of the Bible, therefore not everyone abides by it. Spiritual law does not equal natural law.

If your are going to follow Leviticus, then follow the rest of it, don't just pick one part out of it and use that. There are other sins mentions in Leviticus that are seen as "unclean" and "unnatural." But the issue is, is that after Jesus was brought back to to life, the Old Testament became no longer valid other than the parts he said was valid.


----------



## XDel (Apr 2, 2013)

air2004 said:


> Was that a copy and paste from somewhere ?


 

I'm afraid not.


----------



## J-Machine (Apr 3, 2013)

air2004 said:


> Thats not freedom then .... What makes this country great , is the fact that you have the right to be offended.


I'm not big on insulting people and since I follow the "treat others how you like to be treated" mantra, I appreciate it when people are not allowed to bully me. Constructive criticism is fine and part of our freedoms but to outright insult someone by means of discrimination is indeed wrong. Though I wouldn't mind that being lifted if physical self defence could be used  in retaliation to emotional and verbal abuse.



air2004 said:


> Irre what ?


I'm sorry but I am having trouble making sense of your poorly worded rebuttal. Could you elaborate or should I simply ignore you?


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Apr 3, 2013)

My feeling on the whole thing? Some people are "different" (genetic flaw, bad chemistry call it what you will but it is "abnormal") but if they want to be different together and that's what makes them happy so what, just leave me out of it and that's what makes me happy. lol


----------



## koimayeul (Apr 3, 2013)

On topic btw, how is this ad offensive or hateful? Polite political concerns about expanding Marriage to same sex, Gahars nailed it right in the first page. For myself, it is in the process in France and I am OK with it as a civil Marriage, because of the separation from the State and the Church. I am however firmly opposed to the real goal of this smokescreen, children.. Can't allow open medical gestation, women to sell their uterus for it, and children as a merchandise. Never, ever.



The Catboy said:


> First your quote has nothing to do with homosexuality. In fact that statement looks more like it deals with just marriage.
> 
> Your second statement contradicts itself, not everyone follows the teachings of the Bible, therefore not everyone abides by it. Spiritual law does not equal natural law.
> 
> If your are going to follow Leviticus, then follow the rest of it, don't just pick one part out of it and use that. There are other sins mentions in Leviticus that are seen as "unclean" and "unnatural." But the issue is, is that after Jesus was brought back to to life, the Old Testament became no longer valid other than the parts he said was valid.


This verse defines our human sexuality as God created it, to join together our two genders as one flesh through sexual union within Marriage.
As the Bible teaches, sex before Marriage is fornication, sex with another person than your spouse is adultery. Homosexuality as practiced acts is always either fornication or adultery.

Spiritual laws are just like natural laws, but tie in our human relationships and societies. Like, we don't have wings to fly, or can't breath underwater, we need to eat, to drink, to get sleep.. Those are natural laws.
Our care for others, the need for understanding, for respect, to have some kind of social / professional occupation and feeling useful etc.. Are spiritual laws, we live with them and by them, they just are, like natural laws.

Jesus said, it was not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, that He came. To further the Law to perfection and bring us to the true adulthood. See, how you are told not to kill your brother in the OT, but Jesus reveals you are already guilty of sin for being angry at him. Lusting toward a person is enough to sin, just like the actual fornication or adultery took event! Each and every step of Christ is expanding on the Law, this is why the OT is still very much valid as a tutor before the NT.

The Law is to learn about the sin, to sin is breaking the Law. To sin is to disobey God, to stay away purposely from God, in fear of punishment because we know being at fault for some thing or another, or liking our selves, our lives, our thoughts, our rules, our games, even our kids or spouses better than God, taking pride in what we believe to know, to own, to be. Because we are sinners, we deserve punishment.. God is Holy and can't stand the corruption of sin, and the punishment for sin is death. Christ took it upon Him on the Cross, so we can be saved from the punishment for sinning.. Through baptism we are new born, free from sin and punishment and united to Christ on the Cross, accepting He died for us taking your, my place and raised for a new life. As we are dead to sin, we raised with Christ to seek and do God's Will better than ours. Religious traditions are good as markers for our evolution and important teachings from the past, but the true religion is said to be the care for the orphan and the widow, assist the poors, cure and pray for the sick, and keep oneself from sinning. This is Christian Faith, a struggle against sin for the sake of our very being, with the help of God.



Psionic Roshambo said:


> My feeling on the whole thing? Some people are "different" (genetic flaw, bad chemistry call it what you will but it is "abnormal") but if they want to be different together and that's what makes them happy so what, just leave me out of it and that's what makes me happy. lol


 
Don't forget it is a matter of affectivity before sexuality.. The root of homosexuality is unkown but admittedly not a genetic flaw nor compulsive as a mental illness. It seems to be an inversion of affective needs for some reason, on an individual basis and often linked to education or a traumatic experience from a relationship or event.. Missing, lacking or intrusive father or mother, unique or isolated child growing without siblings or friends, wish of parent(s) to have a son or daugther instead, loss of a brother, sister or same sex best friend, cheating partner, fear or rejection of the opposite sex, fear of fertility or getting engaged, sexual assault or rape, etc.. It is more than likely a suffered condition than a chosen orientation. The homosexual act itself is abnormal because sexual organs, male and female are meant to function in a complementary fashion. While you can approve or not homosexual practices for a respectable reason that i can't see in your post, sexual orientation and behaviors we have little control over and are a part of the person himself/herself. It sure doesn't make one any less a perfectly normal human being and person, with a body, emotions, needs, hopes, just as much as you and me.. Even better people actually, for knowing a whole, WHOLE lot more than your common Joe about doubts and suffering. Reading you they are monster freaks and i hate this. Put yourself in the skin of who you are talking to, or talking about in this case. Please! Also sexual orientation can change throughout a person's lifetime, and what is going on in our societies is the concern of each and every citizen, even if you chose to ignore and not looking.


----------



## air2004 (Apr 3, 2013)

J-Machine said:


> I'm not big on insulting people and since I follow the "treat others how you like to be treated" mantra, I appreciate it when people are not allowed to bully me. Constructive criticism is fine and part of our freedoms but to outright insult someone by means of discrimination is indeed wrong. Though I wouldn't mind that being lifted if physical self defence could be used in retaliation to emotional and verbal abuse.
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but I am having trouble making sense of your poorly worded rebuttal. Could you elaborate or should I simply ignore you?


You used the word irregardless . Can I assume that you are not a native english speaker ?


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 3, 2013)

koimayeul said:


> This quote defines our human sexuality as God created it, to join together our two genders as one flesh through sexual union within Marriage. As the Bible teaches, sex before Marriage is fornication, sex with another person than your spouse is adultery. Homosexuality as practiced acts is always either fornication or adultery. *Actually it only define marriage as being between two people, that's it. I see nothing more about it. Which I would say is an interesting part about the Bible, you see it as something about homosexuality, where as all I see is just telling me that only two people should be allowed to marry, which on that note I agree with.*
> 
> Spiritual laws are just like natural laws, but tie in our human relationships and societies. Like, we don't have wings to fly, or can't breath underwater, we need to eat, to drink, to get sleep.. Those are natural laws. *But that would imply everyone follows the same spiritual law, which is obviously wrong. There for Natural and Spiritual laws are not the same law.*
> Our care for others, the need for understanding, for respect, to have some kind of social / professional occupation and feeling useful etc.. Are spiritual laws, we live with them and by them, they just are, like natural laws. *Or plan empathy, you don't need religion to be kind to people.*
> ...


We really could just agree to disagree because at this point we are going to into circles and not going to accomplish anything. I see where you are coming from and equally respect your opinion, but at the same time when it comes down the Bible, everyone has a different opinion about it. It's a fascinating subject, but often just results in no one getting anywhere.


----------



## Tigran (Apr 3, 2013)

May I point out for the couple of bible thumpers in here that Jesus also said, "Screw you guys... What you want doesn't matter. You obey the law of the land."

And....Why the hell would God of created Homosexality if it's a Sin...

Oh yeah.. Cause god is a dick, or do I need to point out that for a while it was okay for angle to rape women? Or the... "Holey crap... People are starting to work together and gain a power almost to my own! Better cause un-countless deaths... and make them unable to understand each other so fear and anger will rise!"

Not to mention "Adam and Eve" can't be correct, since Adam's first wife was Lillith.

And even going on the Adam and Eve thing...  How the hell could they understand not to eat the apple, if they didn't have any knowledge for right and wrong? They were told not to by one guy... but another said "Hey.... It's fine!" 

And if serpents are supposed to slither on the ground for all eternety... Why do we have flying snakes?


----------



## koimayeul (Apr 3, 2013)

The Catboy said:


> We really could just agree to disagree because at this point we are going to into circles and not going to accomplish anything. I see where you are coming from and equally respect your opinion, but at the same time when it comes down the Bible, everyone has a different opinion about it. It's a fascinating subject, but often just results in no one getting anywhere.


 
The Bible leaves no room for different opinions, as Scriptures are an objectively written material with more or less the same core message from languages translations. There are personal interpretations as numerous as there are people reading it though, wether those are in line with what is written or stray too far is the general rule of integrity. To force personal views on written text is an obvious temptation of the sin of self-righteousness.

Yes, it is a subjective matter of personal faith and intimate call to believe in God and that the Bible is God inspired, Holy Scriptures for our direction in this life, or just another book with human opinions. The Book is not the Living God, but is for our instruction as a solid ground of high ethical and moral values for all generations nonetheless. Though the time is now, while we are alive to focus on the question of salvation and God's Will for self, once dead it will be too late.. If we took the Bible for human material or not studied it seriously while still acting right, God knows to justify us. If we took it for Truth but still acted against it, God knows and we will be judged more harshly. As for defining Good and Evil, only God has that right, being Creator while sinners make their own rules, falling for the original sin of being godlike through knowledge all over again. We are godlike by grace from God adopting us as Children through Christ, and us adopting and practicing God's ways of LIFE.

"This is what Yahweh asks of you: to _*act justly*_; to _*love tenderly*_ and to _*walk humbly with your God*_. (Micah 6:8)"

Asked about Marriage, Christ said "Haven't you read the Scriptures?" Jesus replied. "They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.' Clearly, Godly Marriage is not for vaguely two people but for one man and one woman. Homosexual Marriage is not part of God's design, never will be, as homosexual acts are revealed as sins of fornication or adultery. Though there is still hope in this life!! I am convinced God makes no discrimination or favoritism, and practicing homosexuals are loved as sons and daugthers equally and can be saved just the same, through humble, willing and alive repentance in a new life focused on God instead of serving self. Common temptation of sin is to think God is unfair to not allow this or that.. It is the same old trick of Satan to plant the seeds of doubt and teasing rebellion, that God is not so clear about something, keeping good fruit for Him alone.. Common mistake, because of this lie of God being unfair and Scriptures revealing and condemning homosexual acts as a sin of fornication or adultery, is to think "I am my homosexuality" and taking to heart each and every discrimination or praise for the cause you believe in or believe is yours, rejecting God.. But no, homosexuality is not your being, you are. Simply, you are! God is not rejecting, but loving and forgiving.. This is our true identity as children of God and our call is for holyness, to practice charity not to die in our sins. Consequence of sin, any sin, is separation from God's presence, spiritual death.

"God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him" (3:17). 
Jesus says to her, "Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on no longer sin" (8:11)

Edit : I'm sorry if my occasional preach on homosexuality topics are found offensive, i really am. I feel concerned for personal reasons, the first being my care for others and some more i might someday share with my good tempers community. Thank you for your patience with me, and if any problem or seeking support, feel free to PM me in any case. I sometimes forget my part is not to convince or even gently push, but simply to give testimony that God is good.. Thanks!


----------



## Engert (Apr 3, 2013)

Ahem, please allow me to use my superior logic in order to demonstrate that all subjects related to Bible are false.
Bible cannot be true because it talks about an imaginary being called Jesus who now lives in Heaven.
Please verify his existence and his correct address so i can take you seriously.

Thanks and have a great day.

Signed


Engert
________________


----------



## the_randomizer (Apr 3, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> TBH this is what I thought the whole topic was about.


 
Wait, it's not?


----------



## Sanoblue (Apr 3, 2013)

all i have to say is fuck em.... i have the right to marry whom ever i choose.... gay straight what the fuck ever i want... that ad is offensive and ignorant..

People act like homosexuality is this new fangle thing the media it using to turn your children gay.... it doesn't work that way people and for thousands  of years is been here and will continue to be....

homosexuality is found in 250+ species on earth.... yet homophobia is only found in 1.... which is more unnatural?


----------



## J-Machine (Apr 3, 2013)

Engert said:


> Ahem, please allow me to use my superior logic in order to demonstrate that all subjects related to Bible are false.
> Bible cannot be true because it talks about an imaginary being called Jesus who now lives in Heaven.
> Please verify his existence and his correct address so i can take you seriously.
> 
> ...


I remember the history channel back in the day saying Jesus was indeed a real person based on roman records and he was in fact crucified. however it's still not confirmed whether he was what he was in the bible.

as an after thought to this topic as a whole: Why do people always jump on God being the one who made homosexuality or that he is somehow responsible for the "bad" habits of man When Christians already have pegged a bad guy who would be responsible for these things. Remember life on earth is a middle ground between heaven and hell where both good and evil can hold sway over us.


----------



## Engert (Apr 3, 2013)

History channel also has shows about Aliens or end of the world according to Mayans, so History Channel should be used in quotes because they rarely show History nowadays. They used to do a lot of World War 2 stuff but now they do shows.
That's all i wanted to say about History Channel.


----------



## J-Machine (Apr 3, 2013)

air2004 said:


> You used the word irregardless . Can I assume that you are not a native English speaker ?


You shouldn't assume things. It makes an "expletive* out of u and me. joking aside...

I am a native English speaker. In fact one of my hobbies is studying dialects and the overall evolution of this language due to an inability to learn others. After all, better to be really good at one than being sub par across the board. While "irregardless" is considered to be a non standard word in dictionaries (fun fact: I do know irregardless and regardless hold the same meaning though the latter is more widely accepted), It is a word that has been used in print for well over a hundred years and it is debated that the word was first a part of a dialect used in south Carolina before moving into the vocabulary of those in Indiana. In fact the oxford dictionary has concluded that "irregardless" is a colloquial term used primarily in north America.

I also like how you decided to attack my English skills instead of actually addressing the content of my post. I apologize if this is because you do not understand my usage of the English language and will put more effort into posts I make when addressing you but if not I suggest you keep things on topic instead. It does wonders for the continuation of a conversation I hear.


----------



## J-Machine (Apr 3, 2013)

Engert said:


> History channel also has shows about Aliens or end of the world according to Mayans, so History Channel should be used in quotes because they rarely show History nowadays. They used to do a lot of World War 2 stuff but now they do shows.
> That's all i wanted to say about History Channel.


I must have forgotten to add this was from a  documentary aboot 3 years ago or so. Before the whole "we do sociology now" phase they have now adopted. Of course it's still tv and not actual print based research but wikipedia can be a good starting point for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus


----------



## Rydian (Apr 3, 2013)

Engert said:


> History *Redneck* Channel.


srsly, it's gator hunting and car driving and shit nowadays.


----------



## Maxternal (Apr 3, 2013)

This conversation :
*FUTILITY*


----------



## air2004 (Apr 4, 2013)

J-Machine said:


> You shouldn't assume things. It makes an "expletive* out of u and me. joking aside...
> 
> I am a native English speaker. In fact one of my hobbies is studying dialects and the overall evolution of this language due to an inability to learn others. After all, better to be really good at one than being sub par across the board. While "irregardless" is considered to be a non standard word in dictionaries (fun fact: I do know irregardless and regardless hold the same meaning though the latter is more widely accepted), It is a word that has been used in print for well over a hundred years and it is debated that the word was first a part of a dialect used in south Carolina before moving into the vocabulary of those in Indiana. In fact the oxford dictionary has concluded that "irregardless" is a colloquial term used primarily in north America.
> 
> I also like how you decided to attack my English skills instead of actually addressing the content of my post. I apologize if this is because you do not understand my usage of the English language and will put more effort into posts I make when addressing you but if not I suggest you keep things on topic instead. It does wonders for the continuation of a conversation I hear.......<<< irregardless of personal orientation so I doubt it's a simple matter of semantics though it would be a start>>>>>>.


 I am no fan of double negatives , whether its with words or numbers.


----------



## J-Machine (Apr 4, 2013)

air2004 said:


> I am no fan of double negatives , whether its with words or numbers.


really? I find them pretty fun. depending on the language and dialect they can either intensify the negative (negative concord) or turn things to a positive (litotes). In irregardless it's a negative concord. an example of a litotes is "I am not unwell" meaning "I am well". The former is dialect specific which is why it's used so rarely.

And I'm getting off topic... Has anyone heard from the supreme court yet about Homosexual marriage?


----------

