Hottie driving G35coupe?

[Kossick]

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but you sounded like you were saying being a homosexual was not moral / legal / ethical

[Kossick]

I dont really care for the incest part, unless its a MDTT or twins

[dont got a ride]

ive never heard of any one getting arrested for being homosexual.

youre a fag, ten years now! plus they would fit in to well, with the whole butt secks thing

[capitlj]

I understand what Thrash is saying and I do agree with him a bit. I still wouldn't ever promote either but he has a point.

[StangerBanger96]

A thread about a random girl in a G35 coupe has/will turned into a debate about the similarities between incest and being gay! Awesome!

[thrash]

Kossick;310602 wrote:
Maybe I'm reading it wrong but you sounded like you were saying being a homosexual was not moral / legal / ethical

well, if you are a christian, practicing homosexuality would be immoral

if you are a homosexual and you want to get married, that is currently illegal

there are gay advocates who suggest that all americans must accept homosexuality as moral, and all states and private institutions must accept homosexual marraiges.

these advocates often base these claims on the idea that their individual and civil rights are being violated.

yet i NEVER hear them support the idea that incest should be considered "moral" or that incestusous marraiges should be legal

What I think is irrelevant, but I'll spell it out for you so there is no vagueness:

• i think the bible unequivocally says that practicing homosexuality is sinful. All men are sinful, but all men are empowered to stop sinning if they have accepted Christ. A beleiver who continues to willfully sin or to deny that he is acting sinfully is not forgiven and is not redeemed.

• i have not yet heard an argument that satisfies me that homosexual marraige should be made legal. the 1st obvious objection is that if it were a matter of civil rights, then many other marraige types must also become legal, since rights apply to individuals, not to groups

-- furthermore, i beleive that every human being, acting in a private capacity, must retain the freedom of association, which means, the freedom to not associate -- the freedom to discriminate. And so legally requiring people, organizations, or businesses to "Recognize" homosexual couples as legitimate is intolerable coercion from the state. Forcing wedding photographers to shoot gay weddings has already happened. Forcing churches to perform gay weddings has already happened. This is unacceptable.

Finally, we get to the ethics issue.

I have a big problem with letting homosexual couples adopt children.

There two two valid family types for the appropriate rearing of children: the monogamous heterosexual couple (with or without extended family), and the heterosexual polyamorous ring (with or without extended family).

Anyone who grew up in a divorced household can tell you what it is like to grow up with only one parent. But it's not the case that "any two" parents will do, every child has things to learn from both a man and a woman. Whenever there aren't two loving parents present -- of functionally different genders -- the child suffers.

[incidentally, i don't think single parents of any sexual persuasion should be allowed to adopt either]

(Of course, heterosexuals -- who love getting divorced -- are wrecking marraige and children 10x as hard as gay couples, but we'll leave that for a separate discussion.)

The other aspect of this is: i think of homosexuality as sexual deviancy -- deviancy with a legion of supporters who are seeking to force its acceptance upon everyone. But this isn't just a "behind closed doors" deviancy, it is an ever present, obvious difference in family makeup from what all of society for all of time has considered normal.

So, i think what i think, but what i think the law should be is slightly different:

individuals who choose to be gay can do what they like. But they should never have the power to inflict their views on others. That means

• i shouldn't have to recognize them
• my church shouldn't have to
• my business shouldn't have to
• my school curriculum shouldn't have to
• my adoption agency shouldn't have to

And before you start to diagree with me on ANY of this, remember:

its up to YOU to explain why it should be ok for gay folks but still NOT be ok for incestuous partners.

Otherwise, STFU.

("Because I want it to be that way" isn't a valid argument -- because most of society still DOESN'T want what you want..)

[thrash]

dont got a ride;310609 wrote:
ive never heard of any one getting arrested for being homosexual.

Thankfully, there exist things in the world beyond your imagination and understanding

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

It's a long read, but yes, it was illegal for gay people to commit sodomy in some states as recently as 2003. And people did jailtime over it.

[dont got a ride]

thrash;310673 wrote:
well, if you are a christian, practicing homosexuality would be immoral

if you are a homosexual and you want to get married, that is currently illegal

there are gay advocates who suggest that all americans must accept homosexuality as moral, and all states and private institutions must accept homosexual marraiges.

these advocates often base these claims on the idea that their individual and civil rights are being violated.

yet i NEVER hear them support the idea that incest should be considered "moral" or that incestusous marraiges should be legal

What I think is irrelevant, but I'll spell it out for you so there is no vagueness:

• i think the bible unequivocally says that practicing homosexuality is sinful. All men are sinful, but all men are empowered to stop sinning if they have accepted Christ. A beleiver who continues to willfully sin or to deny that he is acting sinfully is not forgiven and is not redeemed.

• i have not yet heard an argument that satisfies me that homosexual marraige should be made legal. the 1st obvious objection is that if it were a matter of civil rights, then many other marraige types must also become legal, since rights apply to individuals, not to groups

-- furthermore, i beleive that every human being, acting in a private capacity, must retain the freedom of association, which means, the freedom to not associate -- the freedom to discriminate. And so legally requiring people, organizations, or businesses to "Recognize" homosexual couples as legitimate is intolerable coercion from the state. Forcing wedding photographers to shoot gay weddings has already happened. Forcing churches to perform gay weddings has already happened. This is unacceptable.

Finally, we get to the ethics issue.

I have a big problem with letting homosexual couples adopt children.

There two two valid family types for the appropriate rearing of children: the monogamous heterosexual couple (with or without extended family), and the heterosexual polyamorous ring (with or without extended family).

Anyone who grew up in a divorced household can tell you what it is like to grow up with only one parent. But it's not the case that "any two" parents will do, every child has things to learn from both a man and a woman. Whenever there aren't two loving parents present -- of functionally different genders -- the child suffers.

[incidentally, i don't think single parents of any sexual persuasion should be allowed to adopt either]

(Of course, heterosexuals -- who love getting divorced -- are wrecking marraige and children 10x as hard as gay couples, but we'll leave that for a separate discussion.)

The other aspect of this is: i think of homosexuality as sexual deviancy -- deviancy with a legion of supporters who are seeking to force its acceptance upon everyone. But this isn't just a "behind closed doors" deviancy, it is an ever present, obvious difference in family makeup from what all of society for all of time has considered normal.

So, i think what i think, but what i think the law should be is slightly different:

individuals who choose to be gay can do what they like. But they should never have the power to inflict their views on others. That means

• i shouldn't have to recognize them
• my church shouldn't have to
• my business shouldn't have to
• my school curriculum shouldn't have to
• my adoption agency shouldn't have to

And before you start to diagree with me on ANY of this, remember:

its up to YOU to explain why it should be ok for gay folks but still NOT be ok for incestuous partners.

Otherwise, STFU.

("Because I want it to be that way" isn't a valid argument -- because most of society still DOESN'T want what you want..)

wait, Cobra Rob what, i swear he is here somewhere. he must know Thrash's password...

thrash;310674 wrote:
Thankfully, there exist things in the world beyond your imagination and understanding

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

It's a long read, but yes, it was illegal for gay people to commit sodomy in some states as recently as 2003. And people did jailtime over it.

wikipedia is not a reliable source, i can go on there and make up whatever bullshit i want and say its true. learned that at west fargo. :icon_cheers:

oh no not another "im gunna post a link to some bullshit no one cares about and say you has a small brain" post

really, go home and fuck off

[DelSlow]

dont got a ride;310675 wrote:
wikipedia is not a reliable source, i can go on there and make up whatever bullshit i want and say its true. learned that at west fargo. :icon_cheers:

oh no not another "im gunna post a link to some bullshit no one cares about and say you has a small brain" post

really, go home and fuck off

Then do it, because I don't think you know how Wiki works anymore...which doesn't surprise me. Anyways, really, go make up whatever you want on a page. See what happens.

[PSiedTSi]

dont got a ride;310675 wrote:
wait, Cobra Rob what, i swear he is here somewhere. he must know Thrash's password...

wikipedia is not a reliable source, i can go on there and make up whatever bullshit i want and say its true. learned that at west fargo. :icon_cheers:

oh no not another "im gunna post a link to some bullshit no one cares about and say you has a small brain" post

really, go home and fuck off

It's a more reliable source than the bible so atleast his posts got more informative as they went on....

Plus, You CAN marry your family members Thrash. It ISN'T outlawed everywhere. http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4266

[dont got a ride]

DelSlow;310676 wrote:
Then do it, because I don't think you know how Wiki works anymore...which doesn't surprise me. Anyways, really, go make up whatever you want on a page. See what happens.

you're right. i probably dont anymore seeing its been 2 years since ive been on it, or tried using it. doesnt bother me any.

dont got a ride;310675 wrote:
wait, Cobra Rob what, i swear he is here somewhere. he must know Thrash's password...

wikipedia is not a reliable source, i can go on there and make up whatever bullshit i want and say its true. learned that at west fargo. :icon_cheers:

oh no not another "im gunna post a link to some bullshit no one cares about and say you has a small brain" post

really, go home and fuck off

think about it Will

[dont got a ride]

PSiedTSi;310678 wrote:
It's a more reliable source than the bible so atleast his posts got more informative as they went on....

Plus, You CAN marry your family members Thrash. It ISN'T outlawed everywhere. http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4266

SO WE BURN ALL BIBLES AND FALLOW WIKAPEDIA?! Cobra Rob wont know what to do.

[PSiedTSi]

dont got a ride;310681 wrote:
SO WE BURN ALL BIBLES AND FALLOW WIKAPEDIA?! Cobra Rob wont know what to do.

I didn't say burn Bibles, it's just not a "reference" source for anything other than stories and preachings passed down by word of mouth. You've played the game "telephone" right? Imagine that over a thousand years.

Either way, Wikipedia has sources listed or it says "citation needed"(meaning no source has been proven to contain this information, it IS hearsay). They edit the page to make sure it is as factual as it can be for everyone. At worst, it's a GREAT place to find a source of information.

[capitlj]

StangerBanger96;310664 wrote:
A thread about a random girl in a G35 coupe has/will turned into a debate about the similarities between incest and being gay! Awesome!

I was thinking that as I was typing my last post. What if someone tells her someone started s thread about her and she joins into this shit storm? lollerskates!!!
I've gotta side with Thrash on this one, my old school values being what they are regardless of what the bible says. It is a contradiction to allow gays their individual right to marry and then turn around an deny my individual rights and force me to accept it. That said I'm still a little fuzzy on how incest is equivalent.

[StangerBanger96]

capitlj;310686 wrote:
That said I'm still a little fuzzy on how incest is equivalent.

2 consenting adult men should not have their right to BF eachother and marry eachother interfered with.

Just as 2 consenting adults should not have their right to do whatever and marry eachother, despite the fact that they are cousins/brothers and sisters/whatever.

That is his logic.

[capitlj]

StangerBanger96;310664 wrote:
A thread about a random girl in a G35 coupe has/will turned into a debate about the similarities between incest and being gay! Awesome!

I was thinking that as I was typing my last post. What if someone tells her someone started s thread about her and she joins into this shit storm? lollerskates!!!
I've gotta side with Thrash on this one, my old school values being what they are regardless of what the bible says. It is a contradiction to allow gays their individual right to marry and then turn around an deny my individual rights and force me to accept it. That said I'm still a little fuzzy on how incest is equivalent.

[thrash]

Correct.

I'll make it realy easy.

Explain why gay marraige should be legal.

Now explain why a marraige between brother and sister should be illegal.

[thrash]

PSiedTSi;310678 wrote:
It's a more reliable source than the bible so atleast his posts got more informative as they went on....

I mentioned the bible since morality was under discussion. Everyone has a standard that they derive their standard of morality from; the Bible is used by the majority of Americans.

Plus, You CAN marry your family members Thrash. It ISN'T outlawed everywhere. http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4266

That only covers cousins, and note how many places where it is illegal. What about brother/sister, mother/son, etc?

[thrash]

dont got a ride;310679 wrote:
you're right. i probably dont anymore seeing its been 2 years since ive been on it, or tried using it. doesnt bother me any.

If you don't want to seem like such a dumbass, stop celebrating your ignorance so publicly.

I searched for "Texas sodomy law" and the 1st hit was a wikipedia article on sodomy laws around the world. 2 clicks got me to the link i posted.

I happened to remember that the supreme court struck down a law in texas related to homosexuality, so that's why i searched for what I did.

It has nothing to do with wikipedia being accurate or not, it's called having even a passing knowledge of supreme court cases that affect the subject at hand. Ignore the wikipedia link. Search on the words in the link title, which will give you the supreme court decision you can read for yourself.

[bubba]

StangerBanger96;310664 wrote:
A thread about a random girl in a G35 coupe has/will turned into a debate about the similarities between incest and being gay! Awesome!

This,

Still waiting on some fucking pics...

rule #1 - Don't start a thread about a "hot chick" and not post nude or at least scantly clad photos

dont got a ride;310675 wrote:
wait, Cobra Rob what, i swear he is here somewhere. he must know Thrash's password...

wikipedia is not a reliable source, i can go on there and make up whatever bullshit i want and say its true. learned that at west fargo. :icon_cheers:

oh no not another "im gunna post a link to some bullshit no one cares about and say you has a small brain" post

really, go home and fuck off

Umm... he had a well worded and good post... ur prob just pissed cause you didn't wanna read it all or couldn't comprehend what he was saying...