SG Broadband Community

An interesting discussion; What say you?
http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0032427.cfm

I say that one is always more effective trying to change one's view when they arent shoving their view down the throat of others.

Check this search on saved's posts- http://forums.speedguide.net/search.php?searchid=95755

EVERY SINGLE ONE is religious in nature. And the vast majority are from threads he started himself.

I'm starting to suspect that he's not even a real member of SG. A lot of these religious groups are doing this sort of grassroots campaigning, where they encourage people to post their views on message boards online.

I suspect this is just on of a dozen or so UBBs he cuts and pastes this crap to. He's the religious equivalent of those guys that register just to ask if we can help them win an ipod.

...only worse, because unlike them he never goes away.

jayyy wrote:Check this search on saved's posts-

EVERY SINGLE ONE is religious in nature. And the vast majority are from threads he started himself.

I'm starting to suspect that he's not even a real member of SG. A lot of these religious groups are doing this sort of grassroots campaigning, whwre they encourage people to post tehir views on message boards online.

I suspect this is just on of a dozen or so UBBs he cuts and pastes this crap to. He's the religious equivalent of those guys that register hjst to ask if we can help them win an ipod.

...only worse, because unlike them he never goes away.

Exactly what I have been saying. A Programmed Troll.
Hes merely acting on orders from some religeous organization. At least with an Ipod spammer you may get something good out of the deal.

Pie

jayyy wrote:Check this search on saved's posts- http://forums.speedguide.net/search.php?searchid=95755

EVERY SINGLE ONE is religious in nature. And the vast majority are from threads he started himself.

I'm starting to suspect that he's not even a real member of SG.

I've heard rumors to the contrary, not only is he real, he's two members...

IP's Scmip's, this forum of all places understands the concepts of proxies.

saved wrote:What say you?

I say its written by hateful people to ignorant and blind to see how it would really effect life. allowing men homosexual marriages will not confuse the younger generations.

Greeks had same sex marriage, Christianity is one of only a hanf full of religions that has looked down on same sex unions

Saved, like you'll even visit this thread again...those 11 arguments are recycled going back to black marriage, inter-racial marriage, and more

1.

from the article wrote:Cohabitation and short-term relationships are the inevitable result. Ask the Norwegians, the Swedes, and the people from the Netherlands. That is exactly what is happening there.

Well, here's your chance to ask, since I do live in the Netherlands, and I can assure you it's complete and utter BS.

People here actually stay married LONGER than in the US on average, and I'm pretty sure that counts for the other countries as well.

2.

from the article wrote:Because homosexuals are rarely monogamous, often having as many as three hundred or more partners in a lifetime — some studies say it is typically more than one thousand — children in those polyamorous situations are caught in a perpetual coming and going.

This is just as well utter BS, because at least over here, you can only adopt a child (the only means of having a child for those couples) if you have been in a stable relationship for a while. This counts for both heterosexual as well as homosexual couples.

3.

from the article wrote:With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach this perversion as the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

More BS. The topic of marriage (and especially the so-called sanctity of it) wasn't point of discussion at school for me. So they won't have to be concerned about that, either. Teaching kids about something is a far cry from "embracing it", too.

4.

from the article wrote:From the moment that homosexual marriage becomes legal, courts will not be able to favor a traditional couple of one man and one woman in matters of adoption. Children will be placed in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal basis with those having a mom and a dad. Even the polyamorous couples won’t be excluded. The prospect of fatherless and motherless children will not be considered in the evaluation of eligibility. It will be the law.

See point two. People over here have to be in a long and stable relationship to be able to adopt a child. Polyamourous folks won't get to play father or mommy. Aside from that, looking at the divorce rate in the US and other industrialized nations, isn't this "one-sided-parenting" already the case for far too many children to begin with?!?

To be honest, at this point I stopped reading. If I can easily discredit the first four out of eleven points just from common knowledge, then I can well disregard the rest of an article based on irrational homophobia out of religious dogma. All it does is project the problems of the entire society on a minority. That's a very narrow and dangerous view, if you ask me.

Look, I work with a couple of homosexual people, and to be honest, I find them more caring and loving than most others, so much in fact that I'd almost go as far as wishing they'd been my parents instead of my actual ones. The real problem at hand are unstable families of the heterosexual type, because they raise the large majority of the kids. Most of the problems that the article is addressing isn't caused by homos, but by heteros! If the hetero marriage were all that grand and everything, there wouldn't even be many kids left for homosexual couples to adopt! After all, it's obviously the heteros who are creating the kids who are then subjected to being raised by someone else.

I would find it much more worthwhile to address the problems of the traditional families than to shift one's focus to a minority that obviously has nothing to do with the actual problems at hand. In psychology, that's a self-defense mechanism called projection, and it's automatically used by us humans to not lower one's own self-esteem by acknowledging one's own faults, but projecting them on other people or objects. Much like beating your kids or dog for your own shortcomings (hopefully nobody reading here does this, but there are people who do).

My 2c,
Ronald

Roody wrote:I say that one is always more effective trying to change one's view when they arent shoving their view down the throat of others.

Thanks to Seed for setting the facts straight.

While I can see a little kid wanting to know why he doesn't have a mommy, it would be weird and he would get made fun of in school more probably...which is wrong. I really dont see how it would corrupt the family structure or whatever...2 stable parents is better then a single mom, or a drunkard dad.

See drdoug, I agree with you on that point, however, it isn't of much concern in a more open-minded society. You know, people can also look at homosexual couples that are raising a kid (carefully selected, as with hetero adoptions) as two loving people raising a child with love, instead of evil abominations from hell creating more monsters. It's all about how the society as a whole perceives the issue of homosexuality. In a society where homosexual marriages are allowed, said kids would not be harrassed much because of that, since it's not viewed as abomination to begin with. Fun made of a bit, yeah, but who didn't go through that as a child? "Even" as a heterosexual child in a heterosexual family, I sure as hell did.

LMAO @ Jim

YARDofSTUF wrote:LMAO @ Jim

jayyy wrote:Check this search on saved's posts- http://forums.speedguide.net/search.php?searchid=95755

EVERY SINGLE ONE is religious in nature. And the vast majority are from threads he started himself.

I'm starting to suspect that he's not even a real member of SG. A lot of these religious groups are doing this sort of grassroots campaigning, where they encourage people to post their views on message boards online.

I suspect this is just on of a dozen or so UBBs he cuts and pastes this crap to. He's the religious equivalent of those guys that register just to ask if we can help them win an ipod.

...only worse, because unlike them he never goes away.

Did you just now figure this out Jayyy? I've known it for a while.

drdoug99 wrote:

Thanks to Seed for setting the facts straight.

While I can see a little kid wanting to know why he doesn't have a mommy, it would be weird and he would get made fun of in school more probably...which is wrong. I really dont see how it would corrupt the family structure or whatever...2 stable parents is better then a single mom, or a drunkard dad.

Two homosexuals are not stable. Any person who practices same sex is not stable, period.

I dunno where you've been Saved, but I know a hell of alot more stright people who should have been chemically castraed at Puberty...

saved wrote:Two homosexuals are not stable. Any person who practices same sex is not stable, period.

HOLD THE PHONE EINSTEIN.

Prove that...prove it.

I find homosexual...uhm...sexual practices a bit un-nerving myself, but not something I'd ascribe insanity to. Take a lookie at the Bonobo(sp?) monkey. These little scamps engage in all kinds of twisted sex-play...for food, attention, power in troops...etc. It's a physical trait, a gene or chromosone somewhere gets outta place(in terms of general population, a mutation of sorts) and WHAM, yer a queer. Be it a monkey, dog, goat..whatever. Add to this that a chicken has 99.3(off the top of my head, number might be off) of the SAME genetic material we do. A monkey is even closer. Are they gonna go to monkey hell?

I've given up trying to judge folks, it is such a waste of my time. People are people and they all march to the rythm of a different drummer. Best policy is to be kind and listen. Offer help when you can and mind your own damn business. Granted there are times when you hafta step up and fight the good fight to protect what is important to you, but just because it is important to you....don't think it is for everyone.

CiscoKid wrote:I dunno where you've been Saved, but I know a hell of alot more stright people who should have been chemically castraed at Puberty...

Amen.

CiscoKid wrote:I dunno where you've been Saved, but I know a hell of alot more stright people who should have been chemically castraed at Puberty...

There is no disagreement here, but the fact that two people who are the same sex and having sexual relations shows they too are not stable.

saved wrote:There is no disagreement here, but the fact that two people who are the same sex and having sexual relations shows they too are not stable.

PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT.

brembo wrote:HOLD THE PHONE EINSTEIN.

Prove that...prove it.

I find homosexual...uhm...sexual practices a bit un-nerving myself, but not something I'd ascribe insanity to. Take a lookie at the Bonobo(sp?) monkey. These little scamps engage in all kinds of twisted sex-play...for food, attention, power in troops...etc. It's a physical trait, a gene or chromosone somewhere gets outta place(in terms of general population, a mutation of sorts) and WHAM, yer a queer. Be it a monkey, dog, goat..whatever. Add to this that a chicken has 99.3(off the top of my head, number might be off) of the SAME genetic material we do. A monkey is even closer. Are they gonna go to monkey hell?

I've given up trying to judge folks, it is such a waste of my time. People are people and they all march to the rythm of a different drummer. Best policy is to be kind and listen. Offer help when you can and mind your own damn business. Granted there are times when you hafta step up and fight the good fight to protect what is important to you, but just because it is important to you....don't think it is for everyone.

Humans are not monkeys. We have a brain and choice to make and it does not take someone who is fi beta capa to understand that any same sex relations is wrong and comes from not being satable.

How? Saved, give me FACTS that support gays are unstable!

hetro couples engage in anal sex just as much as gay couples, if not more so as alot of dudes I've talked to have openly admitted to hateing anal. These guys being more gay then Gay Gayerson

brembo wrote:PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT. PROVE IT.

The act proves it.

saved wrote:The act proves it.

How?

show me books from REAL proffesions that support it

saved wrote:Humans are not monkeys. We have a brain and choice to make and it does not take someone who is fi beta capa to understand that any same sex relations is wrong and comes from not being satable.

Circuitous logic gets you nowhere. Monkeys have a brain. They have a choice. Who says same-sex relations are wrong? Who makes that decision?

That's phi beta kappa and satiable.

can we ban this prick already?

Blisster wrote:can we ban this prick already?

Why not put it to a vote?

CiscoKid wrote:Why not put it to a vote?

Uh....Philip is in Florida, and you KNOW that ain't gonna help. Besides we'll need the UN to help out and somebody is liable to dissuade voters by menacing them at the polls.

*lawyers on stand-by*

CiscoKid wrote:How? Saved, give me FACTS that support gays are unstable!

hetro couples engage in anal sex just as much as gay couples, if not more so as alot of dudes I've talked to have openly admitted to hateing anal. These guys being more gay then Gay Gayerson

That would not be correct. Homosexaul couple only ingae in unnatural sex. It isa true that some hetro couples engage in unnatural sexual relations, but their actions do not excuse homosexual actions. It only shows the depravity of the human race.

what would you consider natural sexual relations?

saved wrote: Homosexaul couple only ingae in unnatural sex. It only shows the depravity of the human race.

Where is this documented? I know where yer gonna point to. The Bible, Soddom and Gamorah(sp?) brinstone, salt...the works. Again, the Bible is your source, some people DON'T view the Bible as the end all be all for the yardstick of morality. Some use the Koran, some use the Talmud, takes all kinds to make the world go 'round.

The thrust of this is that just because it's wrong to YOU does not make it wrong to me. Some folks eat dogs. I find that horrid, yet since it's thier choce to eat Lassie and it's not effecting me(other than grossing me out something fierce) I see no problem with such.

Kyler1 wrote:Did you just now figure this out Jayyy? I've known it for a while.

I wasn't paying so much attention to him before.

But if everyone feels this way, I vote we ban him.

I can deal with religious opinions that differ from mine. But this guy isn't really a member of this forum. This is just another pit-stop on his crusade to spam the information super-highway. And I'm sick of reading this junk mail.

Its like a jehovahs witness that constantly comes into a bar to harrass the patrons. Eventually, management will tell them to leave and not come back...right?