1
   

Another homosexual activist cuts bisexuals out of wedding march

 
 
chuckc cv
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Apr, 2007 12:28 am
@Drnaline,
Also, regarding an individual's (who claims to be homosexual) viewpoint containing prejudice based on number of sexual partners. Considering his definition of marriage based on two people, I can understand why he disagrees. However, based on his statements, I believe his opinion does not support my definition of America - freedom for all.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Apr, 2007 08:31 am
@chuckc cv,
chuckc;14138 wrote:
(one general question to more experiences bloggers, is my spacing affecting my posts and should I write my responses in paragraph form?)

"The thing that annoys me most about Gay pride is what is there to be proud of?"

I agree with the Gay pride parade if it truly supports freedom of expression without violating any civic laws.

"Be it straight, gay or otherwise, I simply don't see the need to shout about what you put your penis into."

I completely agree with this.

Whoever posted this. I think this is a good starting point.

man + women = marriage

man + man = marriage or women + women = marriage

What does marriage mean? At this point, my definition would be: Two consenting adults (I do mean human beings) over the age of eighteen wanting to enter in a legal agreement.

As far as multiple person marriages, I think the issue is the legality not the morality. But I need to think more on this specific issue to formulate a clear opinion.
Quote:
one general question to more experiences bloggers, is my spacing affecting my posts and should I write my responses in paragraph form

In most cases, people prefer instead of putting a sentence in traditional quote's like these ("), Instead write or use an HTML tag for (") whould would be writing out [q uote] and then [/q uote] at the rear. When you write it out, leave out the space, as i had to add it so this it would read out in sentence form.
The reason for doing so is that it creats a visual break between you and what you are reffering too. With a big post it gets alot of people confused as to who said what.
Quote:
Whoever posted this. I think this is a good starting point.

man + women = marriage

man + man = marriage or women + women = marriage

I think it was me. My point was from an equality standpoint. Gays claim they want equality, i say they have it. When they say they want marriage for uquality reasons i ask how can it ever be equal? Hence the Man + Womem = Marriage. Man + Man or Women + Women will never be equal in Marriage or behavior, it is impossible. Most if not all marriage laws state that a male has the right to marry a female and viseversa. If this is so and a male is by his own free will chosing to chose the same sex, how can he say he is being denied a right when his only right is to marry a female? No pro-gaymarriage person has been able to explain this to me?
Quote:
What does marriage mean? At this point, my definition would be: Two consenting adults (I do mean human beings) over the age of eighteen wanting to enter in a legal agreement.

Why do you exclude non humans? If Gays are allowed wouldn't you this the next step would be interspecies? In Amsterdam or somewhere around there is read of a lady that married a dolphin?
chuckc cv
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Apr, 2007 09:28 am
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;14174 wrote:

My point was from an equality standpoint. Gays claim they want equality, i say they have it. When they say they want marriage for uquality reasons i ask how can it ever be equal? Hence the Man + Womem = Marriage. Man + Man or Women + Women will never be equal in Marriage or behavior, it is impossible. Most if not all marriage laws state that a male has the right to marry a female and viseversa. If this is so and a male is by his own free will chosing to chose the same sex, how can he say he is being denied a right when his only right is to marry a female? No pro-gaymarriage person has been able to explain this to me?


If marriage laws in our American society state that a male has the right to marry a female and vice-a-versa. Then the term gay marriage as defined by our society who be contradictory by its definition alone. However, I firmly disagree that sexual attraction by a male is free will. I think attraction for all is a mystery. I choose to have women (born that way) as sexual partners. But i do not control my sexual attraction to them. I just prefer women, can't really explain it, i just do.

Why do you exclude non humans? If Gays are allowed wouldn't you this the next step would be interspecies? In Amsterdam or somewhere around there is read of a lady that married a dolphin?

yes I would because our society is shaped by human thought. No I would postulate it would not. I support the position that two adult homosexual people entering into a legal agreement should be allowed the same legal rights as two heterosexual people. If a "civil union" satisfies this criteria, then I would say I cannot support gay-marriage (with marriage as defined above) but rather civil unions. BTW, my personal definition of marriage is different. If the law of Amersterdam allows a woman to marry a dolphin, then in that society she is can.
chuckc cv
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Apr, 2007 09:30 am
@Drnaline,
BTW, thanks Drnaline for the posting advice. I'm still learning how to use it efficiently.
briansol
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Apr, 2007 02:29 pm
@Drnaline,
chuck: see http://www.conflictingviews.com/misc.php?do=bbcode
0 Replies
 
Silverchild79
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Apr, 2007 06:11 pm
@Drnaline,
polygamy is not legal, never will be. If white Christian (Mormon) males weren't allowed to do it Bisexuals don't have a chance.
0 Replies
 
Curmudgeon
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Apr, 2007 06:46 pm
@Drnaline,
Your posts are fine . Use paragraphs for long comments .
When quoting another post you should copy and paste it and then highlight it and click the quote tag ( the one that looks like a cartoon baloon with text in it) , that will separate the quote from your comment.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 May, 2007 07:43 am
@chuckc cv,
chuckc;14180 wrote:
If marriage laws in our American society state that a male has the right to marry a female and vice-a-versa. Then the term gay marriage as defined by our society who be contradictory by its definition alone. However, I firmly disagree that sexual attraction by a male is free will. I think attraction for all is a mystery. I choose to have women (born that way) as sexual partners. But i do not control my sexual attraction to them. I just prefer women, can't really explain it, i just do.

Why do you exclude non humans? If Gays are allowed wouldn't you this the next step would be interspecies? In Amsterdam or somewhere around there is read of a lady that married a dolphin?

yes I would because our society is shaped by human thought. No I would postulate it would not. I support the position that two adult homosexual people entering into a legal agreement should be allowed the same legal rights as two heterosexual people. If a "civil union" satisfies this criteria, then I would say I cannot support gay-marriage (with marriage as defined above) but rather civil unions. BTW, my personal definition of marriage is different. If the law of Amersterdam allows a woman to marry a dolphin, then in that society she is can.
Quote:
I firmly disagree that sexual attraction by a male is free will. I think attraction for all is a mystery. I choose to have women (born that way) as sexual partners.

I believe sexual attraction isn't freewill as well, but what you do with that attraction is. You say it yourself, you choose to have a female sex partners.
Quote:
But i do not control my sexual attraction to them. I just prefer women, can't really explain it, i just do.

Attractions are subconscience i believe, what you do with it IMO is not.
Quote:
I support the position that two adult homosexual people entering into a legal agreement should be allowed the same legal rights as two heterosexual people.

They are allowed the same legal rights as hetero's? A man is allowed to wed a woman. Where are they denied?
Quote:
If a "civil union" satisfies this criteria, then I would say I cannot support gay-marriage (with marriage as defined above) but rather civil unions.

Civil unions more then satifies this but that are still some who are intent on changing the definition of marriage. If they could have there way i'm sure they would remove the term man and woman all together.
Quote:
If the law of Amersterdam allows a woman to marry a dolphin, then in that society she is can

They have a law on the books over there for same sex marriage. But once you open up the can, people tend to interpret it any way they like. If i can marry a male, why not my brother? My sixyears old son(for the record i have no children)? My dog? See where this can go? If an arguement can be made for same sex it can be applied to anything. IMO
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 May, 2007 07:51 am
@chuckc cv,
chuckc;14182 wrote:
BTW, thanks Drnaline for the posting advice. I'm still learning how to use it efficiently.

No problemo, you should of seen when i first started out. I got alot of complaints especially when the posts for longer. Then some times i would forget to even put "s. Very confusing to say the least.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 May, 2007 07:54 am
@Curmudgeon,
Curmudgeon;14326 wrote:
Your posts are fine . Use paragraphs for long comments .
When quoting another post you should copy and paste it and then highlight it and click the quote tag ( the one that looks like a cartoon baloon with text in it) , that will separate the quote from your comment.
I always wondred how that worked, LOL. I always type it out and copy and paiste. Bet that way is faster.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 06:06:08