17-12-2004 06:58									#91
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Wiglaf To change that pretty noble institution into a "bang whatever you want" mentality is more than a little stirring.

Hmmm... so only hetero couples can love each other?

Many couples get married all the time without any desire to raise a family... using your logic, they shouldn't be allowed to get married... because being in love isn't just enough for you...

What matters is LOVE and wanting to make a commitment. Any consenting adults should be allowed that option... It shouldn't be based on your view of morality... because as stated, how would you like it if somebody tried to impose their morality on you.

	17-12-2004 07:05									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Again. That can be used to justify allowing orgy marriages of 50 people and their cat. It's absurd to take this "morality is subjective" to say "morality is irrelevant."

Marriage is not only about love between two people. In fact it has not been since homosexuals made this such an issue. Puritan New England since the inception of this country, all the way to today many believe marriage ought to be for procreative and functional purposes, or they cut your ball off.

Now, it's about pleasure pleasure. You think divorces would go down! Ha. If you spot a flaw in some marriages should not be compounded by allowing homosexuals to marry out of pleasure. Divorces would go way up if anything.

	17-12-2004 07:06									#93
	Inflate your Upload Space

This is so fascinating, I just can't tear my eyes away... someone who really ought to know better, trying to reason with Wiglaf... fascinating...

	17-12-2004 07:07									#94
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Wiglaf The fact that straight couples divorce is irrelevant. As you said they do not plan to divorce when they are married; the idea is usually to start a family.

Is it really? And gay couples, let alone gay people, are incapable as parents? Can you prove these statements? There are plenty of studies showing gay people are just as capable of parents as heterosexuals.

quote: To change that pretty noble institution into a "bang whatever you want" mentality is more than a little stirring. It is also the government's call, and the government can decide what is and what isn't fundamentally or historically founded for the best interests of the country.

Bang whatever you want? So I can't love because I don't comform to your ideas of morality? You can't direct other people in this country. This is a democratic country. This is not Nazi Germany. The government DOES NOT direct the social lives of private individuals, nor can it tell people who to love.

quote: Sounds like more liberal BS to me, and in addition this has nothing to do with the argument. If you want to call an institution for raising stable families a wildly right wing operation then I think you need to rethink your widly liberal philosophies.

Oh it very much has to do with this argument. You have brought up morality, and clearly you can only justify your position by the bible (your position has no evidence what-so-ever). You are calling me a liberal? That's like calling Sava a republican.

	17-12-2004 07:08									#95
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: This is so fascinating, I just can't tear my eyes away... someone who really ought to know better, trying to reason with Wiglaf... fascinating...

More Cowbell. Ha. Maybe you should Sense of humor, come back and DE-BATE.

	17-12-2004 07:08									#96
	Get a bigger avatar today!

edit: nevermind xpost

	17-12-2004 07:09									#97
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Wiglaf Now, it's about pleasure pleasure. You think divorces would go down! Ha. If you spot a flaw in some marriages should not be compounded by allowing homosexuals to marry out of pleasure. Divorces would go way up if anything.

No it isn't. This is very much about love and committment. Say if Asher and his boyfriend want to get married, they should have that right.

And can't you just as easily apply your statement to heterosexual couples? Your comments keep backfiring on you.

	17-12-2004 07:12									#98
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Is it really? And gay couples, let alone gay people, are incapable as parents? Can you prove these statements? There are plenty of studies showing gay people are just as capable of parents as heterosexuals.

Great. So you want to make babies in test tubes. Either that or you want to contend that children in marriage shouldn't be raised by their own parents. Great..

quote: Bang whatever you want? So I can't love because I don't comform to your ideas of morality? You can't direct other people in this country. This is a democratic country. This is not Nazi Germany. The government DOES NOT direct the social lives of private individuals, nor can it tell people who to love.

It isn't tell you who to love, obviously. This reminds me of one idiot putting in his profile "HOW can America not allow gays to hold hands." HA!

Gays can hold hands, they simply do not have the government's sanctioned instiution of marriage on their side because they don't procreate.

quote: You have brought up morality, and clearly you can only justify your position by the bible (your position has no evidence what-so-ever). You are calling me a liberal? That's like calling Sava a republican.

No, I can justify it through history, tradition, and common sense. Read more than my first post, Amen. Haha.

	17-12-2004 07:14									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Gays can hold hands, they simply do not have the government's sanctioned instiution of marriage on their side because they don't procreate.

So old people and sterile people aren't allowed to get married?

	17-12-2004 07:14									#100
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Wiglaf Marriage is not only about love between two people. In fact it has not been since homosexuals made this such an issue. Puritan New England since the inception of this country, all the way to today many believe marriage ought to be for procreative and functional purposes, or they cut your ball off.

Puritan New England was also a tyrannical theocracy with ZERO freedom.

	17-12-2004 07:18									#101
	Inflate your Upload Space

Hey Wiggy... what about hetero couples who have no desire to have children... do you think they should be allowed to get married... If you answer yes, then you are just proving you are a bigot because you won't give the same right to gay couples. If you answer no, then you are just an idiot

	17-12-2004 07:18									#102
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Wiglaf Great. So you want to make babies in test tubes. Either that or you want to contend that children in marriage shouldn't be raised by their own parents. Great..

By their own parents? Often kids who are left to adoption, are left by parents who aren't able to raise children. It happens a lot. there are plenty of abusive heterosexual couples and if you were incharge these couples would still have the children under their countrol.

quote: Gays can hold hands, they simply do not have the government's sanctioned instiution of marriage on their side because they don't procreate.

They should have the government sanctioning marriage because marriage stands for a deeper level of committment (it is not for procreation). What about those heterosexual couples who choose not to procreate? Should they not be allowed to marry because they don't want to? And who brought up anything about holding hands? I certainly didn't.

quote: No, I can justify it through history, tradition, and common sense. Read more than my first post, Amen. Haha.

You can't justify through history or common sense. Tradition yes. But tradition isn't always right. Eating people for example isn't right, but some tribes in certain parts of the world did it.

	17-12-2004 07:21									#103
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ming Hey Wiggy... what about hetero couples who have no desire to have children... do you think they should be allowed to get married... If you answer yes, then you are just proving you are a bigot because you won't give the same right to gay couples. If you answer no, then you are just an idiot

ATTACK THE IDEAS. NOT THE POSTERS
[/Ming]

	17-12-2004 07:26									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Wiglaf, explain contraception? Isn't that so people can enjoy sex without the babies? I will reiterate, your views are outdated and hold no relevence in a more enlightened society. If there is a demand for orgy marriages too, as you so put it, then so be it. What is the problem with orgies if all are consenting (omit the damn cat, that is just trying to lower the tone of the argument)?

If you desire to live in a puritanical state, then that is your desire, but you have no right to impose that existence on other people who don't agree with your sanitised and closed-minded view on the world.

	17-12-2004 07:26									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor ATTACK THE IDEAS. NOT THE POSTERS [/Ming]

Actually... I am. If he thinks that hetero couples who aren't planning on having children should be allowed to get married, then he can't use the no children crap arugment

	17-12-2004 07:46									#106
	Support Apolyton

(1) About Heterosexual couples who cannot procreate. Here's the deal. First of all, they can try, and in certain cases medicine can cure their ills. Second of all, and most importantly, no marriage is perfect. Some end in abuse, some in divorce, some in infertility, and god forbid, some in all three. This is to be accepted because by and large these cases are relatively small, and fundamentally speaking, these marriages are rooted in the right cultural background. They do not send us on a hedonsitic route.

(2) Homosexuality sends us on a hedonistic route. 0% of homosexual marriages can end in appropriate procreation, as opposed to extremely few heterosexual marriages, and by design homosexuals do not aim and cannot become pregant.

Why should the government compound heterosexual marriage's problems by endorsing gay ones.

	17-12-2004 07:46									#107
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Puritan New England was also a tyrannical theocracy with ZERO freedom.

and they BURNED PEOPLE BY THE STAKE!!!

	17-12-2004 07:47									#108
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Why should the government compound heterosexual marriage's problems by endorsing gay ones.

But these gay people are already together... they just want an official piece of paper saying so. And plus, how is does a homosexual couple's marriage affect YOU... HOW IS IT ANY OF YOUR ****ING BUSINESS ANYWAYS!@!#

	17-12-2004 07:50									#109
	Tired of ads?

Marriage is the government's business, even at its most secular. Not gays'.

	17-12-2004 07:51									#110
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Wiglaf (1) About Heterosexual couples who cannot procreate. Here's the deal.

Hmmm... but you don't seem to want to address those that HAVE NO INTENTION OF HAVING CHILDREN.

Based on your logic, they shouldn't be allowed to get married since there is NO chance they will have children.

So... do you think they should allowed to get married?

	17-12-2004 07:51									#111
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Wiglaf (1) About Heterosexual couples who cannot procreate. Here's the deal. First of all, they can try, and in certain cases medicine can cure their ills.

In certain cases? What about those cases that cannot be cured? And what about heterosexuals who choose not to procreate?

quote: (2) Homosexuality sends us on a hedonistic route. 0% of homosexual marriages can end in appropriate procreation, as opposed to extremely few heterosexual marriages, and by design homosexuals do not aim and cannot become pregant.

Actually this is not true, because of technology. Hedonism has no more to do with homosexuality then it does heterosexuality. You are starting to sound like that wacko Alan Keyes. What a nutcase.

quote: Why should the government compound heterosexual marriage's problems by endorsing gay ones.

What is the harm of endorsing gay marriage? Maybe you should look at your own ills before you criticize other people.

	17-12-2004 07:51									#112
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Ming: Yes, they embrace marriage's cultural benefits in keeping with traditional moral American standards.

	17-12-2004 07:52									#113
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Wiglaf Marriage is the government's business, even at its most secular. Not gays'.

Then isn't it in the government's business to provide equal access to all?

	17-12-2004 07:53									#114
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Not to marriage, no.

	17-12-2004 07:53									#115
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Wiglaf Ming: Yes, they embrace marriage's cultural benefits in keeping with traditional moral American standards.

In keeping with traditional moral American standards? Does slavery count? Or how about Jim Crowe laws and segregation? America is a country that has a bill of rights and a constitution. It is a country where all should be respected and two consenting adults should be allowed to marry.

	17-12-2004 07:54									#116
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Wiglaf Not to marriage, no.

Why not? Because you christians say so? I'm sorry but you don't run the civil rights of others.

	17-12-2004 07:55									#117
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Wiglaf Yes, they embrace marriage's cultural benefits.

Hmmmm.... so children isn't the issue after all

So... a commitment between two people that love each other... is that what it is all about? Because if it is, Gay couples fall into the same category.

The only reason you don't like it is because it's against your personal morality... and no other reason. You have no logical arguments, just your bigotry...

So just admit it instead of more of your illogical arguments... because you are not only proving you are just a bigot, you are proving you are an idiot as well

	17-12-2004 07:57									#118
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Ming So just admit it instead of more of your illogical arguments... because you are not only proving you are just a bigot, you are proving you are an idiot as well

	17-12-2004 07:57									#119
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: You are starting to sound like that wacko Alan Keyes. What a nutcase.

DON'T SAY THAT ABOUT A FELLOW REPUBLICAN!!!!!

	17-12-2004 07:57									#120
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Sava DON'T SAY THAT ABOUT A FELLOW REPUBLICAN!!!!!

I'm not fond of nuts like Barack Obama on the other side, but this is not the issue. And i'm not registered a republican by the way.. "non-partisan".