Where are my civil rights?

[Sarvis]

Yes, I am learning whenever I look things up to refute your undocumented and often misleading claims.

I don't think you get credit for that...

Slanderous. What claims have you refuted? That you were still wrong about Rer's fact number 6, or perhaps that Greeks had a lot of straight sex for pleasure?

It is not slander to say I refuted some of your claims, nor to say some of them are misleading and undocumented.

You claimed the existence of rape proved ancient Greeks had sex with women for pleasure, to which I found and posted a wealth of information showing that rape has nothing to do with pleasure.

Claim refuted. Undocumented because you cited nothing, as always, and misleading because you are trying to assign an incorrect motive to the act of rape.

You claimed that in modern times there was as much male prostitution as there was in ancient Greece, I posted actual statistics which proved you were wrong about that.

Claim refuted.

You claim the existence of prostitution proves ancient Greeks had sex with women for pleasure, yet have done nothing to fight my claim that prostitution is aberrant behavior which says nothing about society at large NOR have you properly dealt with the fact that male prostitution was as common as female prostitution in ancient Greece.

Claim refuted.



It's quite telling that you are now reduced to sputtering and making several quick, nonsensical replies to my single post and trying to say that Bullshit cannot mean deceitful even though that is a part of the definition you yourself posted. You weren't even able to begin to deal with 90% of the other content in my post apparently, just made some sarcastic remark about the male prostitution rate which ignored the point of why it was brought up the first place and then tried to insult me.

I think you lost.

[teflor the ranger]

It is not slander to say I refuted some of your claims, nor to say some of them are misleading and undocumented.

You claimed the existence of rape proved ancient Greeks had sex with women for pleasure, to which I found and posted a wealth of information showing that rape has nothing to do with pleasure.

Claim refuted. Undocumented because you cited nothing, as always, and misleading because you are trying to assign an incorrect motive to the act of rape.

You claimed that in modern times there was as much male prostitution as there was in ancient Greece, I posted actual statistics which proved you were wrong about that.

Claim refuted.

You claim the existence of prostitution proves ancient Greeks had sex with women for pleasure, yet have done nothing to fight my claim that prostitution is aberrant behavior which says nothing about society at large NOR have you properly dealt with the fact that male prostitution was as common as female prostitution in ancient Greece.

Claim refuted.

It's time to cut through the crap. Let's get down to the heart of your post here:

1) Rape of Woman in Ancient Greece did not prove that the Ancient Greeks had sex with women for pleasure.

2)Prostitution of Women in Ancient Greece did not prove that the Ancient Greeks had sex with women for pleasure.

Your supposed proof for #1, was that rape was more about control and power. I am inclinded to agree with that generalization, however, so let me give you another fact on which YOU have given:

A) The Ancient Greeks had sex with women for control and power.

Your supposed proof for #2 was that prostitution was aberrant behavior, however, the National Task Force on Prostitution suggests that there are over one million people in the US that have worked as prostitutes, which would indicated that there were enough customers to make it an attractive living (seeing as how prostitutes make on average twice than the average wage).

One Million Prostitutes And Enough Clients to make a living. There are more prostitutes in the US than cops.

B) Although prostitution is supposedly abberant behavior, so is scratching your balls in public and almost everyone does it at some point in time.

You have FAILED to prove that the ancient Greeks "almost never" had sex with women.

You have FAILED to prove that prostitution is an insiginificant factor in determining the sexuality of a society.

You have FAILED furthermore to stay ON TOPIC. These are two minor points which you have FAILED to actually refute, and you still have proven NOTHING as to why it would be morally correct for GOVERNMENT to force the people to accept and pay for gay marriage in this country.

To top it all off, your ignorant and irresponsible comments have wasted an hour of my time. The only thing I can say that was positive about your last post is that you're finally organizing your ideas and actually putting up any more fight than a wet noodle, which I appreciate but the facts are:

C) The "fact" that men "almost never" had sex with women for pleasure in Ancient Greece is Still Dead Wrong.

You never had a point, just a load of bullshit. I think you lost.

[teflor the ranger]

Look, call yourself whatever you want. You are in full support of a party which is now ultra-conservative. This party would NOT have freed the slaves, for instance and probably WOULD have dropped the A-bomb.

I'm calling further attention to this post you made, partly because you did not respond to it, but furthermore, because it highlights your fundamental misunderstanding of everything.

You see, while you say that "this party would NOT have freed the slaves," they did.

And while you say Republicans "probably WOULD have dropped the A-bomb," they didn't. That was actually the decision of a democrat.

You see, the things you have claimed often in this thread just happen to be the opposite of what has been true.

I think you've lost.

[Sarvis]

It's time to cut through the crap. Let's get down to the heart of your post here:

1) Rape of Woman in Ancient Greece did not prove that the Ancient Greeks had sex with women for pleasure.

2)Prostitution of Women in Ancient Greece did not prove that the Ancient Greeks had sex with women for pleasure.

Your supposed proof for #1, was that rape was more about control and power. I am inclinded to agree with that generalization, however, so let me give you another fact on which YOU have given:

A) The Ancient Greeks had sex with women for control and power.

Your supposed proof for #2 was that prostitution was aberrant behavior, however, the National Task Force on Prostitution suggests that there are over one million people in the US that have worked as prostitutes, which would indicated that there were enough customers to make it an attractive living (seeing as how prostitutes make on average twice than the average wage).

One Million Prostitutes And Enough Clients to make a living. There are more prostitutes in the US than cops.

How many people do you know who have "been with" a prostitute? I know 1.

B) Although prostitution is supposedly abberant behavior, so is scratching your balls in public and almost everyone does it at some point in time.

I suppose your next claim will be that murder is abberant behavior but almost everyone does it at some point in time?

Sorry, but there's an entire WORLD of disconnect between an impolite scratch and breaking the law in order to expose yourself to a wealth of STDs.

You have FAILED to prove that the ancient Greeks "almost never" had sex with women.

I'm not trying to prove they did. I'm merely pointing out that you have done NOTHING to disprove that statement.

You have FAILED to prove that prostitution is an insiginificant factor in determining the sexuality of a society.

Another thing I wasn't trying to prove. YOU are the one who says prostitution tells us about the sexuality of the Greeks. I'm saying it doesn't really tell us much.

You have FAILED furthermore to stay ON TOPIC. These are two minor points which you have FAILED to actually refute, and you still have proven NOTHING as to why it would be morally correct for GOVERNMENT to force the people to accept and pay for gay marriage in this country.

I said all I really care to say on this topic in my first two posts, long before this little tizz with you got started.

To top it all off, your ignorant and irresponsible comments have wasted an hour of my time. The only thing I can say that was positive about your last post is that you're finally organizing your ideas and actually putting up any more fight than a wet noodle, which I appreciate but the facts are:

It took you an hour to write this? :shock:

When will you actually post something worth spending an hour to come up with?

C) The "fact" that men "almost never" had sex with women for pleasure in Ancient Greece is Still Dead Wrong.

Here's the thing, the big important point which you keep missing. Mr. Pointy as Buffy would say:

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY WAY OF KNOWING THAT!

You're "proofs" are tangential at best and do very little to tell us about the sexual preference of the Greeks in general. Moreover, as <b>you yourself</b> have said on more than one occasion we don't really have enough evidence to KNOW what an ancient society was like.

You never had a point, just a load of bullshit. I think you lost.

You have yet to prove that Greeks had sex with women for pleasure.

I'm calling further attention to this post you made, partly because you did not respond to it, but furthermore, because it highlights your fundamental misunderstanding of everything.
You see, while you say that "this party would NOT have freed the slaves," they did.
And while you say Republicans "probably WOULD have dropped the A-bomb," they didn't. That was actually the decision of a democrat.
You see, the things you have claimed often in this thread just happen to be the opposite of what has been true.
I think you've lost.

Sorry, I had to go to work and didn't have time to get to that part.

First of all, THIS party did not free the slaves. The Republicans at the time of Lincoln did. I can't find anything to link to now, but I have heard it said that both parties have undergone a shift in ideologies over time such that both pretty much represent the opposite of what they used to.

This is what I was referring to.

Off the top of my head the only evidence I can provide is the fact that the Lincoln Republicans made a huge leap forward in civil rights by freeing the slaves, while the Bush Republicans are now attempting to curtail the civil rights of homosexuals.

As for dropping the A-Bomb... I hope you are not bad enough at logic to think that the Democrats having done something means the Republicans wouldn't have had they been in control at the time..

When I say _this_ party I mean specifically Bush and the current members of the GOP, as opposed to historical Republicans. Sorry if that was not clear.

The point, of course, is that the party you are supporting is currently extremely conservative on every issue except spending. Therefore either you must agree with them on many of those issues, or you should stop lying to yourself and find a party which better matches your own ideals.

[teflor the ranger]

And yet:

Your supposed proof for #2 was that prostitution was aberrant behavior, however, the National Task Force on Prostitution suggests that there are over one million people in the US that have worked as prostitutes, which would indicated that there were enough customers to make it an attractive living (seeing as how prostitutes make on average twice than the average wage).

One million and a customer base. There are fewer cops than prostitutes, yet you would dismiss it as being insignificant? Ever gotten a traffic ticket before?

Furthermore, I don't have to prove that ancient Greeks had sex with women for pleasure. I was not the one who reprsented "almost never" as fact. The fact is that it is plain to see that "almost never" is fully bunk.

It took an hour to research prostitution in America. It was difficult to sort through all the information published about prostitution that didn't provide any facts.

Furthermore, you cannot seperate the Republican party from it's history. While it may have evolved, what has happened is recorded as fact, and you cannot say that the party is the complete opposite of what it was a hundred or so years ago.

[Vahok]

OK....let's make this REAL simple for y'all...

Not one of us knows who the Greeks played hide the sauage with.
We can make educated guesses...but I wasn't in the room taking photos so I don't know. Neither do the main offenders in the post. So suck it up, find a better outlet for debating skills and stop giving a shit who Socrates banged.

How does Birile's post about his civil rights concerning unions turn into this? If ancient Greece was remotely like our time, the Greek man just needed to get off. Guy, girl or goat...who cares? I'm just glad they ain't sexually frustrated.

Enough said...

[teflor the ranger]

I completely agree. Still, I was only here to criticize and have already posted final arguments.

[Sarvis]

One million and a customer base. There are fewer cops than prostitutes, yet you would dismiss it as being insignificant? Ever gotten a traffic ticket before?

See though, you claim to have done research then you go make a wild claim like that. I have trouble believing there are more prostitutes than cops, and you didn't cite anything to back you up even though you claimed to have done research. If you already had a web site which said so you could have spent 3 seconds posting a link. Now I'm going to have to find statistics on how many cops there are in the US...


Well, first off the population of the US is 290 million, making prostitutes only .3% of the population. That sounds pretty rare to me...

Cops: 932,780 so you may be right but it's damn close. http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/01statab/law.pdf

However, I'll point out that the site (took you an hour to find a site I linked you to?) says <b>have worked</b> meaning many may not currently be working as prostitutes, plus it is just an estimate.

But good job on trying to misrepresent facts!

Furthermore, I don't have to prove that ancient Greeks had sex with women for pleasure. I was not the one who reprsented "almost never" as fact. The fact is that it is plain to see that "almost never" is fully bunk.

No, it isn't. You have done nothing whatsoever to disprove that statement. If you cannot prove Greeks had sex with women for pleasure then assuming the almost never did is as likely to be true as anything else. More likely, in fact, considering some facts of Greek society that we ARE aware of such as the prevalence of homosexual relations in many parts of ancient Greece.

It took an hour to research prostitution in America. It was difficult to sort through all the information published about prostitution that didn't provide any facts.

It's like reading your posts!

Furthermore, you cannot seperate the Republican party from it's history. While it may have evolved, what has happened is recorded as fact, and you cannot say that the party is the complete opposite of what it was a hundred or so years ago.

Huh? Why can't a party evolve into the opposite of what it used to be? There is absolutely nothing to prevent it! It's not as if the ghost of Lincoln is sitting there ready to slap Bush whenever he steps out of 1800s Republican party lines!

[teflor the ranger]

See though, you claim to have done research then you go make a wild claim like that. I have trouble believing there are more prostitutes than cops, and you didn't cite anything to back you up even though you claimed to have done research. If you already had a web site which said so you could have spent 3 seconds posting a link. Now I'm going to have to find statistics on how many cops there are in the US...


Well, first off the population of the US is 290 million, making prostitutes only .3% of the population. That sounds pretty rare to me...

Cops: 932,780 so you may be right but it's damn close. http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/01statab/law.pdf

However, I'll point out that the site (took you an hour to find a site I linked you to?) says <b>have worked</b> meaning many may not currently be working as prostitutes, plus it is just an estimate.

But good job on trying to misrepresent facts!

Fact is I cited my source. The National Task Force on Prostitution.

Fact is you have misrepresented your facts. The figure 932.780 also includes correctional facilities guards, which actually make up quite a large portion of that number. Actual cops are fewer. You just don't pay attention to little details like that because it's inconvenient for you and attributes to someone else's arguement.

No, it isn't. You have done nothing whatsoever to disprove that statement. If you cannot prove Greeks had sex with women for pleasure then assuming the almost never did is as likely to be true as anything else. More likely, in fact, considering some facts of Greek society that we ARE aware of such as the prevalence of homosexual relations in many parts of ancient Greece.

And you have done nothing to prove that sex for pleasure "almost never" happened with females. Even I have said that there was a great deal of phallic worship in ancient Greece, and I have known well before this debate that homosexuality was not at all a taboo in ancient greek society, this is not what I have been criticizing.

Furthermore, it's also interesting to point out that even though homosexuality isn't quite the taboo in ancient Greek society as it is in ours, I don't believe they ever allowed gay marriage.

Huh? Why can't a party evolve into the opposite of what it used to be? There is absolutely nothing to prevent it! It's not as if the ghost of Lincoln is sitting there ready to slap Bush whenever he steps out of 1800s Republican party lines!

Because if you knew anything about the facts of history, you would know how the Republican party has evolved through the centuries.

[Sarvis]

See though, you claim to have done research then you go make a wild claim like that. I have trouble believing there are more prostitutes than cops, and you didn't cite anything to back you up even though you claimed to have done research. If you already had a web site which said so you could have spent 3 seconds posting a link. Now I'm going to have to find statistics on how many cops there are in the US...


Well, first off the population of the US is 290 million, making prostitutes only .3% of the population. That sounds pretty rare to me...

Cops: 932,780 so you may be right but it's damn close. http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/01statab/law.pdf

However, I'll point out that the site (took you an hour to find a site I linked you to?) says <b>have worked</b> meaning many may not currently be working as prostitutes, plus it is just an estimate.

But good job on trying to misrepresent facts!

Fact is I cited my source. The National Task Force on Prostitution.

Fact is you have misrepresented your facts. The figure 932.780 also includes correctional facilities guards, which actually make up quite a large portion of that number. Actual cops are fewer. You just don't pay attention to little details like that because it's inconvenient for you and attributes to someone else's arguement.

You did cite, sorry about that. I skimmed what you wrote, and there was no link.

However prison guards are NOT included in that number. It is specifically the combination of sheriffs, state police and local police.

And you have done nothing to prove that sex for pleasure "almost never" happened with females. Even I have said that there was a great deal of phallic worship in ancient Greece, and I have known well before this debate that homosexuality was not at all a taboo in ancient greek society, this is not what I have been criticizing.

Again, I'm not trying to prove sex for pleasure almost never happened with females. That statement is also EXACTLY what you have been so ineptly criticising ever since you first called it bullshit.

The fact is I am only pointing out that your "facts" have no bearing on that original statement.

Because if you knew anything about the facts of history, you would know how the Republican party has evolved through the centuries.

I'd ask you to enlighten us, but all we'd likely get is uncited fiction.

[teflor the ranger]

However prison guards are NOT included in that number. It is specifically the combination of sheriffs, state police and local police.

Yes, they are. In many jusidictions, it is the sherrif's department that runs the lockup facilities.

Furthermore, you included a quarter million civilian employees, secretaries, clerks, janitors, mechanics, etc.

These are people who don't even carry a badge.

I'd ask you to enlighten us, but all we'd likely get is uncited fiction.

Like your prison guards, janitors, and stadium traffic cones?


(ahem. 932780 bullshit)

Your gross misunderstanding of your own research irks me.

[teflor the ranger]

Sigh. To be honest, I can't blame you for misunderstanding a government report or form.

GENERAL PURPOSE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

TOTAL FULL TIME: 932,780 SWORN: 677,933 CIVILIAN: 254,847


Ok. 932,780 Full Time Employees

Agencies have IT Departments, Janitors, Executive Assistants, Mechanics, Accounting Departments, just about everything you would need to run a business. This is a part of the 932,780

SWORN tends to mean oathed and badged. Of course, this could be secondary auxilary police forces (stadium traffic conductors).

CIVILIAN means no badge and no gun.

So basically, even if you counted all sworn justice agency members as cops, you'd only have 677,933.

By the way, prison guards are sworn law enforcement agents, and there are quite a few of them (if you reaaaalllly want, i can look it up, but i think i've already made my point.)

[Sarvis]

However prison guards are NOT included in that number. It is specifically the combination of sheriffs, state police and local police.

Yes, they are. In many jusidictions, it is the sherrif's department that runs the lockup facilities.

Furthermore, you included a quarter million civilian employees, secretaries, clerks, janitors, mechanics, etc.

These are people who don't even carry a badge.

I'd ask you to enlighten us, but all we'd likely get is uncited fiction.

Like your prison guards, janitors, and stadium traffic cones?


(ahem. 932780 bullshit)

Your gross misunderstanding of your own research irks me.

First, nothing to back up your claim that Sheriff's are prison guards. Second, nothing to back up your claim that 250K employees of law enforcement agencies are janitors. Third, YOUR million prostitutes is an ESTIMATE and includes anyone who EVER engaged in prostitution even if they no longer do.

Fourth, it's still only .3% of the population which is still a fairly small segment.

Fifth, it STILL doesn't tell us anything about sexual preferences of Ancient Greeks.


You're still a conservative, no matter how you try to spin your support of the Conservative party. You still absolutely suck at debating, and you STILL don't seem to understand what simple logic is.

Go and do more "research", let's see if it takes you another hour to find a site I linked you to.

[teflor the ranger]

You reserch it. I'm not expending unnecessary effort on making clearer the already clear, just to convince only you. I'm certain the audience is satisfied. It is also a fact that there are far less than a million policemen. If you knew anything about civil service, you'd know that this includes jail guards (as a general law enforcement agnecy).

Furthermore, the audience is satisfied that there was plenty of sex for pleasure in ancient Greek society between men and women.

Furthermore than that, I do believe everyone else is convinced that it really doesn't have that much bearing on modern society and gay marriage. Particularly because even the Greeks didn't condone gay marriage.

Bam! Bam! Bam! Kick it up a notch.

[Sarvis]

You reserch it. I'm not expending unnecessary effort on making clearer the already clear, just to convince only you. I'm certain the audience is satisfied. It is also a fact that there are far less than a million policemen. If you knew anything about civil service, you'd know that this includes jail guards (as a general law enforcement agnecy).

Furthermore, the audience is satisfied that there was plenty of sex for pleasure in ancient Greek society between men and women.

Furthermore than that, I do believe everyone else is convinced that it really doesn't have that much bearing on modern society and gay marriage. Particularly because even the Greeks didn't condone gay marriage.

Bam! Bam! Bam! Kick it up a notch.

Teflor, it's great that you can speak for the Audience. Frankly, at this point the audience is probably just me since your lunatic raving probably turned most people off of this thread. By the way, I'm unconvinced.

EVEN if you are right about the cops, which I must assume you are not since you won't even so much as back up your claim, there is still no true verification for your prostitution numbers nor have you TRIED to justify them.

You've proven nothing, never even cited the existance of prostitutes in Greece at all! <b>I</b> had to do that for you, and then we know only that there were an equal number of male and female prostitutes. That number could be 5 in all of Greece! We just don't know, so your attempt to state Greeks engaged in heterosexual relations for pleasure is pure ignorant bullshit. Possibly slanderous towards the Greeks too!

You are NOW claiming that the Greeks did not condone gay marriage, without any proof, citations or backup. Were you an ancient Greek? Is THAT how you can tell us every little detail of Greek society? Or are you just making things up now? You see, the Audience has no way of knowing unless you back up your claims. That's lesson #1 in Written Argument 101.

If not, then you are being just as ignorant and foolish as you think everyone else here is.

[teflor the ranger]

EVEN if you are right about the cops, which I must assume you are not since you won't even so much as back up your claim, there is still no true verification for your prostitution numbers nor have you TRIED to justify them.

You've proven nothing, never even cited the existance of prostitutes in Greece at all! <b>I</b> had to do that for you, and then we know only that there were an equal number of male and female prostitutes. That number could be 5 in all of Greece! We just don't know, so your attempt to state Greeks engaged in heterosexual relations for pleasure is pure ignorant bullshit. Possibly slanderous towards the Greeks too!

You are NOW claiming that the Greeks did not condone gay marriage, without any proof, citations or backup. Were you an ancient Greek? Is THAT how you can tell us every little detail of Greek society? Or are you just making things up now? You see, the Audience has no way of knowing unless you back up your claims. That's lesson #1 in Written Argument 101.

If not, then you are being just as ignorant and foolish as you think everyone else here is.

Sarvis, you make a lot of assumptions, and you have a lot of questions. By the way, just because I don't feel like backing something up does not mean that it's not true.

That's highly irresponsible and ignorant of you.

[Imis9]

Written Argument 101??? What crappy community college are you going to? :P You seem to misunderstand that you are actually trying to talk about issues and convince other people. No one gives a rats ass about the technical merits of how you phrase the argument. There are no judges to say good show. You lack any actual passion on the subject because you don't actually care about it, you simply are using it to brush up on your very mechanical debating skills. It truly is pathetic sarvis.

"Indeed, you won the elections, but I won the count."

-- Anastasio Somoza (1896-1956), Nicaraguan dictator. Said to an opponent accusing him of rigging the election.

[teflor the ranger]

As I said before, they're not really trying to convince anybody, I think they just like to hear their own voices.

[Sarvis]

EVEN if you are right about the cops, which I must assume you are not since you won't even so much as back up your claim, there is still no true verification for your prostitution numbers nor have you TRIED to justify them.

You've proven nothing, never even cited the existance of prostitutes in Greece at all! <b>I</b> had to do that for you, and then we know only that there were an equal number of male and female prostitutes. That number could be 5 in all of Greece! We just don't know, so your attempt to state Greeks engaged in heterosexual relations for pleasure is pure ignorant bullshit. Possibly slanderous towards the Greeks too!

You are NOW claiming that the Greeks did not condone gay marriage, without any proof, citations or backup. Were you an ancient Greek? Is THAT how you can tell us every little detail of Greek society? Or are you just making things up now? You see, the Audience has no way of knowing unless you back up your claims. That's lesson #1 in Written Argument 101.

If not, then you are being just as ignorant and foolish as you think everyone else here is.

Sarvis, you make a lot of assumptions, and you have a lot of questions. By the way, just because I don't feel like backing something up does not mean that it's not true.

That's highly irresponsible and ignorant of you.

No, no it isn't. Either you have proof of what you say and can provide it or you do not. If you have proof but WON'T provide it, then I MUST assume you are lying. It's called not being a sucker.

Elderly people who buy swampland in Florida, and Bush supporters, lack that critical skill. I do not. Sorry!

<b>Imis9</b>

In general when you say Someclass 101 you are implying that this is a very basic fact everyone should know without any real education. The need to cite claims you make is very much necessary in any argument. The fact that you don't think it is says a LOT about you and makes it pretty obvious how you can support Bush and be so steadfastly against gay marriage. You don't want facts or reason, you want opinion which matches what you were taught by your parents and priests. Anything more than that is probably heretical to you.

As for my argument being mechanical... I sincerely doubt it. I have taken a class on written argument (no it was not called Written Argument 101, I think it was a 300 level course) and did... well, about average. I'm pretty sure my teacher would be boxing my ears if she saw what I've been writing here though... heh.

I wasn't talking about technical merits OR how you phrase an argument though. simply put I was pointing out that Teflor is making claims that I cannot verify, so I have no reason to believe what he says.

I don't think I'm lacking in passion either, since I entered this discussion simply based on the fact that Teflor's attitude infuriated me. If anything there is too much passion and too little mechanics in my arguments here.

[Sarvis]

As I said before, they're not really trying to convince anybody, I think they just like to hear their own voices.

Who's "they"? And are you _really_ hearing voices? :?

[Adalek]

In general when you say Someclass 101 you are implying that this is a very basic fact everyone should know without any real education. The need to cite claims you make is very much necessary in any argument. The fact that you don't think it is says a LOT about you and makes it pretty obvious how you can support Bush and be so steadfastly against gay marriage. You don't want facts or reason, you want opinion which matches what you were taught by your parents and priests. Anything more than that is probably heretical to you.

I dont like gay people getting married. Why? ok im gonna back up my claims like you so want everyone to do. Here it goes!

Because I don't want to have to accept it. It's my right to not want to accept it. I don't think two homosexuals (I'm trying my best to use a nice word) should be a married couple. My irrefutable fact is that I don't have to accept it, because homosexuality is a choice. Being a certain race is not a choice.....so that bigotry crap doesnt holy water in my book.

Test each other's G spots, suck all the dick you want, but you are not getting my vote to get married as a couple.

[Sarvis]

In general when you say Someclass 101 you are implying that this is a very basic fact everyone should know without any real education. The need to cite claims you make is very much necessary in any argument. The fact that you don't think it is says a LOT about you and makes it pretty obvious how you can support Bush and be so steadfastly against gay marriage. You don't want facts or reason, you want opinion which matches what you were taught by your parents and priests. Anything more than that is probably heretical to you.

I dont like gay people getting married. Why? ok im gonna back up my claims like you so want everyone to do. Here it goes!

Because I don't want to have to accept it. It's my right to not want to accept it. I don't think two homosexuals (I'm trying my best to use a nice word) should be a married couple. My irrefutable fact is that I don't have to accept it, because homosexuality is a choice. Being a certain race is not a choice.....so that bigotry crap doesnt holy water in my book.

Test each other's G spots, suck all the dick you want, but you are not getting my vote to get married as a couple.

There's no proof that it's a choice, and in fact there is <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3735668.stm"> evidence</a> that it IS an inherited trait.

By the way, how does it actually <i>affect</i> you if two guys get married? I mean, you say you don't want to accept it... but you don't even have to in order to let them get married. You can still say it's terrible and disgusting, but two guys getting married down the street actuall has no effect on you whatsoever right?

Just like how African-Americans are allowed to use the same bathrooms as white people, but there's a lot of people still holding KKK rallies because they don't accept it. They just _allow_ it because they have to.

[teflor the ranger]

Actually, according to an article in the October 25 issue of Time magazine, there is evidence that religion, as well as the inclination to seek religion, may be a genetic trait.

Many of us may acutally be genetically, or born with, the inclination to find religion.

Basically, being religious may not be any more a choice than being white or black, gay or straight.

[Sarvis]

Actually, according to an article in the October 25 issue of Time magazine, there is evidence that religion, as well as the inclination to seek religion, may be a genetic trait.

Many of us may acutally be genetically, or born with, the inclination to find religion.

Basically, being religious may not be any more a choice than being white or black, gay or straight.

Interesting, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with what we're talking about.

[teflor the ranger]

Oh, but it does. It brings up the following question:

How is it that we must accept gays into marriage because it is a discrimination against how they are inclined genetically when we must not accept the religious beliefs of those who are genetically inclined to religion?

[Sarvis]

Oh, but it does. It brings up the following question:

How is it that we must accept gays into marriage because it is a discrimination against how they are inclined genetically when we must not accept the religious beliefs of those who are genetically inclined to religion?

I never said we shouldn't accept people's religious beliefs.

Are you back to slander now?

[Adalek]

Oh, but it does. It brings up the following question:

How is it that we must accept gays into marriage because it is a discrimination against how they are inclined genetically when we must not accept the religious beliefs of those who are genetically inclined to religion?

I never said we shouldn't accept people's religious beliefs.

Are you back to slander now?

It IS part of my religious beliefs that homosexuals should not get married. Besides that, I see it as morally wrong. A marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

If homosexuals want religion/government so separate, why do they want the right to get married anyway? Marriage has primarily religious roots.

A civil union DOES separate religion and government. If it were up to me, give them all the rights of a married couple as a civil union, but don't call it a marriage. Because it's not. That's just my beliefs.

Is it neccesarily fair? No not really. But I don't think America has yet come to the point where anyone can do anything as long as its not infringing on others rights. I could go streaking down the highway, and I wouldn't be infringing on anyones rights. If you don't want to see me, don't look. Same goes for a gay couple....I really don't want to see them, so I won't look. But I would get arrested for the former.

And saying streaking and 2 homos getting married is not equally disgusting, is a matter of opinion. (well yeah it depends on whos doing the streaking but you get my point)

[Klurg]

I have one word for u all..... (EEEDIUUUTS)

[Xisiqomelir]

It IS part of my religious beliefs that homosexuals should not get married. Besides that, I see it as morally wrong. A marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

To be honest, your religious beliefs should have no bearing at all on the laws of this country.

[Corth]

yawn

[Sarvis]

Oh, but it does. It brings up the following question:

How is it that we must accept gays into marriage because it is a discrimination against how they are inclined genetically when we must not accept the religious beliefs of those who are genetically inclined to religion?

I never said we shouldn't accept people's religious beliefs.

Are you back to slander now?

It IS part of my religious beliefs that homosexuals should not get married. Besides that, I see it as morally wrong. A marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

Then don't marry someone of the same sex as you.

You still haven't explained how two other people getting married has any effect on you...

If homosexuals want religion/government so separate, why do they want the right to get married anyway? Marriage has primarily religious roots.

Maybe, but we allow people to get married outside of religious institutions. Atheists tend to do that when they get married.

Not to mention there are many benefits to marriage that the government gives out, which pretty much destroys the argument that marriage is a purely religious institution.

If it's purely religious, no tax breaks for you!

A civil union DOES separate religion and government. If it were up to me, give them all the rights of a married couple as a civil union, but don't call it a marriage. Because it's not. That's just my beliefs.

Why does the word matter so much? If civil union truly means everything marriage does then why not just use the word marriage?

I've never understood that...

Is it neccesarily fair? No not really. But I don't think America has yet come to the point where anyone can do anything as long as its not infringing on others rights. I could go streaking down the highway, and I wouldn't be infringing on anyones rights. If you don't want to see me, don't look. Same goes for a gay couple....I really don't want to see them, so I won't look. But I would get arrested for the former.

Yes, funny thing is that it's probably only religious ideals that make streaking illegal.

Personally, I think you should be allowed to streak if you want. I especially think Lucy Liu should be allowed to streak any time she wants... but that's another story.

Ahem... again this goes back to how it affects you. I'd argue there's more effect on others when they see a naked person running down the street than when two guys are walking down the street hand in hand. In fact, whether they are married or not doesn't prevent them from walking hand in hand so you really aren't accomplishing anything! But with a naked person you'd have distracted drivers, kids seeing things they "shouldn't" and that sort of thing.


By the way, should we make everything frowned upon by your religion illegal? I don't know what religion you actually are... but premarital sex is a pretty universal taboo. So should that be illegal? What about pornography? That certainly tends to evoke impure thoughts. Meh... don't feel like thinking of more...

Oh! There are groups of christians who would certainly outlaw this mud! So should this MUD be illegal so that we don't interfere with their beliefs?

[Vorkul Tigerclaw]

*pulls out his sword, and slashes this topic extremely hard.*

The topic is dead!
R.I.P!

Imo, I think this has been debated enough.

[Klurg]

If I stuff my peepee down sarvis throat to shush him up will that make me a gay?

[Vorkul Tigerclaw]

If I stuff my peepee down sarvis throat to shush him up will that make me a gay?

No, that would make you a saint.

[Sarvis]

Wow, two trolls who can't handle the idea of other people being interested in something! What a rare find on the internets!

[Klurg]

I was just wondering if 2 men can marry can I be allowed to marry my goat billy? I have proposed the idea and he dont seem to have any objections....

[Vahok]

A civil union DOES separate religion and government. If it were up to me, give them all the rights of a married couple as a civil union, but don't call it a marriage. Because it's not. That's just my beliefs.

Why does the word matter so much? If civil union truly means everything marriage does then why not just use the word marriage?

I've never understood that...

Personally, I can read. And the definition of marriage IS NOT a same-sex marriage. Why don't we call cars pickles ...because it isn't the meaning.

And yes, still with the rights in a union, just hate the fact people still don't understand the word....

[Sarvis]

A civil union DOES separate religion and government. If it were up to me, give them all the rights of a married couple as a civil union, but don't call it a marriage. Because it's not. That's just my beliefs.

Why does the word matter so much? If civil union truly means everything marriage does then why not just use the word marriage?

I've never understood that...

Personally, I can read. And the definition of marriage IS NOT a same-sex marriage. Why don't we call cars pickles ...because it isn't the meaning.

And yes, still with the rights in a union, just hate the fact people still don't understand the word....

Oddly enough, words evolve.

[Vahok]

A civil union DOES separate religion and government. If it were up to me, give them all the rights of a married couple as a civil union, but don't call it a marriage. Because it's not. That's just my beliefs.

Why does the word matter so much? If civil union truly means everything marriage does then why not just use the word marriage?

I've never understood that...

Personally, I can read. And the definition of marriage IS NOT a same-sex marriage. Why don't we call cars pickles ...because it isn't the meaning.

And yes, still with the rights in a union, just hate the fact people still don't understand the word....

Oddly enough, words evolve.

Oddly enough, some religions consider marriage to be a sacrament and don't want the word changed. Period. But I guess your tolerance is a one-way street.

[Sarvis]

A civil union DOES separate religion and government. If it were up to me, give them all the rights of a married couple as a civil union, but don't call it a marriage. Because it's not. That's just my beliefs.

Why does the word matter so much? If civil union truly means everything marriage does then why not just use the word marriage?

I've never understood that...

Personally, I can read. And the definition of marriage IS NOT a same-sex marriage. Why don't we call cars pickles ...because it isn't the meaning.

And yes, still with the rights in a union, just hate the fact people still don't understand the word....

Oddly enough, words evolve.

Oddly enough, some religions consider marriage to be a sacrament and don't want the word changed. Period. But I guess your tolerance is a one-way street.

How am I being intolerant exactly? By noting that the meaning of words can evolve?

Marriage is not sacrosanct by any means, by the way. In fact one definition of marriage is this:

"A close union: ?the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics? (Lloyd Rose). " www.dictionary.com

Another is this:

"Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle."

And it can also refer to a common-law marriage, which is "marriage undertaken without either a civil or religious ceremony. In a common-law marriage, the parties simply agree to consider themselves married. The common-law marriage is a rarity today, mainly because of the legal problems of property and inheritance that attend it in complex urban societies." - http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?to ... on-law&ct=


So should pinochle be outlawed now because it uses the word "marriage" improperly?




I'm sorry if allowing gay marriage is immoral in your eyes, and unethical in your religions. But the simple truth is that I probably live a few hundred miles from you and it shouldn't matter at all whether I marry a man or a woman. I'm not forcing you to come to the wedding, I'm not forcing your priest to perform the ceremony.

We _already_ allow marriage that is completely outside the realm of religion with common-law marriages and weddings performed by civil servants. What is the difference if it's same sex or not?

[teflor the ranger]

Oh, but it does. It brings up the following question:

How is it that we must accept gays into marriage because it is a discrimination against how they are inclined genetically when we must not accept the religious beliefs of those who are genetically inclined to religion?

I never said we shouldn't accept people's religious beliefs.

Are you back to slander now?

Sarvis, you're a moron.

[Vahok]

A civil union DOES separate religion and government. If it were up to me, give them all the rights of a married couple as a civil union, but don't call it a marriage. Because it's not. That's just my beliefs.

Why does the word matter so much? If civil union truly means everything marriage does then why not just use the word marriage?

I've never understood that...

Personally, I can read. And the definition of marriage IS NOT a same-sex marriage. Why don't we call cars pickles ...because it isn't the meaning.

And yes, still with the rights in a union, just hate the fact people still don't understand the word....

Oddly enough, words evolve.

Oddly enough, some religions consider marriage to be a sacrament and don't want the word changed. Period. But I guess your tolerance is a one-way street.

How am I being intolerant exactly? By noting that the meaning of words can evolve?

Marriage is not sacrosanct by any means, by the way. In fact one definition of marriage is this:

"A close union: ?the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics? (Lloyd Rose). " www.dictionary.com

Another is this:

"Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle."

And it can also refer to a common-law marriage, which is "marriage undertaken without either a civil or religious ceremony. In a common-law marriage, the parties simply agree to consider themselves married. The common-law marriage is a rarity today, mainly because of the legal problems of property and inheritance that attend it in complex urban societies." - http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?to ... on-law&ct=


So should pinochle be outlawed now because it uses the word "marriage" improperly?




I'm sorry if allowing gay marriage is immoral in your eyes, and unethical in your religions. But the simple truth is that I probably live a few hundred miles from you and it shouldn't matter at all whether I marry a man or a woman. I'm not forcing you to come to the wedding, I'm not forcing your priest to perform the ceremony.

We _already_ allow marriage that is completely outside the realm of religion with common-law marriages and weddings performed by civil servants. What is the difference if it's same sex or not?

Do you even read a post before responding? I didn't say gay marriages are immoral or unethical. I'm quite in favour for them actually. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what people do in their own homes or own personal space. The point is just because a minority feels a word should be changed does not make it a good idea. The word marriage is already (as you noted) evolving, but it should not. Marriage means something important to many major religions who, unfortunately, do not recognize same sex unions. Are you asking Christians to rewrite their sacraments just to please you?

And you're being intolerant because I'm not an idiot and I can read between the lines. By "noting" that words can evolve, you're attempting to make me believe this one can as well. Well sorry, I don't believe it should. I like it the way it is. Marriage...a union between a man and woman. Stop pushing your huggy, touchy feeling crap on me. I live in Ontario. I get enough liberal views rammed down my throat on a daily basis. Allow religions to have their beliefs and views, allow homosexuals to have their beliefs and views, and stop forcing one to change their values for the other.

Last time I checked tolerance was a two-way street...but you can't change the size of one lane without screwing the other. Make it equal.

[Vorkul Tigerclaw]

Very well put Vahok.

[Sarvis]

Oops... double post...

[Sarvis]

Do you even read a post before responding? I didn't say gay marriages are immoral or unethical. I'm quite in favour for them actually. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what people do in their own homes or own personal space. The point is just because a minority feels a word should be changed does not make it a good idea. The word marriage is already (as you noted) evolving, but it should not. Marriage means something important to many major religions who, unfortunately, do not recognize same sex unions. Are you asking Christians to rewrite their sacraments just to please you?

And you're being intolerant because I'm not an idiot and I can read between the lines. By "noting" that words can evolve, you're attempting to make me believe this one can as well. Well sorry, I don't believe it should. I like it the way it is. Marriage...a union between a man and woman. Stop pushing your huggy, touchy feeling crap on me. I live in Ontario. I get enough liberal views rammed down my throat on a daily basis. Allow religions to have their beliefs and views, allow homosexuals to have their beliefs and views, and stop forcing one to change their values for the other.

Last time I checked tolerance was a two-way street...but you can't change the size of one lane without screwing the other. Make it equal.

Ceremonies are sacrosanct, not words. If you wanted to get technical, shouldn't some latin word that was translated into marriage be what is protected against evolving definitions?

Hell, you don't even have to accept it. You can just allow gay people to say they are married, and they will no matter what if they want, and tell yourself inside whatever the hell you want. Just like how KKK members today probably still don't consider black people as humans!

Believe whatever you want. I don't care, which is why calling me intolerant is kind of ludicrous, until you try to give <i>your</i> belief the power of law.

Let's review:

1) Marriage, the word, is not sacrament... the ceremony, or rite, is.
2) There are already non-religious marriages for atheists which violates the sacroscanct-ness of the ceremony.
3) The word already has several meanings besides the union of a man and woman.
4) I don't care if you accept any of the above statements, though you should probably give it some thought, but don't you DARE try to force me to follow your beliefs through the power of Law.

[teflor the ranger]

Do you even read a post before responding?

To answer your question, Vahok, I'll answer with a SarvisQuote:

I skimmed what you wrote, and there was no link.

Vahok, this is the same guy who accused me of slandering him when I said that an article in Time magazine brings up a question.

Shiny Link!

[teflor the ranger]

but don't you DARE try to force me to follow your beliefs through the power of Law.

Amen. Government should not force me to accept or pay for gay marriage.

[Sephraem]

Let's review:

1) Marriage, the word, is not sacrosanct... the ceremony, or rite, is.

That's like saying a cross isn't holy, only the event it represents is. I am not my name, but my name is a part of me. Marriage, the word, represents a concept, and the word is part of that concept.

[Sarvis]

Do you even read a post before responding?

To answer your question, Vahok, I'll answer with a SarvisQuote:

I skimmed what you wrote, and there was no link.

Vahok, this is the same guy who accused me of slandering him when I said that an article in Time magazine brings up a question.

Shiny Link!

You accused me of saying we must not accept people's religious beliefs. I never said such a thing, therefore implying that I did is slander.

Thank you, come again!

no wait... just go away. You're not relevant to anything really at this point...

[Sarvis]

Ok, this has to be quick 'cause I've got to work. :(

I'm not sure many of you realize what it is to have a majority force their beliefs on something like marriage upon you. So I want you to imagine something, and really try at this... don't just give me your knee jerk reaction like teflor undoubtedly will.

Here it is:

Imagine that Mormons became the dominant religion in the land, and held most of the power. Imagine that an extremely Mormon President decided to amend the Constitution. Here is the amendment he wants:

Only plural marriages (polygamy) can be legal.




Try to think about that. The marriage right is sacrament to them too, only for them it involves multiple wives. So they want to force that upon you. Sound good?

Give it some thought.



<b>Sephraem</b>

The cross is used all over the place as a non-religious symbol (+), not to mention that the swastika(sp?) is a bastardized version of the cross.