NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, this is my final word on the subject. I'm not trying to argue, i'm just stating my position. This is my opinion, so if you disagree, fine, but don't act like I'm evil or a Nazi or whatever.

1. Homosexuality is wrong.
2. Allowing them to marry will only encourage more to be gay.
3. Homosexuality is a choice.
4. There are documented cases of gays becoming straight again.
5. Gays do have the right to their opinion.
6. Christians have equal rights to our opinions.
7. Not allowing gay marriage makes gays unhappy.
8. Allowing gay marriage makes Christians equally unhappy.
9. This is not a racial discrimination issue.
10. Gays are not a race: they have a choice to be different.
11. Races don't have this choice.
12. Christians are a minority too.
13. Christians are being persecuted as much, or more than gays.
14. Gays have the same rights as straights, they just want more.
15. Christians don't want the right to marry same sex.
16. Christians are losing rights, as well as being denied others.
17. Gays aren't losing rights, just being denied one.
18. Allowing gay marriages will lead to more compromises.
19. Gays have the right to leave if they want.
20. This isn't a personal issue for me. I have gay friends. I just think homosexuality is wrong, and they agree.

Hmm, well you don't speak for this Christian.

And why would we care about what you think?

Ok, this is my final word on the subject. I'm not trying to argue, i'm just stating my position. This is my opinion, so if you disagree, fine, but don't act like I'm evil or a Nazi or whatever.

1 - lots of silly crap

20. This isn't a personal issue for me. I have gay friends. I just think homosexuality is wrong, and they agree.

They agree with your list? LOLOL Ok...you are not a Nazi, nor Evil.

Just .....STUPID! And your 'friends' ain't to bright either.

Here's question? why you would post this if you don't want anyone to argue with you?

If you're not willing to change your mind, then at least shut up about it, and spare us all the histrionics.

Here's my 'final word' on christians

1) Christianity is wrong.
2) Allowing Christians to marry will only encourage more to be Xian
3) Xianity is a choice
4) There are documented case of Xians becoming sane again
5) Xians do have the right to thier opinions
6) Sane people have an equal right to our opinion
7) Not Allowing Xianity to spread makes xians happy
8) Allowing Xianity to spread makes everyone else very, very sad.
9) This is not a racial discrimination issue
10) Xians are not a race; they made a choice to be different
11) Races don't have this choice
12)Sane people are a minority too (apparently, judging from these forums)
13) Sane people are being persecuted as much, or more than Xians (after all, who's forced to pledge allegiance to an imaginary guy they don't believe in ;)
14) Xians have the right to think and do whatver they want according to the law, they now want to restrict the rights of others
15) Xians are sometimes gay, jackass.
16) Xians have as many rights as anyone else, more than they deserve probably ;)
17) Sane people seem to be the victim of XIan moralizing
18) Allowing XIan marraige will lead to more religion
19) Xians have the right to leave if they want
20) THis isn't a personal issue for me. I have XIan friends. I just think XIanity is wrong, and they agree.

Now if you don't have anything constructive to say, and you're unwilling to change your mind or discuss with the rest of us sane people, the just leave it alone. Don't post on homosexual flavored threads.

That's if he really has any gay friends (which I highly doubt).

Yea erm hello we do live in a modern world and what you said offended me right and i'm hetrosexual right now just think of what your saying right you are making catholics look in a brilliant light (before you start i am) and gays are just these people who wont last anyway and they are being petty oh and one more thing right you said that gays have the same rights as streight people well they dont since we are debating wether gays should have the same marriage rights. And furthermore why is homosexuality just wrong? i think someone's just a little homophobic if you dont mind me saying so. I am sorry if this has caused offence but yours did to me so this is payback time if you want to talk some more then wire me

Thank you
The Allied States of Tempto

A lot of gays would argue that they had no choice in their sexuality. It's like asking a straight man to have sex with a man, just because everyone around them is doing it. Nobody would choose to be gay, it's a harder lifestyle. Don't see how it hurts anybody if gay people can get married, or if there's at least some sort of civil union. Just don't really see what the fuss is about, equality for all!!

1. Homosexuality is wrong.
2. Allowing them to marry will only encourage more to be gay.
3. Homosexuality is a choice.
4. There are documented cases of gays becoming straight again.
5. Gays do have the right to their opinion.
6. Christians have equal rights to our opinions.
7. Not allowing gay marriage makes gays unhappy.
8. Allowing gay marriage makes Christians equally unhappy.
9. This is not a racial discrimination issue.
10. Gays are not a race: they have a choice to be different.
11. Races don't have this choice.
12. Christians are a minority too.
13. Christians are being persecuted as much, or more than gays.
14. Gays have the same rights as straights, they just want more.
15. Christians don't want the right to marry same sex.
16. Christians are losing rights, as well as being denied others.
17. Gays aren't losing rights, just being denied one.
18. Allowing gay marriages will lead to more compromises.
19. Gays have the right to leave if they want.
20. This isn't a personal issue for me. I have gay friends. I just think homosexuality is wrong, and they agree.

Well I'm afraid I'll have to dispute some of this.
2. As far as I can tell the fear of marriage discourages the typical male from engaging in sexual relations. I don't see it being any different for homosexuals.
3. In some cases it is, but sometimes people are born with no inclination towards the opposite gender and every inclination towards the same. I've known of someone who hated gays all his life and wanted to kill them all, then he realized he was gay and he had issues with suicide. I'm not sure what happened in the end.
4. True.
5-9. I'm all for abolishing government subsidies for marriage and leaving it as a religious institution purely. Since gays can be "married" by Christian churches I see this issue as a theological debate.
13. In the US I wouldn't call the Christians a persecuted religion. Other places they are, but I don't have enough experience outside the US. On the other hand I wouldn't call homosexuals persecuted here either. Perhaps not treated equally...
14. Legalizing gay marriage would give straights the option to marry people of the same gender as well. So yes, they want more rights for everyone.
15. Many Christian gays would disagree here.
16-17. Every person in the US is losing rights.
19. They do, but where would they go?
20. Good, respectful opinions are needed on both sides, it's best if we can pick sides on issues and still get along without persecuting people.

(Now I have to reply to the anti-Christian post because this wouldn't go through.)

Here's question? why you would post this if you don't want anyone to argue with you?

If you're not willing to change your mind, then at least shut up about it, and spare us all the histrionics.

Here's my 'final word' on christians

1) Christianity is wrong.
2) Allowing Christians to marry will only encourage more to be Xian
3) Xianity is a choice
4) There are documented case of Xians becoming sane again
5) Xians do have the right to thier opinions
6) Sane people have an equal right to our opinion
7) Not Allowing Xianity to spread makes xians happy
8) Allowing Xianity to spread makes everyone else very, very sad.
9) This is not a racial discrimination issue
10) Xians are not a race; they made a choice to be different
11) Races don't have this choice
12)Sane people are a minority too (apparently, judging from these forums)
13) Sane people are being persecuted as much, or more than Xians (after all, who's forced to pledge allegiance to an imaginary guy they don't believe in ;)
14) Xians have the right to think and do whatver they want according to the law, they now want to restrict the rights of others
15) Xians are sometimes gay, jackass.
16) Xians have as many rights as anyone else, more than they deserve probably ;)
17) Sane people seem to be the victim of XIan moralizing
18) Allowing XIan marraige will lead to more religion
19) Xians have the right to leave if they want
20) THis isn't a personal issue for me. I have XIan friends. I just think XIanity is wrong, and they agree.

Now if you don't have anything constructive to say, and you're unwilling to change your mind or discuss with the rest of us sane people, the just leave it alone. Don't post on homosexual flavored threads.

right on, and i am with you 100%. :)

Late Earth, you aren't a friend to anybody if you tell them their sexual orientation is evil. they have no more say in being gay than you have in being straight, and if you can't take the time to learn the biologically established realities of sexuality then you shouldn't be judging anybody at all. your ignorance is laughable and vastly entertaining, but unless you want to continue to be the butt of a very lame joke i would suggest you grow up a little.

Here's my final stance.

You're an idiot.

Wait, wait, sorry, let me try that again.

Morality is subjective, not everyone believes what you believe. To have a free society we can not make laws that directly infringe on people's rights. Unless those laws are there to keep people from infringing on other's rights.

So to solve this case, we must ask two simple questions.

Does allowing gay marriage directly infringe on anyone's rights? No.

Does banning gay marriage directly infringe on anyone's rights? Yes.

Case closed.

Honestly, if you didn't want to be called a Nazi then why did you post bigoted opinions that only show how intolerant and narrow-minded you are? That's like getting a job and then deciding you don't want to take responsibility for your work. And I'm sorry, but all (and yes I mean all) of your so-called points are very weak and have no leg-to-stand-on. I have nothing against people who disagree with someone else's preferences anymore than I care that some people don't like the colour silver as much as I do, but when you're THAT stupid, you deserve to get called a Nazi. Now, let me just show everyone else who is intelligent just how weak, childish, and/or intolerant your list is.
----------------

1. Homosexuality is wrong. ::I can accept this as a typical opinion; some people just don't agree with homosexuality, but what you can't comprehend doesn't make anything wrong if it isn't hurting someone::
2. Allowing them to marry will only encourage more to be gay. ::How? It may encourage them to get come out and get married, but I have yet to see anyone just randomly turn gay because of the same-sex marraiges in San Fran::
3. Homosexuality is a choice. ::If you aren't gay, then how do you know? You obviously haven't experienced it so this isn't just an opinion, but this is ignorance also.::
4. There are documented cases of gays becoming straight again. :There are also documented cases of straights going gay. Your point? There is also bisexuality.::
5. Gays do have the right to their opinion. ::No...EVERYONE has a right to their opinion. So now you just look like you're trying to cater to homosexuals with this statement to make up for the rest of your incomprehensiveness::
6. Christians have equal rights to our opinions. ::I know where the one is going and like I said about "EVERYONE", but that doesn't give anyone the right to shove their beliefs down others' throats.::
7. Not allowing gay marriage makes gays unhappy. ::Not allowing a dog have a bone makes dogs unhappy. Again, your point? Equal rights means equal benefits to every consentful couple.::
8. Allowing gay marriage makes Christians equally unhappy. ::Big fucking deal. They don't get all the legal benefits to themselves anymore. They don't get to sit on a pedastal higher than the rest. They need to mind their own life and not everyone else's.::
9. This is not a racial discrimination issue. ::This is just out of the blue...There's no reason to state what has no purpose in the argument.::
10. Gays are not a race: they have a choice to be different. ::Gays aren't a race..so? Women aren't a race either, but that never stopped them from fighting for women's suffrage. And once again, I could understand if you were a gay and felt that you personally had the choice, but I hardly doubt that, so once again this is just not opinion, it's ignorance.::
11. Races don't have this choice. ::Didn't you just say homosexuality isn't a race or something just as random as that?::
12. Christians are a minority too. ::What nation are you living in? You need World Civics because as far as religion speaks...Christianity is the majority in most leading nations. Minority is an over rated excuse for people to steal rights from others.::
13. Christians are being persecuted as much, or more than gays. ::EVERYONE is being persecuted for something. No matter who someone is, they are being discriminated for something. To say that Christians are getting it worse is biggoted, concieted, and ignorant. For example, where I live, if you aren't Christian you are "persecuted".::
14. Gays have the same rights as straights, they just want more. ::If they had the same rights then how come gay marraige is legalized across the whole world? If they had equal rights then how come they aren't allowed in the military? I don't ever see a hetro get jumped and discrimainated just because they like the opposite sex, now...if you're a whore, that's probably a whole different story.::
15. Christians don't want the right to marry same sex. ::I'm sure if they're gay they do.::
16. Christians are losing rights, as well as being denied others. ::Where's your proof of this one too? What I think is that everyone is learning that we don't have to take shit from self-interested religious groups or give them extra privileges just because they worship a historical figure.::
17. Gays aren't losing rights, just being denied one. ::Once again, you're just plain blind and ignorant. I'll name them again. Gays aren't allowed to marry, they aren't allowed in the military, they aren't allowed to hold certain jobs, etc.::
18. Allowing gay marriages will lead to more compromises. ::Life is full of compromises. Every decision in court is a compromise in one way or another.::
19. Gays have the right to leave if they want. ::Leave what? You can leave this forum if you like. I encourage it. :)::
20. This isn't a personal issue for me. I have gay friends. I just think homosexuality is wrong, and they agree. ::I think your friends are going through a very difficult phase that YOU don't understand and that they are feeling opressed and guilty over. Guilty of what, I have no idea. To be who you are is not a sin if it doesn't bring others down.::

You know what, I do think you have a personal issue and you need to get it solved. I'm sure you're a bright person and you can do just that much.

2. Allowing them to marry will only encourage more to be gay.

One day,
Bill turned to his wife of fifteen years and said, "Gee honey, I noticed that Carl and Bruce next door just got married.....I was thinking of dating your brother."

Idiot.

It seems to me promoting gay monogamy would be desirable if only for public health reasons. Reduction of promiscuity in any contingent of people, gay or no, reduces the prevalence of STDs. What's bad about that?

I think its funny that the original poster hasnt bothered to reply, maybe he's too much of an ignoramus to realize that stating such biogted claims with no basis whatsoever (i.e. Homosexuality is choice, There is a large amount of SCIENTIFIC evidence that shows that there are strong GENETIC contributions to sexual orientation. If you like I will reasearch this as I have been meaning to do so for a while) is just strengthening the case against using fundamentalist christian morality as the basis for national law. (Which is strong enough already IMO)

Maybe he just has trouble reading all the posts cuase he never finished 6th grade? maybe he is just talking shit for the sake of causing a flurry of heated posts? MAybe he really does believe this shite? WHO CARES? NOT ME. This guy is an asshole, end of story, lets get on with our lives and stop wasting bandwidth.

1. Homosexuality is wrong.

No it's not, maybe in your opinion, but in my opinion it is not.

2. Allowing them to marry will only encourage more to be gay.

Does allowing heterosexual marriage encourage more people to be straight? Hardly, look at the growing divorce rates.

3. Homosexuality is a choice.

Trust me, it's not. The choice is simply to accept who and what you are or to conceal and apply a veneer of denial upon yourself.

4. There are documented cases of gays becoming straight again.

Documented by the ex-gay groups as funded by the religious right in the US no doubt. The ex-gay movement is a sordid and despicable movement that'd be unlawful in the UK.

5. Gays do have the right to their opinion.

Agreed

6. Christians have equal rights to our opinions.

Everyone is allowed an opinion, christian or whatever.

7. Not allowing gay marriage makes gays unhappy.

You wish therefore to bring about unhappyness? How compassionate indeed.

8. Allowing gay marriage makes Christians equally unhappy.

Some christians, not all.

9. This is not a racial discrimination issue.

No, it's a sexuality discrimination issue.

10. Gays are not a race: they have a choice to be different.

The concept of a gay race is a tough one, there is unity amongst the community for their shared persecution. I'd say there is no gay race as such, sexuality is a separate element of one's person.

11. Races don't have this choice.

Races are as they are, just as sexuality is as it is.

12. Christians are a minority too.

Yes, but true christians always have been. Today however we have fewer people who corrupt the authority of a church based system (theocracy) and use it as a control system over people. If anything 'true' christians are more prevailant than ever.

13. Christians are being persecuted as much, or more than gays.

No I disagree, muslims are probably the main victims of religious persecution today.

14. Gays have the same rights as straights, they just want more.

No gays do not have the same rights, although in the EU they almost do now, just a matter of inheritance and pension rights to resolve.

15. Christians don't want the right to marry same sex.

Have you asked them all?

16. Christians are losing rights, as well as being denied others.

Such as?

17. Gays aren't losing rights, just being denied one.

Legal recognition of a same-sex relationship is important.

18. Allowing gay marriages will lead to more compromises.

Like what? Anti-discrimination policies? Wouldn't that be dreadful!!

19. Gays have the right to leave if they want.

No they don't.

20. This isn't a personal issue for me. I have gay friends. I just think homosexuality is wrong, and they agree.

Some friend you are!

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Here's my final stance.

You're an idiot..

Hey yer taken me job! LOL :)

...equality for all!!

That's all this really boils down to in the end. If you don't want gays to marry, just abolish marriage for everyone. That's the only fair solution.

Nothing wrong with gays, christians or gay christians. So long as one does not lose sight of a diplomatic solution. The great thing about diplomacy is to work with people that can be different and equal. There are laws about gay marriage, not to be discriminate against, just as there are laws for christianity, not to be discriminated upon. Sometimes christians leave the belief too, because people are just where they are at in their point of their lives. That is what makes us unique and diverse.

Nothing wrong with gays, christians or gay christians. So long as one does not lose sight of a diplomatic solution. The great thing about diplomacy is to work with people that can be different and equal. There are laws about gay marriage, not to be discriminate against, just as there are laws for christianity, not to be discriminated upon. Sometimes christians leave the belief too, because people are just where they are at in their point of their lives. That is what makes us unique and diverse.

Late Earth, you aren't a friend to anybody if you tell them their sexual orientation is evil.
By definition, there are an unlimited number of sexual orientations. Why is the homosexual "orientation" acceptable while others are not?

they have no more say in being gay than you have in being straight, and if you can't take the time to learn the biologically established realities of sexuality then you shouldn't be judging anybody at all.
Homosexuality is a learned behavior like any other and there is no evidence to suggest that it can't be helped.

I think you guys are missing the point that gay people are horrible, corrupting, and led by the Anti-Christ.

No, not really.


Let's face it, to every gay person I've ever spoken to, and to every non-religious right funded study, homosexuality is not a choice. And even if it was, there is absolutely no problem with it. Just because a few people are too goddamned intolerant of people who are different gives them no reason to withhold rights.

And let's be honest, if you're going to unquestionably follow a book that was written by 5 old, anti-woman people that was written supposedly 2000 years ago, your logic needs to be updated...

2 points
1. You realise that any society the favors gays will last, say 1 generation. By this, gays will always be a small minority and they dont need help to try to keep it that way.
2. This isnt only moral is economical. There are lots of federal benefits of getting married. Civil Unions dont cover them. Why should the government tax couples differently, unless its looking into you house and sees something to raise the tax. I am sure EVERYONE doesnt want the government to be auditing us on our sexual activities.

and one last thing people ask to be critisized, when they post their opinions. (anyone want to argue about that?)

That's odd, I'm a straight christian and go to church every sunday yet I believe strongly in the right for gay people to marry....I wonder why....oh, yeah, I'm liberal :D

Late Earth, you aren't a friend to anybody if you tell them their sexual orientation is evil.
By definition, there are an unlimited number of sexual orientations. Why is the homosexual "orientation" acceptable while others are not?

they have no more say in being gay than you have in being straight, and if you can't take the time to learn the biologically established realities of sexuality then you shouldn't be judging anybody at all.
Homosexuality is a learned behavior like any other and there is no evidence to suggest that it can't be helped.

Snubis, i have refuted both of these "points" at least half a dozen times. please come up with some new material, you're boring now.

Late Earth, you aren't a friend to anybody if you tell them their sexual orientation is evil.
By definition, there are an unlimited number of sexual orientations. Why is the homosexual "orientation" acceptable while others are not?

they have no more say in being gay than you have in being straight, and if you can't take the time to learn the biologically established realities of sexuality then you shouldn't be judging anybody at all.
Homosexuality is a learned behavior like any other and there is no evidence to suggest that it can't be helped.

Snubis, i have refuted both of these "points" at least half a dozen times. please come up with some new material, you're boring now.
Homosexuals are persecuted, and this needs to stop. You sadistic conservatives should stop preaching hate.

Late Earth does not speak for this Christian either

Have you guys actually read any of these posts? Late Earth put together a nice, fair, list of his opinion. He didn't slam anyone, and was pretty good about it. And you guys proceeded to slam him and just act like a bunch of little kids. Now, one of you, Traha Odj, put together a nice, fair, list of his opinions, against Late Earth's. He didn't slam anyone and was pretty good about it. The rest of you, have acted like morons. Please think about your posts before making yourselves look like idiots. And I don't think he meant to speak for all of you so called "Christians" alright? So, please, put together some nice, meaningful, well thought out posts, instead of immediately discounting others, and calling them names. You are being just as bigoted as you claim he is.

Have you guys actually read any of these posts? Late Earth put together a nice, fair, list of his opinion. He didn't slam anyone, and was pretty good about it. And you guys proceeded to slam him and just act like a bunch of little kids. Now, one of you, Traha Odj, put together a nice, fair, list of his opinions, against Late Earth's. He didn't slam anyone and was pretty good about it. The rest of you, have acted like morons. Please think about your posts before making yourselves look like idiots. And I don't think he meant to speak for all of you so called "Christians" alright? So, please, put together some nice, meaningful, well thought out posts, instead of immediately discounting others, and calling them names. You are being just as bigoted as you claim he is.

Have you guys actually read any of these posts? Late Earth put together a nice, fair, list of his opinion. He didn't slam anyone, and was pretty good about it. And you guys proceeded to slam him and just act like a bunch of little kids. Now, one of you, Traha Odj, put together a nice, fair, list of his opinions, against Late Earth's. He didn't slam anyone and was pretty good about it. The rest of you, have acted like morons. Please think about your posts before making yourselves look like idiots. And I don't think he meant to speak for all of you so called "Christians" alright? So, please, put together some nice, meaningful, well thought out posts, instead of immediately discounting others, and calling them names. You are being just as bigoted as you claim he is.

sorry if you're new here (your post count suggests you might be), but there are several of us who have beaten this dead horse with Late Earth on another topic. we're all a little tired of hearing the same old crud from people who simply have chosen to hate homosexuals and aren't going to let go of their opinions no matter how much evidence piles up against them. if tempers seem short then it's probably because some of us have lost patience with the lack of inventiveness from the homophobes...i personally make a point to present NEW material whenever possible, but the anti-gay crowd just seem to parakeet the trademark lines no matter what is said to them. it'd boring, it's bad debating, and it's childish enough to make even the best of us start to fray around the edges.

1. Homosexuality is wrong.
2. Allowing them to marry will only encourage more to be gay.
3. Homosexuality is a choice.
4. There are documented cases of gays becoming straight again.
5. Gays do have the right to their opinion.
6. Christians have equal rights to our opinions.
7. Not allowing gay marriage makes gays unhappy.
8. Allowing gay marriage makes Christians equally unhappy.
9. This is not a racial discrimination issue.
10. Gays are not a race: they have a choice to be different.
11. Races don't have this choice.
12. Christians are a minority too.
13. Christians are being persecuted as much, or more than gays.
14. Gays have the same rights as straights, they just want more.
15. Christians don't want the right to marry same sex.
16. Christians are losing rights, as well as being denied others.
17. Gays aren't losing rights, just being denied one.
18. Allowing gay marriages will lead to more compromises.
19. Gays have the right to leave if they want.
20. This isn't a personal issue for me. I have gay friends. I just think homosexuality is wrong, and they agree.

The Nation of Kahad agrees with all of the above.

16. Christians are losing rights, as well as being denied others.
17. Gays aren't losing rights, just being denied one.

...

The Nation of Kahad agrees with all of the above.

exactly what rights would be denied to Christians as a result of allowing gay marriage? what marital rights are Christians being denied right now?

Christains arn't having their rights taken away, just their power, now, losing all your power to control others is a big thing and mant just want to cover it up as something else like your doing with saying this takes away christian righs which in this case means I want to control, I have been controling, let me keep my power. This is a perfiectly human trait, you just need to realize what is going on and move on, because you will not always nessicarly always be in control... I hope you are willing to un-opress the people you have for at least sevral hundred years now and not push it off on something else.

I think you guys are missing the point that gay people are horrible, corrupting, and led by the Anti-Christ.
I am offended by your classification of homosexuals as "people," when in fact, as all right thinking people know, they are merely an advanced form of Lichen.

I think you guys are missing the point that gay people are horrible, corrupting, and led by the Anti-Christ.
I am offended by your classification of homosexuals as "people," when in fact, as all right thinking people know, they are merely an advanced form of Lichen.
not to mention the well-proven fact that they eat babies.

There is more in this world than Christians. And a lot smarter. If we all talked to invisble things, we would still be in the darl ages, you selfcentered ignorant homophobe.

I disagree. The Christians (when I saw Christians, I mean those that follow the Bible) never had Power. Most of Power that you say the Christain had was held by people who were Polticians pretending to be men of God, and corrupt ones at that. Forgive my bad speling and Grammer, I just got of work and my brains been fried.

2. Allowing them to marry will only encourage more to be gay.

One day,
Bill turned to his wife of fifteen years and said, "Gee honey, I noticed that Carl and Bruce next door just got married.....I was thinking of dating your brother."

Idiot.

hahahahaha :lol:

13. Christians are being persecuted as much, or more than gays.













:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
This is just too ridiculous. I don't believe someone could write this.

13. Christians are being persecuted as much, or more than gays.

It's true. All you have to do is open your eyes and take a good look around. I've seen it even here in America.

13. Christians are being persecuted as much, or more than gays.

It's true. All you have to do is open your eyes and take a good look around. I've seen it even here in America.

examples?

Late Earth, you aren't a friend to anybody if you tell them their sexual orientation is evil.
By definition, there are an unlimited number of sexual orientations. Why is the homosexual "orientation" acceptable while others are not?

well, sexual orientations range from purely heterosexual to purely homosexual with variations on levels of attraction to either sex in between. not to mention different levels of sex drives from non existant to umm... like a rabbit in heat.
all those orientations are perfectly acceptable. hell, so say that only homosexuality is acceptable would mean that i was saying that i wasn't of an acceptable orientation.. :roll:

they have no more say in being gay than you have in being straight, and if you can't take the time to learn the biologically established realities of sexuality then you shouldn't be judging anybody at all.
Homosexuality is a learned behavior like any other and there is no evidence to suggest that it can't be helped.

homosexual acts are learned behaviours. so are heterosexual acts. do you think everyone's a great sex partner their first try? no, it takes practice. however, someone with no sexual experience can still be gay. just as they could be straight... it's just who they are. well, part of who they are in any case.
yes, the behaviour can be helped, so can heterosexual behaviour. any heterosexual can become celibate, as any homosexual or bisexual can...
but why force homosexuals to be celibate? it makes no sense.

Late Earth, you aren't a friend to anybody if you tell them their sexual orientation is evil.
By definition, there are an unlimited number of sexual orientations. Why is the homosexual "orientation" acceptable while others are not?

well, sexual orientations range from purely heterosexual to purely homosexual with variations on levels of attraction to either sex in between. not to mention different levels of sex drives from non existant to umm... like a rabbit in heat.
all those orientations are perfectly acceptable. hell, so say that only homosexuality is acceptable would mean that i was saying that i wasn't of an acceptable orientation.. :roll:

they have no more say in being gay than you have in being straight, and if you can't take the time to learn the biologically established realities of sexuality then you shouldn't be judging anybody at all.
Homosexuality is a learned behavior like any other and there is no evidence to suggest that it can't be helped.

homosexual acts are learned behaviours. so are heterosexual acts. do you think everyone's a great sex partner their first try? no, it takes practice. however, someone with no sexual experience can still be gay. just as they could be straight... it's just who they are. well, part of who they are in any case.
yes, the behaviour can be helped, so can heterosexual behaviour. any heterosexual can become celibate, as any homosexual or bisexual can...
but why force homosexuals to be celibate? it makes no sense.

Late Earth, you aren't a friend to anybody if you tell them their sexual orientation is evil.
By definition, there are an unlimited number of sexual orientations. Why is the homosexual "orientation" acceptable while others are not?

well, sexual orientations range from purely heterosexual to purely homosexual with variations on levels of attraction to either sex in between. not to mention different levels of sex drives from non existant to umm... like a rabbit in heat.
all those orientations are perfectly acceptable. hell, so say that only homosexuality is acceptable would mean that i was saying that i wasn't of an acceptable orientation.. :roll:

they have no more say in being gay than you have in being straight, and if you can't take the time to learn the biologically established realities of sexuality then you shouldn't be judging anybody at all.
Homosexuality is a learned behavior like any other and there is no evidence to suggest that it can't be helped.

homosexual acts are learned behaviours. so are heterosexual acts. do you think everyone's a great sex partner their first try? no, it takes practice. however, someone with no sexual experience can still be gay. just as they could be straight... it's just who they are. well, part of who they are in any case.
yes, the behaviour can be helped, so can heterosexual behaviour. any heterosexual can become celibate, as any homosexual or bisexual can...
but why force homosexuals to be celibate? it makes no sense.

Late Earth, you aren't a friend to anybody if you tell them their sexual orientation is evil.
By definition, there are an unlimited number of sexual orientations. Why is the homosexual "orientation" acceptable while others are not?

well, sexual orientations range from purely heterosexual to purely homosexual with variations on levels of attraction to either sex in between. not to mention different levels of sex drives from non existant to umm... like a rabbit in heat.
all those orientations are perfectly acceptable. hell, so say that only homosexuality is acceptable would mean that i was saying that i wasn't of an acceptable orientation.. :roll:

they have no more say in being gay than you have in being straight, and if you can't take the time to learn the biologically established realities of sexuality then you shouldn't be judging anybody at all.
Homosexuality is a learned behavior like any other and there is no evidence to suggest that it can't be helped.

homosexual acts are learned behaviours. so are heterosexual acts. do you think everyone's a great sex partner their first try? no, it takes practice. however, someone with no sexual experience can still be gay. just as they could be straight... it's just who they are. well, part of who they are in any case.
yes, the behaviour can be helped, so can heterosexual behaviour. any heterosexual can become celibate, as any homosexual or bisexual can...
but why force homosexuals to be celibate? it makes no sense.

Think I'll give My man some support.

Genetic Basis for homosexuality is still based on some tenuous suppositions.

the effect of psychologically significant events during childhood, hormonal imbalance amplified by environmental factors and a larger corpus callosum in the brain could all shed light on possible reasons for sexual orientation.

It's also important to question marriage as an institution. On homosexuality, the bible is quite succinct, promtly condeming it as a perversion. If a gay marriage is parraded under the fracade of christian, performed in a christian church under christian vows, then I belive it is wrong.

If however it is a legal contract then it cannot be wrong as a contract can be drawn up about anything.

I appologise for conflicting with the respondies antidisestablishmentarianistic views but it is obvious the poster of this forum and a brain is an oxymoronic juxtaposition.

he needed support, give him a break.

Americans need help sometimes :wink:

Think I'll give My man some support.

Genetic Basis for homosexuality is still based on some tenuous suppositions.

the effect of psychologically significant events during childhood, hormonal imbalance amplified by environmental factors and a larger corpus callosum in the brain could all shed light on possible reasons for sexual orientation.

It's also important to question marriage as an institution. On homosexuality, the bible is quite succinct, promtly condeming it as a perversion. If a gay marriage is parraded under the fracade of christian, performed in a christian church under christian vows, then I belive it is wrong.

If however it is a legal contract then it cannot be wrong as a contract can be drawn up about anything.

I appologise for conflicting with the respondies antidisestablishmentarianistic views but it is obvious the poster of this forum and a brain is an oxymoronic juxtaposition.

he needed support, give him a break.

Americans need help sometimes :wink:

Late Earth, you aren't a friend to anybody if you tell them their sexual orientation is evil.
By definition, there are an unlimited number of sexual orientations. Why is the homosexual "orientation" acceptable while others are not?

they have no more say in being gay than you have in being straight, and if you can't take the time to learn the biologically established realities of sexuality then you shouldn't be judging anybody at all.
Homosexuality is a learned behavior like any other and there is no evidence to suggest that it can't be helped.

Snubis, i have refuted both of these "points" at least half a dozen times. please come up with some new material, you're boring now.
Stop lying. You've only succeded in avoiding the issue.

sorry if you're new here (your post count suggests you might be), but there are several of us who have beaten this dead horse with Late Earth on another topic. we're all a little tired of hearing the same old crud from people who simply have chosen to hate homosexuals and aren't going to let go of their opinions no matter how much evidence piles up against them. if tempers seem short then it's probably because some of us have lost patience with the lack of inventiveness from the homophobes...i personally make a point to present NEW material whenever possible, but the anti-gay crowd just seem to parakeet the trademark lines no matter what is said to them. it'd boring, it's bad debating, and it's childish enough to make even the best of us start to fray around the edges.

You are annoyed with homosexual hate speech and that excuses your Christian hate speech? Keep throwing that bigotry at bigots. Tell me again how your positions are morally superior to those of the unwashed heathens.

sorry if you're new here (your post count suggests you might be), but there are several of us who have beaten this dead horse with Late Earth on another topic. we're all a little tired of hearing the same old crud from people who simply have chosen to hate homosexuals and aren't going to let go of their opinions no matter how much evidence piles up against them. if tempers seem short then it's probably because some of us have lost patience with the lack of inventiveness from the homophobes...i personally make a point to present NEW material whenever possible, but the anti-gay crowd just seem to parakeet the trademark lines no matter what is said to them. it'd boring, it's bad debating, and it's childish enough to make even the best of us start to fray around the edges.

You are annoyed with homosexual hate speech and that excuses your Christian hate speech? Keep throwing that bigotry at bigots. Tell me again how your positions are morally superior to those of the unwashed heathens.

i don't believe i said one thing in that post about Christians. if you are saying that homophobia and ignorance are Christian traits then it is you who appear to be insulting Christians, not me.

try again.

Late Earth, you aren't a friend to anybody if you tell them their sexual orientation is evil.
By definition, there are an unlimited number of sexual orientations. Why is the homosexual "orientation" acceptable while others are not?

they have no more say in being gay than you have in being straight, and if you can't take the time to learn the biologically established realities of sexuality then you shouldn't be judging anybody at all.
Homosexuality is a learned behavior like any other and there is no evidence to suggest that it can't be helped.

Snubis, i have refuted both of these "points" at least half a dozen times. please come up with some new material, you're boring now.
Stop lying. You've only succeded in avoiding the issue.

*sigh* whatever. you're just not interesting, chum. we've talked about your concept of "orientation," we've talked about the relationship between environment, genetics, and homosexuality, and we've talked about your theories of rehabilitation for homosexuality. it's made no difference in your rambles so far, and i don't really see much point in consuming bandwidth doing it again...people can just click on your user name, look at your past posts, and let the record speak for itself.

I suppose we can continue debating this issue over and over, but the fact is that nobody here is going to change their mind. As far as I'm concerned, the government should get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses showing favor to one particular group. However, if marriage is removed, SOMETHING will have to replace it to ensure distribution of assets upon death, medical release, etc. So, as far as I can see, we can either: give all groups marriages, give all groups civil unions, or only give gays civil unions until our nation is ready for the leap to marriage. Just my two cents (or, my two UnReals :wink: ).

You are annoyed with homosexual hate speech and that excuses your Christian hate speech? Keep throwing that bigotry at bigots. Tell me again how your positions are morally superior to those of the unwashed heathens.

i don't believe i said one thing in that post about Christians. if you are saying that homophobia and ignorance are Christian traits then it is you who appear to be insulting Christians, not me.

try again.


Bottle, I have read some of your other posts and this is very different from those other posts.

Mallberta, Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:54 pm, no subject
“Christianity is wrong”
“Allowing Xianity to spread makes everyone else very, very sad”

Bottle, Tue Feb 17, 2004 4:23 pm, no subject
“right on, and i am with you 100%”

1. Homosexuality is wrong.
Only by your standard.

2. Allowing them to marry will only encourage more to be gay.
Why do you care if there are more homosexuals? You sound like a homophobe

3. Homosexuality is a choice.
And I'm sure you just chose to be straight. Mmmhmm...
I'm not saying that all are biologically made to be this way, but...

4. There are documented cases of gays becoming straight again.
There are also documented cases of heterosexuals becoming homosexuals. Interesting, I must conclude.

5. Gays do have the right to their opinion.
6. Christians have equal rights to our opinions.
Wow you have something worth saying.


7. Not allowing gay marriage makes gays unhappy.
8. Allowing gay marriage makes Christians equally unhappy.
9. This is not a racial discrimination issue.
10. Gays are not a race: they have a choice to be different.
11. Races don't have this choice.
Congregations of the Presbyterian, Episcopalians, and Methodists have married same-sex couples. I don't think that's completely true on making Christians unhappy.
Furthermore, if you feel a civil union is appropriate, your using the same mentality as the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of separate, but equal, which is inherently unequal. And you're still using the theory that it is a solely a choice.

]12. Christians are a minority too.
Yeah, I'm sure they are in Iraq and China, not in America. Flawed thoughts there.

3. Christians are being persecuted as much, or more than gays.
Perhaps in Iran, not in the US

14. Gays have the same rights as straights, they just want more.
This is a completely stupid arguement. Do your homework before you post. Married couples get none of the 1,049 Federal rights, and none of the states rights, except in Vermont where civil unions guarantee them state rights.

15. Christians don't want the right to marry same sex.
Again, do you homework first.

16. Christians are losing rights, as well as being denied others.
The right to oppress and discriminate against others?

[/quote=""]17. Gays aren't losing rights, just being denied one. [/quote]
They are fiscally disadvantaged. (http://www.marriageequalityca.org/taxation.php)
They are hurt on immigration. (http://www.marriageequalityca.org/immigration.php)

18. Allowing gay marriages will lead to more compromises.[/quotes]
Your essentially saying: we need to protect the traditional ideals of marriage, and I must say this: Protect it from what? Same-sex marriage could not cause harm to someone's marriage and family. No documentation exists which gives credence to this myth. In fact, European countries which have given massive legal recognition to same-sex relationships have reported no harm to opposite-sex couples and their families. Please articulate your concern.

Furthermore, didn't conservatives say the same thing in the 1960s concerning interracial marriages?

[quote=]19. Gays have the right to leave if they want.
Who are you to denote second rate citizenship? Want me to start giving you a 'heil'?

20. This isn't a personal issue for me. I have gay friends. I just think homosexuality is wrong, and they agree.

Right...I'm sure they agree full heartedly. :roll:

You are annoyed with homosexual hate speech and that excuses your Christian hate speech? Keep throwing that bigotry at bigots. Tell me again how your positions are morally superior to those of the unwashed heathens.

i don't believe i said one thing in that post about Christians. if you are saying that homophobia and ignorance are Christian traits then it is you who appear to be insulting Christians, not me.

try again.


Bottle, I have read some of your other posts and this is very different from those other posts.

Mallberta, Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:54 pm, no subject
“Christianity is wrong”
“Allowing Xianity to spread makes everyone else very, very sad”

Bottle, Tue Feb 17, 2004 4:23 pm, no subject
“right on, and i am with you 100%”

DUDE, IT WAS A PARODY!!!

i fully agree with the sentiment, the idea of showing how absurd and hypocritical the statements of the original poster were. i have many complaints about Christianity, but i have never once suggested that Christians be denied rights based on my objections to their faith. i also don't hate Christians, i simply think they are in serious need of help; it's like how i believe addiction to drugs is harmful and dangerous, but i don't hate the addicts.

it is quite possible to dislike someone's ideology without being a bigot, and that's exactly how things are with me and Christianity...after all, to tolerate something means to allow without prohibiting, not to agree with and support. i don't expect all people to like gays or endorse their sexual preference, and i certainly don't expect them to like me personally, but i do expect them to realize that their personal opinions are not grounds for denying civil rights.

Ok, this is my final word on the subject. I'm not trying to argue, i'm just stating my position. This is my opinion, so if you disagree, fine, but don't act like I'm evil or a Nazi or whatever.

1. Homosexuality is wrong.
2. Allowing them to marry will only encourage more to be gay.
3. Homosexuality is a choice.
4. There are documented cases of gays becoming straight again.
5. Gays do have the right to their opinion.
6. Christians have equal rights to our opinions.
7. Not allowing gay marriage makes gays unhappy.
8. Allowing gay marriage makes Christians equally unhappy.
9. This is not a racial discrimination issue.
10. Gays are not a race: they have a choice to be different.
11. Races don't have this choice.
12. Christians are a minority too.
13. Christians are being persecuted as much, or more than gays.
14. Gays have the same rights as straights, they just want more.
15. Christians don't want the right to marry same sex.
16. Christians are losing rights, as well as being denied others.
17. Gays aren't losing rights, just being denied one.
18. Allowing gay marriages will lead to more compromises.
19. Gays have the right to leave if they want.
20. This isn't a personal issue for me. I have gay friends. I just think homosexuality is wrong, and they agree.


wow...

1) Bigotry is wrong
2) Yup, i'm gonna go register at the gay-club so that I can be picked on by every moron on the planet.
3) You mean they choose to be the targets of bigots and that they choose to be beaten up by idiots? Carefull not to stare too much in the showers, you might catch "gay".
4) There are documented cases of religious nuts becoming atheist.
5) Yes they do
6) Yes you do
7) It's legal where I live...Everyone is happy
8 ) Even if it's not a "christian marriage"? In that case...piss off
9) You're right, it's a discrimination case though.
10) They are human though, just like me and you. And ah...yes, humans who have chosen to be beaten up and discriminated against everywere... :roll:
11) Oh...I chose to be white, didn't you?
12) But christianity is a choice so piss off, you have no rights!
13) Yes...all those gays are giving you a rough time, aren't they?
14) More rights than straights? I'm gonna turn gay (by choice of course) so that I can fight for my right to get my gay-check in the mail every month!
15) Some of them do...so piss off
16) Yes...They can't marry people of the same sex (unless you move to my country...but you're not really wanted here)
17) And that makes it better?
18 ) ooooh...yes...maybe they will soon be allowed to sit on the benches specifically marked "straights only"... ugh
19) So do you...
20) Yes...I notice that all backwards uber-rightwingers have "gay friends who admit they are sinning bastards who should have their testicles nailed to a wall"

DUDE, IT WAS A PARODY!!!


In that case, I apologize. I misunderstood.

DUDE, IT WAS A PARODY!!!


In that case, I apologize. I misunderstood.

quite accepted. sorry if i over-reacted. it's been a bitch of a day for me, but that's no reason to be short tempered around people who had nothing to do with it.

In that case, I apologize. I misunderstood.

quite accepted. sorry if i over-reacted. it's been a bitch of a day for me, but that's no reason to be short tempered around people who had nothing to do with it.

That is understandable.

My responses to the points origionally made, without insulting anyone...

1. Homosexuality is wrong.
This is a conclusion... I guess the evidence is coming up?

2. Allowing them to marry will only encourage more to be gay.
More gays to be gay? They already are. More people in general to be gay? Why would someone choose to be gay? The homosexuals I've talked to and know and love (as friends) and am friends with say it's not a choice to be gay, it's just a choice to come out or not. Being homosexual is harder these days anyway.

3. Homosexuality is a choice.
The homosexuals I've talked with disagree... see above.

4. There are documented cases of gays becoming straight again.
OK, fine... there are a few cases, out of the thousands of gay people, who have forced themselves to change.

5. Gays do have the right to their opinion.
Yes. But they don't have a right to force people to be gay. If you can prove gay marriage forces people to be gay who don't want to, gay marriage should be outlawed... but it doesn't, as far as I can see.

6. Christians have equal rights to our opinions.
Yes. But they don't have a right to force people to be Christian. Banning of gay marriage forces gay Christians and non-Christians to live up to your standards of Christianity, while there are plenty of accepting branches of Christianity.

7. Not allowing gay marriage makes gays unhappy.
True

8. Allowing gay marriage makes Christians equally unhappy.
Not all.

9. This is not a racial discrimination issue.
OK.

10. Gays are not a race: they have a choice to be different.
No, as stated above, they are born gay (If they are born gay, didn't God make them that way? If not, are you calling your gay friends satanic?

11. Races don't have this choice.
As stated above, neither do gays have a choice.

12. Christians are a minority too.
Not in the US or the UK... Maybe in China, or India, or yes, world wide... In fact, why should a minority of Christians impose their rules on others? Gays are not imposing anything on anyone, simply asking to be included.

13. Christians are being persecuted as much, or more than gays.
Where? I haven't seen nearly as much Christian persecution as gay persecution. In addition, Christians have been the persecutors throughout a lot of history, correct?

14. Gays have the same rights as straights, they just want more.
So heterosexuals don't have the right to marry, just as gays don't? That's news to me. Gays have a lot of

15. Christians don't want the right to marry same sex.
They do want the right to marry other Christians, don't they?

16. Christians are losing rights, as well as being denied others.
Which? Where?

17. Gays aren't losing rights, just being denied one.
So, gay marriage IS a right? And denying people rights is right?

18. Allowing gay marriages will lead to more compromises.
So giving people civil rights is a compromise?

19. Gays have the right to leave if they want.
So do Christians

20. This isn't a personal issue for me. I have gay friends. I just think homosexuality is wrong, and they agree.
I don't see the logic.

In addition, the Bible not only declares homosexuality sinful, but eating shell fish forbidden (in Leviticus, the same chapter as homosexuality), and slavery acceptable. What distinguishes rules we should follow from outdated rules?

Hmm, well you don't speak for this Christian.

And why would we care about what you think?

Be nice....and I've already pointed out the Catholic position on homosexuality that I think you are referring too...so yeah be nice!

What is sadder that this guys very bigoted opinion is that there are people in the forum that are going to read this and think that is how all Christians feel and think.

Homosexuality is a learned behavior like any other and there is no evidence to suggest that it can't be helped.

Im very sorry Snubis, but the is HUGE amount of empirical evidence showing that sexual orientation is influenced very strongly by genetics, and that is is not a learned trait, go do some real research and amybe you wont have to talk out of your ass anymore. (p.s. I looked up several supporting psychological journal articles this morning if you like I can post it again, but youll have to obtain the journa yourself as you cant get to the site without being on my college's LAN)

4. There are documented cases of gays becoming straight again.
Perhaps so. I have not seen any. I have seen documented cases of gays who have entered into heterosexual marriages. But what NARTH & Co, don't like mention is that so-called ex-gays still "struggle" with same-sex attractions. Neither do they like to mention that many ex-gays become ex-ex-gays. Now perhaps some people do change from gay to straight, who knows? But appears that the vast majority of gays simply cannot change their sexual orientation much if at all. Nor should they have to. I'm not inclined to deny someone a fullfilling relationship just because it happens to be with someone of the same sex. It would an evil for me to tell gays their attractions are wrong.

1. Homosexuality is wrong.

Prove this without using the bible or other religous evidence.

2. Allowing them to marry will only encourage more to be gay.

Do the current marriage laws encourge more people to be straight ?

3. Homosexuality is a choice.

So heterosexuality is also a choice ? Your statement lacks proof or evidence.

4. There are documented cases of gays becoming straight again.

And many cases of straight people becomming gay....

5. Gays do have the right to their opinion.

Very generous of you.

6. Christians have equal rights to our opinions.

Equal to whom ?

7. Not allowing gay marriage makes gays unhappy.

True

8. Allowing gay marriage makes Christians equally unhappy.

Only if they are married in a Christian church, otherwise why would they care what two consinting adults do ?

9. This is not a racial discrimination issue.

Nope. This is a sexuality discrimination issue

10. Gays are not a race: they have a choice to be different.

They have a choice to deny who they really are and live a life of lies and misery.I don't think they want to do that, would you ?

11. Races don't have this choice.

OK

12. Christians are a minority too.

Wrong. Christianity, though the fastest shrinking religion in the world, is still the dominate group in the US

13. Christians are being persecuted as much, or more than gays.

Wrong. I have never heard of groups going around pretending to be christian so they can pick up other christians and beat them up.

14. Gays have the same rights as straights, they just want more.

Wrong and wrong. Straight people can get married. They do not want more rights, they want equal rights.

15. Christians don't want the right to marry same sex.

OK. Gay people do.

16. Christians are losing rights, as well as being denied others.

I would love to see that list.

17. Gays aren't losing rights, just being denied one.

One denied is to many, welcome to the USA.

18. Allowing gay marriages will lead to more compromises.

Such as ???

19. Gays have the right to leave if they want.

So do christians

20. This isn't a personal issue for me. I have gay friends. I just think homosexuality is wrong, and they agree.

You have gay friends who think homosexuality is wrong? Then why don't they just choose not to be gay if it is wrong ? You have defeated your own argument. If it is true that you have gay friends who think that homosexuality is wrong, you should find them some help before they kill themselves over it.

Homosexuality is wrong... why else would so many gay people do something as unholy as killing themselves... did you know that the leading cause of death in gay teens is suicide? it is because the devil is inside them and it forces them to do horrible things...

Sorry about that... I had to do that. Often religious people come to this sort of conclusion... but why they don't realize that gays are killing themselves because they are treated like shit, is beyond me... the world would be so much better for everyone if society was a bit more supportive of differences.

this is a fun thread :lol:

Here's my final stance.

You're an idiot.

Wait, wait, sorry, let me try that again.

Morality is subjective, not everyone believes what you believe. To have a free society we can not make laws that directly infringe on people's rights. Unless those laws are there to keep people from infringing on other's rights.

So to solve this case, we must ask two simple questions.

Does allowing gay marriage directly infringe on anyone's rights? No.

Does banning gay marriage directly infringe on anyone's rights? Yes.

Case closed.


Woo-woo! Look who's so smart! Morality is subjective? "roflol!" You mean that there is no truth. If morality is subjective, then why have laws, rules, or any other "right infringing" statutes? Why not just descend into total anarchy? What if I find it infringing on my rights that murder is illegal? Who is to say?
As far as gay "marriage," what does that mean? Is marriage an agreement between two people? Please read this:


BreakPoint with Charles Colson
Commentary #040218 - 02/18/2004
Ward and Ward Cleaver: The New Stay-at-Home Parent

Two successful working parents, one a corporate lawyer and the other an
anesthesiologist, were faced with a decision. One needed to stay home to
care for their newly adopted infant son. And so the lawyer gave up power
lunches for peanut butter sandwiches, a high-paying job for one with no
financial compensation. That's a story similar to that of many married
couples, in which one parent -- usually Mom -- decides to leave the workplace
to care for the kids. But this isn't the story about a mom and dad. It's
the story of two dads, Jamie McConnell and his partner Bill Atmore.

NEW YORK TIMES reporter Ginia Bellafante recently reported stories of several
homosexual couples, in which one decided to be a stay-at-home parent while the
other worked to provide for everyone. "To some gay men," Bellafante writes,
"the idea of entrusting the care of a hard-won child to someone else seems
to defeat the purpose of parenthood."

And so Ray Friedmann left an accounting job, Bernie Cummings left a public
relations management position, and a handful of others also left their careers
to be stay-at-home parents. Their decisions reflect a growing trend among
homosexual couples.

According to the 2000 census, there were 60,000 male couple households with
children and close to 96,000 female couple households with children. Gary Gates
of the Urban Institute noted that of almost 10,000 same-sex couples with children
randomly selected by the Census Bureau, 26 percent of male couples included a
stay-at-home parent.

"That staying at home constitutes the just and noble course of parenthood was
a sentiment echoed again and again in more than a dozen interviews with gay
fathers," writes Bellafante. And "because gay men are liberated from the cultural
expectations and pressures that women face to balance work and family life, they
may approach raising children with a greater sense of freedom and choice," writes
Bellafante.

After the so-called sexual revolution, we've gone through the looking glass;
nothing is as it should be. Gender roles have been turned upside down and shaken,
with resulting absurdities. It's okay, laudable even, for a gay father to stay
home. But it's not for a heterosexual mother: Her duty is to climb the corporate
ladder in the name of women's rights and equality -- forget about her children's
needs.

This phenomenon -- strange as it is -- nonetheless, shows that God's design for
us is right. When same-sex couples try to work out ideal roles as parents, the
picture ends up looking (almost) like God's intention: One to nurture and one
to provide. Children need a parent at home -- they need that connection. And so
these homosexual couples try to imitate the ideal situation for raising children.
The problem is that they can't.

Some children of homosexual parents may turn out alright. But as with children of
single parents -- despite the heroic job many single parents do -- they know they've
missed a crucial element in their lives. Mothers and fathers, filling their distinct
roles, shape our identity.

Homosexuals have fought hard for the "right" to parenthood. No one has a "right" to
put kids in an artificial family. The homosexual's "right" is one thing. But how
about the child who, I believe, deserves nothing short of God's real and enduring
design for the family, with a male father and a female mother?

For printer-friendly version, visit www.breakpoint.org and click on Today's Commentary.

Copyright (c) 2004 Prison Fellowship THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT.
THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. "BreakPoint with
Chuck Colson" is a daily commentary on news and trends from a Christian
perspective. Heard on more than 1000 radio outlets nationwide, BreakPoint
transcripts are also available on the Internet. BreakPoint is a production
of The Wilberforce Forum, a division of Prison Fellowship: 1856 Old Reston
Avenue, Reston, VA 20190.

Here's my final stance.

You're an idiot.

Wait, wait, sorry, let me try that again.

Morality is subjective, not everyone believes what you believe. To have a free society we can not make laws that directly infringe on people's rights. Unless those laws are there to keep people from infringing on other's rights.

So to solve this case, we must ask two simple questions.

Does allowing gay marriage directly infringe on anyone's rights? No.

Does banning gay marriage directly infringe on anyone's rights? Yes.

Case closed.


Woo-woo! Look who's so smart! Morality is subjective? "roflol!" You mean that there is no truth. If morality is subjective, then why have laws, rules, or any other "right infringing" statutes? Why not just descend into total anarchy? What if I find it infringing on my rights that murder is illegal? Who is to say?
As far as gay "marriage," what does that mean? Is marriage an agreement between two people? Please read this:


BreakPoint with Charles Colson
Commentary #040218 - 02/18/2004
Ward and Ward Cleaver: The New Stay-at-Home Parent

Two successful working parents, one a corporate lawyer and the other an
anesthesiologist, were faced with a decision. One needed to stay home to
care for their newly adopted infant son. And so the lawyer gave up power
lunches for peanut butter sandwiches, a high-paying job for one with no
financial compensation. That's a story similar to that of many married
couples, in which one parent -- usually Mom -- decides to leave the workplace
to care for the kids. But this isn't the story about a mom and dad. It's
the story of two dads, Jamie McConnell and his partner Bill Atmore.

NEW YORK TIMES reporter Ginia Bellafante recently reported stories of several
homosexual couples, in which one decided to be a stay-at-home parent while the
other worked to provide for everyone. "To some gay men," Bellafante writes,
"the idea of entrusting the care of a hard-won child to someone else seems
to defeat the purpose of parenthood."

And so Ray Friedmann left an accounting job, Bernie Cummings left a public
relations management position, and a handful of others also left their careers
to be stay-at-home parents. Their decisions reflect a growing trend among
homosexual couples.

According to the 2000 census, there were 60,000 male couple households with
children and close to 96,000 female couple households with children. Gary Gates
of the Urban Institute noted that of almost 10,000 same-sex couples with children
randomly selected by the Census Bureau, 26 percent of male couples included a
stay-at-home parent.

"That staying at home constitutes the just and noble course of parenthood was
a sentiment echoed again and again in more than a dozen interviews with gay
fathers," writes Bellafante. And "because gay men are liberated from the cultural
expectations and pressures that women face to balance work and family life, they
may approach raising children with a greater sense of freedom and choice," writes
Bellafante.

After the so-called sexual revolution, we've gone through the looking glass;
nothing is as it should be. Gender roles have been turned upside down and shaken,
with resulting absurdities. It's okay, laudable even, for a gay father to stay
home. But it's not for a heterosexual mother: Her duty is to climb the corporate
ladder in the name of women's rights and equality -- forget about her children's
needs.

This phenomenon -- strange as it is -- nonetheless, shows that God's design for
us is right. When same-sex couples try to work out ideal roles as parents, the
picture ends up looking (almost) like God's intention: One to nurture and one
to provide. Children need a parent at home -- they need that connection. And so
these homosexual couples try to imitate the ideal situation for raising children.
The problem is that they can't.

Some children of homosexual parents may turn out alright. But as with children of
single parents -- despite the heroic job many single parents do -- they know they've
missed a crucial element in their lives. Mothers and fathers, filling their distinct
roles, shape our identity.

Homosexuals have fought hard for the "right" to parenthood. No one has a "right" to
put kids in an artificial family. The homosexual's "right" is one thing. But how
about the child who, I believe, deserves nothing short of God's real and enduring
design for the family, with a male father and a female mother?

For printer-friendly version, visit www.breakpoint.org and click on Today's Commentary.

Copyright (c) 2004 Prison Fellowship THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT.
THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. "BreakPoint with
Chuck Colson" is a daily commentary on news and trends from a Christian
perspective. Heard on more than 1000 radio outlets nationwide, BreakPoint
transcripts are also available on the Internet. BreakPoint is a production
of The Wilberforce Forum, a division of Prison Fellowship: 1856 Old Reston
Avenue, Reston, VA 20190.

:lol: You forget that "God's will" isn't logic.

I could also go on and explain the difference between murder and marriage to you...

"God's divine order" :lol: oh really...

Woo-woo! Look who's so smart! Morality is subjective? "roflol!" You mean that there is no truth. If morality is subjective, then why have laws, rules, or any other "right infringing" statutes? Why not just descend into total anarchy? What if I find it infringing on my rights that murder is illegal? Who is to say?
As far as gay "marriage," what does that mean? Is marriage an agreement between two people? Please read this:

BreakPoint with Charles Colson
(etc...)


:lol: You forget that "God's will" isn't logic.

I could also go on and explain the difference between murder and marriage to you...

"God's divine order" :lol: oh really...

tee hee, quite. they managed to insult both homosexuals and women in the same article while still convincing themselves of their own superiority...how lovely for the ignorant, that they can climb onto such a very high horse.

In addition, the Bible not only declares homosexuality sinful, but eating shell fish forbidden (in Leviticus, the same chapter as homosexuality), and slavery acceptable. What distinguishes rules we should follow from outdated rules?[/quote]

The new testament sonny boy. the early christians were released from the diatery and conduct laws prevoiusly applied. if they hadn't, they'd just be jews.

homosexuality, however, is still condemned in the new testament.

Woo-woo! Look who's so smart! Morality is subjective? "roflol!" You mean that there is no truth. If morality is subjective, then why have laws, rules, or any other "right infringing" statutes? Why not just descend into total anarchy? What if I find it infringing on my rights that murder is illegal? Who is to say?
As far as gay "marriage," what does that mean? Is marriage an agreement between two people? Please read this:

BreakPoint with Charles Colson
(etc...)


:lol: You forget that "God's will" isn't logic.

I could also go on and explain the difference between murder and marriage to you...

"God's divine order" :lol: oh really...

tee hee, quite. they managed to insult both homosexuals and women in the same article while still convincing themselves of their own superiority...how lovely for the ignorant, that they can climb onto such a very high horse.

Let's wish him good luck in finding a wife to clean his trailer and raise his babies...

In addition, the Bible not only declares homosexuality sinful, but eating shell fish forbidden (in Leviticus, the same chapter as homosexuality), and slavery acceptable. What distinguishes rules we should follow from outdated rules?

The new testament sonny boy. the early christians were released from the diatery and conduct laws prevoiusly applied. if they hadn't, they'd just be jews.

homosexuality, however, is still condemned in the new testament.

and, miraculously, it still doesn't matter. Christian beliefs aren't grounds for laws, so Christians can go right on talking to burning hedges and throwing things at gay people...it's better than most of what's on TV, after all.

In addition, the Bible not only declares homosexuality sinful, but eating shell fish forbidden (in Leviticus, the same chapter as homosexuality), and slavery acceptable. What distinguishes rules we should follow from outdated rules?[/quote]

The new testament sonny boy. the early christians were released from the diatery and conduct laws prevoiusly applied. if they hadn't, they'd just be jews.

homosexuality, however, is still condemned in the new testament.

Woo-woo! Look who's so smart! Morality is subjective? "roflol!" You mean that there is no truth. If morality is subjective, then why have laws, rules, or any other "right infringing" statutes? Why not just descend into total anarchy? What if I find it infringing on my rights that murder is illegal? Who is to say?
As far as gay "marriage," what does that mean? Is marriage an agreement between two people? Please read this:

BreakPoint with Charles Colson
(etc...)


:lol: You forget that "God's will" isn't logic.

I could also go on and explain the difference between murder and marriage to you...

"God's divine order" :lol: oh really...

tee hee, quite. they managed to insult both homosexuals and women in the same article while still convincing themselves of their own superiority...how lovely for the ignorant, that they can climb onto such a very high horse.

Let's wish him good luck in finding a wife to clean his trailer and raise his babies...

"God Hates Fags!!!"

"Women Belong in the Home!!"

listen! *cups hand to ear*

it's the mating call of the Great Chumps!

Woo-woo! Look who's so smart! Morality is subjective? "roflol!" You mean that there is no truth. If morality is subjective, then why have laws, rules, or any other "right infringing" statutes? Why not just descend into total anarchy? What if I find it infringing on my rights that murder is illegal? Who is to say?
As far as gay "marriage," what does that mean? Is marriage an agreement between two people? Please read this:

BreakPoint with Charles Colson
(etc...)


:lol: You forget that "God's will" isn't logic.

I could also go on and explain the difference between murder and marriage to you...

"God's divine order" :lol: oh really...

tee hee, quite. they managed to insult both homosexuals and women in the same article while still convincing themselves of their own superiority...how lovely for the ignorant, that they can climb onto such a very high horse.

Let's wish him good luck in finding a wife to clean his trailer and raise his babies...

"God Hates Fags!!!"

"Women Belong in the Home!!"

listen! *cups hand to ear*

it's the mating call of the Great Chumps!

:lol:

Wait wait...oh...Look! Look! There is one! There, between the trees! See, he's thumping his chest...I think he's taking his "final stance on gay marriage" !
Awww...How cute

look at you guys. one person voices their opinion, and you dont even discuss it. This is yet another thread that has devolved into a flame war :roll:

look at you guys. one person voices their opinion, and you dont even discuss it. This is yet another thread that has devolved into a flame war :roll:

their opinion has been discussed to death. we have rehashed that old argument so many times there's little point in doing it again. as soon as somebody brings new material to the table, i'll be ready to have some real debate.

look at you guys. one person voices their opinion, and you dont even discuss it. This is yet another thread that has devolved into a flame war :roll:

Sorry...I won't make fun of neanderthals anymore .

But you have to understand that this has been a magical trip of discovery for me, where I have had the privilege of meeting people from the past, people who are from beyond the gray mist of time itself.

4. There are documented cases of gays becoming straight again.
Perhaps so. I have not seen any. I have seen documented cases of gays who have entered into heterosexual marriages. But what NARTH & Co, don't like mention is that so-called ex-gays still "struggle" with same-sex attractions. Neither do they like to mention that many ex-gays become ex-ex-gays. Now perhaps some people do change from gay to straight, who knows? But appears that the vast majority of gays simply cannot change their sexual orientation much if at all. Nor should they have to. I'm not inclined to deny someone a fullfilling relationship just because it happens to be with someone of the same sex. It would an evil for me to tell gays their attractions are wrong.
Which "orientations" are okay and which ones are wrong?

4. There are documented cases of gays becoming straight again.
Perhaps so. I have not seen any. I have seen documented cases of gays who have entered into heterosexual marriages. But what NARTH & Co, don't like mention is that so-called ex-gays still "struggle" with same-sex attractions. Neither do they like to mention that many ex-gays become ex-ex-gays. Now perhaps some people do change from gay to straight, who knows? But appears that the vast majority of gays simply cannot change their sexual orientation much if at all. Nor should they have to. I'm not inclined to deny someone a fullfilling relationship just because it happens to be with someone of the same sex. It would an evil for me to tell gays their attractions are wrong.
Which "orientations" are okay and which ones are wrong?

ahh, the old "orientation" gig again.

CONSENT, Snubis. we've been over this before.

Homosexuality is a learned behavior like any other and there is no evidence to suggest that it can't be helped.

Im very sorry Snubis, but the is HUGE amount of empirical evidence showing that sexual orientation is influenced very strongly by genetics, and that is is not a learned trait, go do some real research and amybe you wont have to talk out of your ass anymore. (p.s. I looked up several supporting psychological journal articles this morning if you like I can post it again, but youll have to obtain the journa yourself as you cant get to the site without being on my college's LAN)

UM, did you find it on JSTOR (i think thats right)? Which journal was it in? (When would be helpful.) I don't doubt you, but it sounds like an interesting article which I would like to read.

4. There are documented cases of gays becoming straight again.
Perhaps so. I have not seen any. I have seen documented cases of gays who have entered into heterosexual marriages. But what NARTH & Co, don't like mention is that so-called ex-gays still "struggle" with same-sex attractions. Neither do they like to mention that many ex-gays become ex-ex-gays. Now perhaps some people do change from gay to straight, who knows? But appears that the vast majority of gays simply cannot change their sexual orientation much if at all. Nor should they have to. I'm not inclined to deny someone a fullfilling relationship just because it happens to be with someone of the same sex. It would an evil for me to tell gays their attractions are wrong.
Which "orientations" are okay and which ones are wrong?

wait...wait...I have mystical powers which allow me to see the future...

This will develope into a "Oh...so let's just allow pedophiles to go about their dirty business" type of arguement.

4. There are documented cases of gays becoming straight again.
Perhaps so. I have not seen any. I have seen documented cases of gays who have entered into heterosexual marriages. But what NARTH & Co, don't like mention is that so-called ex-gays still "struggle" with same-sex attractions. Neither do they like to mention that many ex-gays become ex-ex-gays. Now perhaps some people do change from gay to straight, who knows? But appears that the vast majority of gays simply cannot change their sexual orientation much if at all. Nor should they have to. I'm not inclined to deny someone a fullfilling relationship just because it happens to be with someone of the same sex. It would an evil for me to tell gays their attractions are wrong.
Which "orientations" are okay and which ones are wrong?

wait...wait...I have mystical powers which allow me to see the future...

This will develope into a "Oh...so let's just allow pedophiles to go about their dirty business" type of arguement.

lol, you're not seeing the future, you're seeing the past...every time Snubis enters these discussions he goes down that exact same road, and always scuttles away at roughly the same point once his "orientation" theory has been debunked.

and he's still never answered the very simple questions:

who is the victim of gay relationships? who is hurt by homosexuality itself? were gay people to marry, who would be harmed and how?

Homosexuality is a learned behavior like any other and there is no evidence to suggest that it can't be helped.

Im very sorry Snubis, but the is HUGE amount of empirical evidence showing that sexual orientation is influenced very strongly by genetics, and that is is not a learned trait, go do some real research and amybe you wont have to talk out of your ass anymore. (p.s. I looked up several supporting psychological journal articles this morning if you like I can post it again, but youll have to obtain the journa yourself as you cant get to the site without being on my college's LAN)
We are hearing more and more that all human failing can be traced to some genetic problem we inherited at birth. I already know that radical, fringe, scientists are claiming that the predisposition to commit crime, sexual orientation or wife beating, is determined at conception, while honest, traditional scientists believe that people learn these things.

4. There are documented cases of gays becoming straight again.
Perhaps so. I have not seen any. I have seen documented cases of gays who have entered into heterosexual marriages. But what NARTH & Co, don't like mention is that so-called ex-gays still "struggle" with same-sex attractions. Neither do they like to mention that many ex-gays become ex-ex-gays. Now perhaps some people do change from gay to straight, who knows? But appears that the vast majority of gays simply cannot change their sexual orientation much if at all. Nor should they have to. I'm not inclined to deny someone a fullfilling relationship just because it happens to be with someone of the same sex. It would an evil for me to tell gays their attractions are wrong.
Which "orientations" are okay and which ones are wrong?

wait...wait...I have mystical powers which allow me to see the future...

This will develope into a "Oh...so let's just allow pedophiles to go about their dirty business" type of arguement.
Since you can't answer the question I'll take that as an admission of defeat.

Homosexuality is a learned behavior like any other and there is no evidence to suggest that it can't be helped.

Im very sorry Snubis, but the is HUGE amount of empirical evidence showing that sexual orientation is influenced very strongly by genetics, and that is is not a learned trait, go do some real research and amybe you wont have to talk out of your ass anymore. (p.s. I looked up several supporting psychological journal articles this morning if you like I can post it again, but youll have to obtain the journa yourself as you cant get to the site without being on my college's LAN)
We are hearing more and more that all human failing can be traced to some genetic problem we inherited at birth. I already know that radical, fringe, scientists are claiming that the predisposition to commit crime, sexual orientation or wife beating, is determined at conception, while honest, traditional scientists believe that people learn these things.

the tendency for heightened agression has long since been conclusively linked to genetic factors, and specific gene sequences have been pinpointed which give an individual the strong predisposition for lowered aggression inhibition. anti-social personality disorder, a trait very strongly correlated with criminal activity, has similarly been genetically linked, though there are treatments (both in therapy and in drug form) that may help some individuals avoid succumbing to their impulses. sexual orientation has been conclusively shown to have a genetic correlation as well, but you've ignored all the studies i've ever posted on the subject so i won't bother doing so again.

scientists who recognize the strong impact our genetics have on our brains are not crazy or radical, and they're certainly not a fringe group (haven't been a "fringe" since the 90s). their data is as honest as any other data, though the interpretation of what should be done with our knowledge of these genetic factors is still hotly debated.

i would suggest you read more into the specifics of the examples you use, and seek out the original scientific journals rather than reading the pop-media rehash that generally sensationalizes and misrepresents the findings.

4. There are documented cases of gays becoming straight again.
Perhaps so. I have not seen any. I have seen documented cases of gays who have entered into heterosexual marriages. But what NARTH & Co, don't like mention is that so-called ex-gays still "struggle" with same-sex attractions. Neither do they like to mention that many ex-gays become ex-ex-gays. Now perhaps some people do change from gay to straight, who knows? But appears that the vast majority of gays simply cannot change their sexual orientation much if at all. Nor should they have to. I'm not inclined to deny someone a fullfilling relationship just because it happens to be with someone of the same sex. It would an evil for me to tell gays their attractions are wrong.
Which "orientations" are okay and which ones are wrong?

wait...wait...I have mystical powers which allow me to see the future...

This will develope into a "Oh...so let's just allow pedophiles to go about their dirty business" type of arguement.
Since you can't answer the question I'll take that as an admission of defeat.

hmm, i answered it. and since you failed to reply i will take that as an admission of defeat :).

who is the victim of gay relationships? who is hurt by homosexuality itself? were gay people to marry, who would be harmed and how?
Allow me to summarize what you're saying. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are only different as to the choice of their partner, one is same-sex, the other opposite sex, but that they are equal in that both engage in the same types of sexual conduct. You also believe that society has no right to regulate sexual conduct even if it threatens public health, but you would make an exception for pedophiles. Is that about right?

who is the victim of gay relationships? who is hurt by homosexuality itself? were gay people to marry, who would be harmed and how?
Allow me to summarize what you're saying. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are only different as to the choice of their partner, one is same-sex, the other opposite sex, but that they are equal in that both engage in the same types of sexual conduct. You also believe that society has no right to regulate sexual conduct even if it threatens public health, but you would make an exception for pedophiles. Is that about right?

if you can't answer the questions then just admit it and be done with it, dude.

In addition, the Bible not only declares homosexuality sinful, but eating shell fish forbidden (in Leviticus, the same chapter as homosexuality), and slavery acceptable. What distinguishes rules we should follow from outdated rules?

The new testament sonny boy. the early christians were released from the diatery and conduct laws prevoiusly applied. if they hadn't, they'd just be jews.

homosexuality, however, is still condemned in the new testament.

and, miraculously, it still doesn't matter. Christian beliefs aren't grounds for laws, so Christians can go right on talking to burning hedges and throwing things at gay people...it's better than most of what's on TV, after all.


actually, alot of modern western law is based in christianity. hense no stoning or chopping off hands for stealing.

laws are dictated by of the opinions of the time because people, at the end of the day, will form a general opinion and push others into line.

my point is that gay marriage is against christian principles, therefore it should exist only as a non christian ceremony of "commitment".

and since you're to slow then I win

DOUBLE QUITSIES NO STARTSIES. :P

my point is that gay marriage is against christian principles, therefore it should exist only as a non christian ceremony of "commitment".

i have yet to see anybody argue in favor of forcing any religious organization to officiate gay marriages. all people want is equal civil status, equal rights under the law. why anybody, gay or straight, would dishonor their union with religious affiliation is beyond me, so i am more than willing to let Christians refuse to marry people.

Let me just take a moment to express my extreme gratitude to this fine person for notifying us that they have adopted a final stance, and for illustrating it in such detail.

Clearly he has given this a lot of thought, and has come to the realization that there is no possibility that he will ever learn anything new that might modify his point of view in the future. As such, he has surely come to the right decision to close his mind and whisper his mantras repetitvely to himself to block out any possible seeds of doubt.

Repeat after me: A closed mind gathers no insight. A closed mind gathers no insight. A ....

Sorry, but anyone who adopts a "final stance" on anything is simply advertizing their willfull blindness.

And anyone who posts it to a discussion board is just lame in that a final stance implies a lack of interest in actually discussing it. "Hi, I'm here to discuss an issue. This is my viewpoint and I am inflexible. Wanna chat about it?"


Ummmm no - why bother?


Oh, but to follow up with the ongoing actual discussion:
my point is that gay marriage is against christian principles, therefore it should exist only as a non christian ceremony of "commitment".

That might be valid if only Christians had ever developed the concept of marriage. But they don't hold the monopoly on that concept and as such can't exactly claim ownership of it's definition. Other religions embrace the concept of polygamy - should this then require Christians to adopt this practice?

I DO agree that religious freedom should include the fact that the state can't force churches to recognize, advocate, or perform gay weddings. However the state is not bound by the church and so is free to do so. Arguing whether the church or the state owns the concept of marriage is pointless as clearly both use that term according to diferent interpretations. Indeed, it already is that way. The Catholic church would not recognize my union (as I am not a Catholic), however the state certainly does. And few, I think, will argue the fact that I am indeed married.

-Z-

gayism i sevil th bible says so

gayism i sevil th bible says so

How insightful.. NOT! :roll:

gayism i sevil th bible says so

:roll:

Thankyou - you ruin the Christian reputation yet again. :x

This isn't really related to this topic, but I have a question.

What makes diversity, in itself, good?

gayism i sevil th bible says so

How insightful.. NOT! :roll:

:lol: I thank you for falling for my little joke, Stephistan. I apologise for disrupting the discourse here, but I could not resist the temptation.

This isn't really related to this topic, but I have a question.

What makes diversity, in itself, good?

biologically speaking, diversity is good for a species but bad for any one individual in that species. culturally, it is aesthetically pleasing (i.e. many people find diversity more stimulating and interesting than homogeny). but as for intrinsic value, there is none.

but you're right, that has nothing to do with this topic.

At the end of the day, no-one wants to see gays in public.

All this PC gay rights rubbish, people are scared of the gay movement, in case they are seen as bigoted.

Not bigoted, realistic!!!

And Christians ranting on are just as bad, personally I'd make both illegal :lol:

A.) Several people have argued that gay marriage should be allowed simply because it doesn't directly infringe upon anyone's rights. I disagree with this: there have to be some kind of limits on what defines a marriage, or the married status loses all meaning; who is directly hurt by multiple marriages, child marriages, or people marrying monkeys? Only the institution of marriage itself.
B.) Having said this, I support government-sanctioned gay marriage, because it's really stupid not to do so. It's one adult human being marrying one adult human being. I really don't see how gender has any bearing on the government form of marriage; one can certainly make the case that churches needn't allow them, and I would support it in some cases, as many churches have a much stricter definition of marriage than the government (for instance, the Catholic church expects it both to last forever and to result in offspring, neither of which apply to the legal version) but to ban it in the government is just discrimination.

At the end of the day, no-one wants to see gays in public.


i do.

A.) Several people have argued that gay marriage should be allowed simply because it doesn't directly infringe upon anyone's rights. I disagree with this: there have to be some kind of limits on what defines a marriage, or the married status loses all meaning; who is directly hurt by multiple marriages, child marriages, or people marrying monkeys? Only the institution of marriage itself.


you haven't shown in any way how allowing gay marriage would infringe on anybody's rights. if you think the institution of marriage would be degraded by letting gay people marry then that's an opinion, not a loss of rights; i think the institution of marriage is hurt by allowing religious ceremonies to be recognized, but i don't advocate denying marital status to people who want a church wedding simply based on the "you're hurting my feelings" argument.

also, if you think that child marriage wouldn't hurt anybody then you've just disqualified yourself from the We Understand Consent club. a child cannot give consent, and hence being married off would be a direct harm to a child...not to mention the fact that consumation of the marriage would constitute child rape.

the beastiality argument has been long since tossed out, so please don't lower this discussion by bringing up that falacy yet again.

as for polygamy, i don't see how anything about it would be inherantly harmful or detrimental, so i don't have a beef with it.

A.) Several people have argued that gay marriage should be allowed simply because it doesn't directly infringe upon anyone's rights. I disagree with this: there have to be some kind of limits on what defines a marriage, or the married status loses all meaning; who is directly hurt by multiple marriages, child marriages, or people marrying monkeys? Only the institution of marriage itself.
Those are good points. Especially since if you allow gay marriage then what could be next. People need to see that gay merriage is different then polygamy.

A.) Several people have argued that gay marriage should be allowed simply because it doesn't directly infringe upon anyone's rights. I disagree with this: there have to be some kind of limits on what defines a marriage, or the married status loses all meaning; who is directly hurt by multiple marriages, child marriages, or people marrying monkeys? Only the institution of marriage itself.
Those are good points. Especially since if you allow gay marriage then what could be next.

*roll* no, it's a very lame point, the old slippery slope argument. we have allowed inter-racial marriages for years now, and i don't see us legalizing incest, pedophilia, beastiality, or polygamy.

I think Small Pink Things wasnt against gay merriage, in fact B is for it. He is saying that if people argue for gay merriage on the basis it doesnt hurt anybody, then where do you stop. Also, people are feeling like gay merriage might be defiling or mocking their merriage. I dont agree, but people would then feel insulted.

F-ck a dplomatic solution, whoever started this thread is a jackass.

1. Homosexuality is wrong.

To you. Obviously not to active gays.

2. Allowing them to marry will only encourage more to be gay.

How the hell does that work? And what's so bad about it?

3. Homosexuality is a choice.

Do you really think any straight person would consciously choose homosexuality as a lifestyle (not just a sexperiment)? I don't imagine it's very easy, do you? Especially when stupid f-cks like you are always on their backs.

4. There are documented cases of gays becoming straight again.

What's your point? Should we force gay people to become straight? How would you like it if someone forced you to become gay?

5. Gays do have the right to their opinion.

Yes, they do.

6. Christians have equal rights to our opinions.

Have fun.

7. Not allowing gay marriage makes gays unhappy.

And so they should be.

8. Allowing gay marriage makes Christians equally unhappy.

Well sucks to be them. It doesn't affect them AT ALL so they should screw off. I'm sure that letting black people vote made lots of whites unhappy. You still did it, because it is right.

9. This is not a racial discrimination issue.

No, it's sexual discrimination.

10. Gays are not a race: they have a choice to be different.

(I disagree, but we'll let that slide) So do Christians, and they don't take it.

11. Races don't have this choice.

They shouldn't need to have it. Unfortunatley people like you give them a reason to want it.

12. Christians are a minority too.

So the whole country should go by what this minority group beleives about ANOTHER GROUP? Does that sound very fair to you? If a bunch of Asians don't like a bunch of whites, should we shoot the whites? Or imprison them maybe? Take away the right to marry?

13. Christians are being persecuted as much, or more than gays.

Persecuted, or having their opinions challenged? And how many threads have you seen saying that Christians should not have the right to worship their God, or to vote, or to marry, or live in the United States? Shut up. Christians have nowhere NEAR the amount of hate directed at them as gay people do.

14. Gays have the same rights as straights, they just want more.

They want the right to marry another gay person, just like straights want to marry another straight person. It's the same right, inside out. It doesn't change the way that YOU live YOUR life unless you are a gay person or the priest / city official marrying them.

15. Christians don't want the right to marry same sex.

Gay ones might.

16. Christians are losing rights, as well as being denied others.

Oh yeah, like what? Imposing their will on the rest of your country?

17. Gays aren't losing rights, just being denied one.

One that should be given to them.

18. Allowing gay marriages will lead to more compromises.

Uhh so? Compromise is bad? Where were you in kindergarten?

19. Gays have the right to leave if they want.

Oh yeah, let's kick 'em out because the Christians don't like 'em...

20. This isn't a personal issue for me. I have gay friends. I just think homosexuality is wrong, and they agree.

What morons. They've been brainwashed into beleiving they have fewer rights than you.

He is stating his opinion. Freedom of Speech.

Look if some people are uncomfortable about gays, legalising gay meriage wont help. You can say its stupid, but people arent going to change their minds, and I can probably find a situation the government did something you were uncomfortable with.

JMO...

1. Homosexuality is wrong.

Everyone has their own opinion when it comes to homosexuality. Some would agree with you and others not.

2. Allowing them to marry will only encourage more to be gay.

I must completely disagree with you here. The only thing that may happen would be the fact that some gays would "come out of the closet". In my experience, many people who are gay will not even acknowledge the fact that they are because they are too afraid of how others will treat them when they find out they are. I am mean gays aren't allowed in the military, adopt children, and even marry the one that they love.

3. Homosexuality is a choice.

Again I disagree. It is more of a choice to acknowledge the fact that they. Not everybody who show gay traits are necessarily gay. For 21 years I tried being straight. I didn't want to be gay. And when I discovered I was when I was 12, I hated the fact and I fought it for years. I went through several straight relationships, but I was never truly happy. If you have never experienced what it is like to be gay it is hard to understand the strange guilt feeling you feel when you're with someone who is straight. Granted, that may not be the case for everyone who is gay, but that's how it was for me. Now I have finally acknowledged the fact that I am and am more happy. Very few people know that I am. I do not force people to be gay or not and I don't slam people for believing it's wrong.

4. There are documented cases of gays becoming straight again.

Yes, but in my case I was straight and I became gay.

5. Gays do have the right to their opinion.

I agree, but what does this have to do with whether gays should have equal rights as straights? Gays aren't trying to force others to be gay, they just want to be able to have a piece of paper that says they are committed to the one they love.

6. Christians have equal rights to our opinions.

I agree since I am also Christian


7. Not allowing gay marriage makes gays unhappy.

Yes, but not everyone. I have friends who are gay who call each other husband and husband, got rings for each other, but have never married because they feel they do not need a piece of paper to acknowledge their committment to each other

8. Allowing gay marriage makes Christians equally unhappy.

Again, not everybody. There are Christians who want gays to be able to get married

9. This is not a racial discrimination issue.

It seems to more of a religion issue to me.

10. Gays are not a race: they have a choice to be different.

Yes, everybody has a choice to be different. Wouldn't it be boring if we were all were one gender, with one hair style, same color eyes and hair, had the same job, lived in the same area?

11. Races don't have this choice.

But neither do gays.

12. Christians are a minority too.

I disagree if you're from the US. In the US, Christianity is the majority. However, if you go to China, Iraq, India, then yes, then they probably are the minority, but I don't know that for a fact since I've never lived there.

13. Christians are being persecuted as much, or more than gays.

I am much more persecuted for being gay than Christian.

14. Gays have the same rights as straights, they just want more.

No, no, no! They just want to have equal rights.

15. Christians don't want the right to marry same sex.

Not true for everybody. I'm Christian and I want to marry my partner someday.

16. Christians are losing rights, as well as being denied others.

I'm afraid I haven't had any rights taken from me being Christian.

17. Gays aren't losing rights, just being denied one.

But gays can't get married, can't adopt, can't go into the military, and potentially can't get jobs because they are gay

18. Allowing gay marriages will lead to more compromises.

Like what?

19. Gays have the right to leave if they want.

Sure, we could leave just like anybody could. But making us leave will not make us disappear. Are you encouraging your gay friends to leave because they're gay?

20. This isn't a personal issue for me. I have gay friends. I just think homosexuality is wrong, and they agree.

I'm glad to hear you don't have a personal issue. And I'm sure your friends are going through a tough time right now. As one of my bisexual friends said to me when I came out of the closet, "you can't be gay until you hate it".

I find it rare that critisizing people of their opinions changes their minds. At least willingly change their minds.

I find it rare that critisizing people of their opinions changes their minds. At least willingly change their minds.

but we can place doubt in there minds and have it niggle at them constantly :wink:

I find it rare that critisizing people of their opinions changes their minds. At least willingly change their minds.

but we can place doubt in there minds and have it niggle at them constantly :wink:
or make them more detirmined to stand up for their beliefs. :wink:

I find it rare that critisizing people of their opinions changes their minds. At least willingly change their minds.

but we can place doubt in there minds and have it niggle at them constantly :wink:
or make them more detirmined to stand up for their beliefs. :wink:

Way to put me down mr. Killjoy! :P that was about as far as my philosiphy stertches when im dying of the flu....

I find it rare that critisizing people of their opinions changes their minds. At least willingly change their minds.

but we can place doubt in there minds and have it niggle at them constantly :wink:
or make them more detirmined to stand up for their beliefs. :wink:

Way to put me down mr. Killjoy! :P that was about as far as my philosiphy stertches when im dying of the flu.... maybe in a few days you will get delusional and have a revelation.

well if i turn up saying i had a vision where god commanded me to spread his word......shoot me promptly.

well if i turn up saying i had a vision where god commanded me to spread his word......shoot me promptly. I dont think you will have to worry about that on this site. I might be the 4th or 7th.

off of killing prophets, Gay marriage in some people's minds (not mine) mocks marriage. Then people feel their beliefs are mocked, not including people saying they are the stupidest people in the world.

off of killing prophets, Gay marriage in some people's minds (not mine) mocks marriage. Then people feel their beliefs are mocked, not including people saying they are the stupidest people in the world.

Well I kind of agree, because even though I myself am gay i have always felt marriage was something very special, and perhaps there should be a seperate system or way of marriage for gays. However that could create more distance so im confused and not sure what to believe or think

Homosexuality is a learned behavior like any other and there is no evidence to suggest that it can't be helped.

Im very sorry Snubis, but the is HUGE amount of empirical evidence showing that sexual orientation is influenced very strongly by genetics, and that is is not a learned trait, go do some real research and amybe you wont have to talk out of your ass anymore. (p.s. I looked up several supporting psychological journal articles this morning if you like I can post it again, but youll have to obtain the journa yourself as you cant get to the site without being on my college's LAN)
We are hearing more and more that all human failing can be traced to some genetic problem we inherited at birth. I already know that radical, fringe, scientists are claiming that the predisposition to commit crime, sexual orientation or wife beating, is determined at conception, while honest, traditional scientists believe that people learn these things.

the tendency for heightened agression has long since been conclusively linked to genetic factors, and specific gene sequences have been pinpointed which give an individual the strong predisposition for lowered aggression inhibition. anti-social personality disorder, a trait very strongly correlated with criminal activity, has similarly been genetically linked, though there are treatments (both in therapy and in drug form) that may help some individuals avoid succumbing to their impulses. sexual orientation has been conclusively shown to have a genetic correlation as well, but you've ignored all the studies i've ever posted on the subject so i won't bother doing so again.

scientists who recognize the strong impact our genetics have on our brains are not crazy or radical, and they're certainly not a fringe group (haven't been a "fringe" since the 90s). their data is as honest as any other data, though the interpretation of what should be done with our knowledge of these genetic factors is still hotly debated.

i would suggest you read more into the specifics of the examples you use, and seek out the original scientific journals rather than reading the pop-media rehash that generally sensationalizes and misrepresents the findings.


THANK YOU! Everybody should read this post, If you would like to see some of this empirical evidence, I can send you citations, telegram me.But be warned, they might be citations to such "fringe" "radicals" such as the Journal of Psychoanalytic Psychology, the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, (I could go on forever) or the Journal of Applied Psychotherapy. Also I am using EBSCOhost, I think someone wanted to know, If you would like full citations telegram me.

of course the brain is extreamly complicated, and there is no way to know how much is learned and how much is genetics. Any study that tried to would be too small, not acurate and violate a lot of laws.

I also dont see how that affects the arument.

Ok, this is my final word on the subject. I'm not trying to argue, i'm just stating my position. This is my opinion, so if you disagree, fine, but don't act like I'm evil or a Nazi or whatever.

1. Homosexuality is wrong.
2. Allowing them to marry will only encourage more to be gay.
3. Homosexuality is a choice.
4. There are documented cases of gays becoming straight again.
5. Gays do have the right to their opinion.
6. Christians have equal rights to our opinions.
7. Not allowing gay marriage makes gays unhappy.
8. Allowing gay marriage makes Christians equally unhappy.
9. This is not a racial discrimination issue.
10. Gays are not a race: they have a choice to be different.
11. Races don't have this choice.
12. Christians are a minority too.
13. Christians are being persecuted as much, or more than gays.
14. Gays have the same rights as straights, they just want more.
15. Christians don't want the right to marry same sex.
16. Christians are losing rights, as well as being denied others.
17. Gays aren't losing rights, just being denied one.
18. Allowing gay marriages will lead to more compromises.
19. Gays have the right to leave if they want.
20. This isn't a personal issue for me. I have gay friends. I just think homosexuality is wrong, and they agree.

You do not speak for this christian and I would be extreemly careful when debating with this GAY CHRISTIAN because you are wrong and on the verge of blapheeming against the holy spirit and are clearly not following jesus' example of reaching out to every one. The one overiding message that jesus brought if you forgot is love and tolleration, do not forget his last comand to man on this earth (To go out and make diciples of all nations and people) so I would concentrate on that command and do that and stop whyneing about christians being persecuted and do something about it. Oh yeah remember the jews they have gay marriage, which is found to be acceptable by them, and the majority of the comands traken to bee against homosexuality are in the old testament which the jews still live by (we are no longer called to live by the old testament) they have no problem with homosexuality so why should we, Oh yeah the one major injunction by ST Paul against homosexuality was written as a letter to one tiny church in rome in the first century AD so its hard to find that this is still aplicable today ( the situation in rome was one of sexual abomination which Paul wrote to try to stop, e.g. genital mutilation (a man having his balls cut of so cearsar could dleep with him) type of thing, not homosexuality within a loving stable relationship.
So just read this and think about it.
By the way I am studying theology so know a hell of a lot about the bible and what it appears to say and not say and what it actually sayes.
:D

4. There are documented cases of gays becoming straight again.
Perhaps so. I have not seen any. I have seen documented cases of gays who have entered into heterosexual marriages. But what NARTH & Co, don't like mention is that so-called ex-gays still "struggle" with same-sex attractions. Neither do they like to mention that many ex-gays become ex-ex-gays. Now perhaps some people do change from gay to straight, who knows? But appears that the vast majority of gays simply cannot change their sexual orientation much if at all. Nor should they have to. I'm not inclined to deny someone a fullfilling relationship just because it happens to be with someone of the same sex. It would an evil for me to tell gays their attractions are wrong.
Which "orientations" are okay and which ones are wrong?

wait...wait...I have mystical powers which allow me to see the future...

This will develope into a "Oh...so let's just allow pedophiles to go about their dirty business" type of arguement.
Since you can't answer the question I'll take that as an admission of defeat.

:lol: jackass...

Want to see me use my mystical powers which allow me to see the future again?
Well:
I'll say: Consentual
You'll say: Oh, so if the child consents, then it's ok?
I'll say: No, a child cannot consent untill it's reached a certain age
You'll say: Revelations29:18 AND THE LORD SAYETH BLAHBLAHBLAH...

i'm sure many have challenged you already. Here's my go

1. Homosexuality is a fact of life.
2. Allowing Homosexuals to marry will allow 2 loving people the right to have their relationship recognised.
3. Homosexuality is not a choice, for many it is a journey of discovery, but it is most certainly not a choice.
4. There are documented cases of gays becoming straight again, there are also documented evidence of these people being "brainwashed" into this idea, and ending up emotionally fucked up by this "therapy".
5. Gays do have the right to their opinion. I agree here, so do every other race, religion, sexuality, every single human being have a right to their opinion.
6. Christians have equal rights to their opinions. I agree here too
7. Not allowing gay marriage makes gays unhappy. Unhappy is an understatement, it's a basic denial of rights, it's outrageous.
8. Allowing gay marriage makes Christians equally unhappy. Many do not wish a religous ceremony, some may, it should be down to the individual minister if they wish to perform ceremonies or not. I'd also like to point out christianity is not the only religion.
9. This is discrimination issue. It may not be racial, but it shares many qualities of racial discrimination. The main being discrimination for something you cannot help.
10. Gays are not a race: Gay people are every race, every religion.
11. Races don't have this choice, nor do LGBT people
12. Christians are not a minority. At least in much of the western world.
13. People of many races and religions are persecuted.
14. Gays do not have the same rights as straights, for one, the right to marry we do not have, the right to visit our partner in hospital, and in many places the right to show affection by holding hands.
15. Some christians want the right to marry same sex. There are such people as gay christians, and other religions too, some aren't as narrow minded as yourself.
16. "Christians are losing rights, as well as being denied others." Such as?
17. "Gays aren't losing rights, just being denied one." Denied more than one, but this is a very important one.
18. Allowing gay marriages will lead to more compromises, that's the idea, you know.
19. Gays have should not have to leave anywhere.
20. "This isn't a personal issue for me. I have gay friends. I just think homosexuality is wrong, and they agree." Yes it is, you made this debate personal by your langauge "our" "my", and also making blatently obvious of your faith in the christian belief. Your language was also very "us and them."

Ok, this is my final word on the subject. I'm not trying to argue, i'm just stating my position. This is my opinion, so if you disagree, fine, but don't act like I'm evil or a Nazi or whatever.

1. Homosexuality is wrong.
2. Allowing them to marry will only encourage more to be gay.
3. Homosexuality is a choice.
4. There are documented cases of gays becoming straight again.
5. Gays do have the right to their opinion.
6. Christians have equal rights to our opinions.
7. Not allowing gay marriage makes gays unhappy.
8. Allowing gay marriage makes Christians equally unhappy.
9. This is not a racial discrimination issue.
10. Gays are not a race: they have a choice to be different.
11. Races don't have this choice.
12. Christians are a minority too.
13. Christians are being persecuted as much, or more than gays.
14. Gays have the same rights as straights, they just want more.
15. Christians don't want the right to marry same sex.
16. Christians are losing rights, as well as being denied others.
17. Gays aren't losing rights, just being denied one.
18. Allowing gay marriages will lead to more compromises.
19. Gays have the right to leave if they want.
20. This isn't a personal issue for me. I have gay friends. I just think homosexuality is wrong, and they agree.

Ooo, score! A chance to increase my post count. Let the farming begin!

1. Sexuality is neither right nor wrong and it is ludicrous to attach such subjective labels. You might be able to say natural (meaning occuring in nature) or unnatural (meaning a concious deviation of behavior not currently found in a natural setting). Even then, though, the arguement against homosexuality doesn't hold water because it is a common enough practice in other species.
2. So, the only reason there are so many heterosexuals is because they were encouraged to be heterosexual through marriage rights? This is simply hilarious. Thanks for the laugh at your expense.
3. Others have said it but I'll say it again. Homosexuality is no more a 'choice' than heterosexuality. The only choice is if you are honest about your life.
4. Yes, and there are documented cases of those same straights becoming gay again. What's your point? There was a well publicized case a couple of years back about two Mormon missionaries travelling the country preaching the evils of homosexuality. Well, after a year or two of this, they left their wives and are now a happy gay couple. Rarely, if ever, does "conversion therapy" work and, when it does, there is the question of motive. I'm not denying that someone who is sufficiently repulsed by their homosexuality could mimic a heterosexual life. The question is, why should they be expected to?
5. I'll let the gays know that you have granted them the right to have an opinion. They will be thrilled.
6. I'll let the Christians know that you have granted them the right to have an opinion as well. I'm sure they will also be thrilled.
7. Yes, legally discriminating against a minority does tend to make that minority rather upset.
8. Ah, but the difference is that no one is denying equal rights to the unhappy Christian. Regardless of your stance on the homosexuality issue itself (where it comes from, how 'right' it is, etc.), the fact is that in a free society, people must be allowed to make personal choices so long as those choices do not abridge another's rights. Allowing two men or women to marry in no way interferes with your right as a Christian heterosexual to marry another Christian heterosexual. It simply extends on it and, by so doing, in fact stabilizes and protects the right in general.
9. I suppose it could be considered to be if the homosexual in question were part of a racial minority.
10. Hmmm, covered this. Idiotic point unless you're willing to grant that at any moment you could 'choose' to be gay. In fact, you probably are repressing something, so perhaps the gay community isn't as safe from you as they might think. Someone should probably warn them...
11. Yes, and up until about 40 years ago, races didn't have the choice to marry either. Times change and society moves on. You can either learn to adapt and prosper or stagnate and die. That, really, is the only choice.
12. Um, Christians are hardly a minority. Well, except for us poor forgotten Quakers. Now WE'RE a minority. :D Got any figures to back that one up?
13. Again, perhaps they were 2000 years ago, but Christians seem to be doing all right for themselves now.
14. No, they don't have the same rights because, if they did, we wouldn't be having this discussion, now would we?
15. Well, I don't want the right to have guns, but lots of other people seem to. I exercise my personal option to not own a gun. Guns are against my religion so it is my right not to have one. However, it is not my right to stop others from having them. I don't see how saying one group doesn't want a right and therefore no group should have it is relevent.
16. Well, if this is so, they should know how bad it feels and crusade for EVERYONE'S rights, now shouldn't they? I think someone has a persecution complex. Work it out in your therapist's office, not here.
17. So you admit you are denying a minority a legal right shared by the majority? Well, thank god you said you weren't a Nazi. Tell you what. I'll concede you gay marriage if you allow taxation of churches. Every other organization has to do it, why should churches be allowed this one right when it's denied to everyone else?
18. And what, exactly, is wrong with compromise? Compromise is how a society evolves and grows. A society without compromise is brittle and liable to fracture with the least pressure (sort of like what's happening with the Catholic church now).
19. So do you. I'll even help you with your luggage.
20. So, you have self-loathing gay friends? Good for you.

The problem is, no one, in all this ranting and raving, has managed to provide a single, solitary piece of evidence supporting the supposition that allowing homosexuals marriage will in any way hurt the institution or demean it's value. There's a lot of talk and there's a lot of personal opinion, but there is absolutely no fact. Before we start down the path of outright denying rights to any minority group, I think we should have some conclusive evidence that, in the long run, that group having that right presents a serious threat to the fabric of society. In a time where nearly half of all marriages end in divorce anyway, how, exactly, does it undermine the value of the institution if a previously excluded minority wishes to take such critisicim and violence upon itself just to gain the right that is being abused by the majority?

Ok, this is my final word on the subject. I'm not trying to argue, i'm just stating my position. This is my opinion, so if you disagree, fine, but don't act like I'm evil or a Nazi or whatever.

1. Homosexuality is wrong.
2. Allowing them to marry will only encourage more to be gay.
3. Homosexuality is a choice.
4. There are documented cases of gays becoming straight again.
5. Gays do have the right to their opinion.
6. Christians have equal rights to our opinions.
7. Not allowing gay marriage makes gays unhappy.
8. Allowing gay marriage makes Christians equally unhappy.
9. This is not a racial discrimination issue.
10. Gays are not a race: they have a choice to be different.
11. Races don't have this choice.
12. Christians are a minority too.
13. Christians are being persecuted as much, or more than gays.
14. Gays have the same rights as straights, they just want more.
15. Christians don't want the right to marry same sex.
16. Christians are losing rights, as well as being denied others.
17. Gays aren't losing rights, just being denied one.
18. Allowing gay marriages will lead to more compromises.
19. Gays have the right to leave if they want.
20. This isn't a personal issue for me. I have gay friends. I just think homosexuality is wrong, and they agree.

Ooo, score! A chance to increase my post count. Let the farming begin!

1. Sexuality is neither right nor wrong and it is ludicrous to attach such subjective labels. You might be able to say natural (meaning occuring in nature) or unnatural (meaning a concious deviation of behavior not currently found in a natural setting). Even then, though, the arguement against homosexuality doesn't hold water because it is a common enough practice in other species.
2. So, the only reason there are so many heterosexuals is because they were encouraged to be heterosexual through marriage rights? This is simply hilarious. Thanks for the laugh at your expense.
3. Others have said it but I'll say it again. Homosexuality is no more a 'choice' than heterosexuality. The only choice is if you are honest about your life.
4. Yes, and there are documented cases of those same straights becoming gay again. What's your point? There was a well publicized case a couple of years back about two Mormon missionaries travelling the country preaching the evils of homosexuality. Well, after a year or two of this, they left their wives and are now a happy gay couple. Rarely, if ever, does "conversion therapy" work and, when it does, there is the question of motive. I'm not denying that someone who is sufficiently repulsed by their homosexuality could mimic a heterosexual life. The question is, why should they be expected to?
5. I'll let the gays know that you have granted them the right to have an opinion. They will be thrilled.
6. I'll let the Christians know that you have granted them the right to have an opinion as well. I'm sure they will also be thrilled.
7. Yes, legally discriminating against a minority does tend to make that minority rather upset.
8. Ah, but the difference is that no one is denying equal rights to the unhappy Christian. Regardless of your stance on the homosexuality issue itself (where it comes from, how 'right' it is, etc.), the fact is that in a free society, people must be allowed to make personal choices so long as those choices do not abridge another's rights. Allowing two men or women to marry in no way interferes with your right as a Christian heterosexual to marry another Christian heterosexual. It simply extends on it and, by so doing, in fact stabilizes and protects the right in general.
9. I suppose it could be considered to be if the homosexual in question were part of a racial minority.
10. Hmmm, covered this. Idiotic point unless you're willing to grant that at any moment you could 'choose' to be gay. In fact, you probably are repressing something, so perhaps the gay community isn't as safe from you as they might think. Someone should probably warn them...
11. Yes, and up until about 40 years ago, races didn't have the choice to marry either. Times change and society moves on. You can either learn to adapt and prosper or stagnate and die. That, really, is the only choice.
12. Um, Christians are hardly a minority. Well, except for us poor forgotten Quakers. Now WE'RE a minority. :D Got any figures to back that one up?
13. Again, perhaps they were 2000 years ago, but Christians seem to be doing all right for themselves now.
14. No, they don't have the same rights because, if they did, we wouldn't be having this discussion, now would we?
15. Well, I don't want the right to have guns, but lots of other people seem to. I exercise my personal option to not own a gun. Guns are against my religion so it is my right not to have one. However, it is not my right to stop others from having them. I don't see how saying one group doesn't want a right and therefore no group should have it is relevent.
16. Well, if this is so, they should know how bad it feels and crusade for EVERYONE'S rights, now shouldn't they? I think someone has a persecution complex. Work it out in your therapist's office, not here.
17. So you admit you are denying a minority a legal right shared by the majority? Well, thank god you said you weren't a Nazi. Tell you what. I'll concede you gay marriage if you allow taxation of churches. Every other organization has to do it, why should churches be allowed this one right when it's denied to everyone else?
18. And what, exactly, is wrong with compromise? Compromise is how a society evolves and grows. A society without compromise is brittle and liable to fracture with the least pressure (sort of like what's happening with the Catholic church now).
19. So do you. I'll even help you with your luggage.
20. So, you have self-loathing gay friends? Good for you.

The problem is, no one, in all this ranting and raving, has managed to provide a single, solitary piece of evidence supporting the supposition that allowing homosexuals marriage will in any way hurt the institution or demean it's value. There's a lot of talk and there's a lot of personal opinion, but there is absolutely no fact. Before we start down the path of outright denying rights to any minority group, I think we should have some conclusive evidence that, in the long run, that group having that right presents a serious threat to the fabric of society. In a time where nearly half of all marriages end in divorce anyway, how, exactly, does it undermine the value of the institution if a previously excluded minority wishes to take such critisicim and violence upon itself just to gain the right that is being abused by the majority?

P.S. I'll act like you're an evil Nazi if I want to. It's my right as a Christian to have an opinion. You even said so yourself.

For the "christian" gays:
romans 1:18-32
1 corinthians 6:9-11
1 timothy 1:9-11

if you don't believe the bible, well, this is simply a matter of opinion. There's nothing more for me to say.

For the "christian" gays:
romans 1:18-32
1 corinthians 6:9-11
1 timothy 1:9-11

if you don't believe the bible, well, this is simply a matter of opinion. There's nothing more for me to say.

Even the devil can quote scripture...

by the way, i did say that it was only my opinion, and i never offered proof for that reason...it's my opinion. Even if i did state proof, half of you wouldn't believe me anyway, so why bother?

1. Homosexuality is wrong.
2. Allowing them to marry will only encourage more to be gay.
3. Homosexuality is a choice.
4. There are documented cases of gays becoming straight again.
5. Gays do have the right to their opinion.
6. Christians have equal rights to our opinions.
7. Not allowing gay marriage makes gays unhappy.
8. Allowing gay marriage makes Christians equally unhappy.
9. This is not a racial discrimination issue.
10. Gays are not a race: they have a choice to be different.
11. Races don't have this choice.
12. Christians are a minority too.
13. Christians are being persecuted as much, or more than gays.
14. Gays have the same rights as straights, they just want more.
15. Christians don't want the right to marry same sex.
16. Christians are losing rights, as well as being denied others.
17. Gays aren't losing rights, just being denied one.
18. Allowing gay marriages will lead to more compromises.
19. Gays have the right to leave if they want.
20. This isn't a personal issue for me. I have gay friends. I just think homosexuality is wrong, and they agree.

Not exactly..

1. Homosexuality is not wrong. Neither is hetero- or bisexuality.
2. Allowing them to marry will not encourage more to be gay. You're either gay, or you're not.
3. Homosexuality is a not choice. Let's be serious here. How many people would choose to live a lifestyle so widely hated?
4. There are documented cases of gays becoming straight (not 'again'). Some people say they have, sure.
5. Gays do have the right to their opinions.
6. Christians have rights to their opinions.
7. Not allowing gay marriage makes SOME gays unhappy. Not all gays wish to marry, just as not all heterosexuals wish to marry.
8. Allowing gay marriage makes SOME Christians equally unhappy. They have the right to their opinions, remember?
9. This is not a racial discrimination issue.
10. Gays are not a race, but that does not mean they have chosen to be different.
11. Races don't have a choice to be different either.
12. Christians are a minority too.
13. Christians are being persecuted as much as gays. True, as are other religions, races, and sexual orientations.
14. Gays do not have the same rights as straights, they just want equality.
15. SOME Christians don't want the right to marry the same sex.
16. Christians are NOT losing rights, and are not being denied others.
17. Gays have been denied this right since the beginning of this country! Land of equality? I don't think so.
18. Allowing gay marriages will lead to more compromises. True, it may. And that could be a good thing.
19. Gays have the right to leave if they want.. so do Christians.
20. This is a personal issue for me. I have gay friends. Neither them, nor I believe homosexuality it wrong.

...And that's it.

by the way, i did say that it was only my opinion, and i never offered proof for that reason...it's my opinion. Even if i did state proof, half of you wouldn't believe me anyway, so why bother?

if you actually have proof then present it. no, most people are not simply going to take your word for it, and yes, many people (myself included) will challenge your proof, but if it really is proof then you should have nothing to worry about.

by the way, i did say that it was only my opinion, and i never offered proof for that reason...it's my opinion. Even if i did state proof, half of you wouldn't believe me anyway, so why bother?
I would say more then half.

The argument can be badly simplified into 3 points.
1. Preventing gay marriage violates 14th ammendment, equal protection.
2. Civil Unions are "seperate but equal" and we all know how that failed.
3. Allowing gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage. It also violates the system of morals our laws are based on.

People can add, but essentially there is no right answer.

by the way, i did say that it was only my opinion, and i never offered proof for that reason...it's my opinion. Even if i did state proof, half of you wouldn't believe me anyway, so why bother?

Caveman bitter?
Welcome to the future, renaissance-boy, in here the bible isn't proof.

who is the victim of gay relationships? who is hurt by homosexuality itself? were gay people to marry, who would be harmed and how?
Allow me to summarize what you're saying. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are only different as to the choice of their partner, one is same-sex, the other opposite sex, but that they are equal in that both engage in the same types of sexual conduct. You also believe that society has no right to regulate sexual conduct even if it threatens public health, but you would make an exception for pedophiles. Is that about right?

if you can't answer the questions then just admit it and be done with it, dude.

just giving this a bump, so Snubis has the opportunity to answer my questions.

Which "orientations" are okay and which ones are wrong?
I'm not inclined to say any orientations are wrong, although some are certainly icky. Now, there are some behaviours that are wrong, having sex with children for example (which is where I'm assuming you are taking this discussion), and cheating as another example.

who is the victim of gay relationships? who is hurt by homosexuality itself? were gay people to marry, who would be harmed and how?
Allow me to summarize what you're saying. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are only different as to the choice of their partner, one is same-sex, the other opposite sex, but that they are equal in that both engage in the same types of sexual conduct. You also believe that society has no right to regulate sexual conduct even if it threatens public health, but you would make an exception for pedophiles. Is that about right?
It looks like you are putting words in Bottle's mouth.

Now I believe that society has a very limited right to regulate sexual conduct that threatens public health. But nonconsensual sex, absolutely I make an exception. Who wouldn't? You seem to be implying that gay marriage is a threat to public health, the logic of that quite escapes me.

Diva Celine Dion, A Gay Christian, oh dear, not a lot going for you really have you :(

At the risk of repeating things which have already been said, here comes the patented "respond to every single word posted" response. Apologies if it isn't quite as biting today as usual.

1. Homosexuality is wrong.
Says you. Homosexuality is different to heterosexuality, but "different" and "wrong" are not synonyms (at least, not according to Mr Roget and his Thesaurus). If someone different is automatically wrong, then you advocate a very strange world in which everyone is forced into conformity.

2. Allowing them to marry will only encourage more to be gay.
I find it difficult to believe this isn't a parody of an argument, but I've heard it every now and then. To begin with, we have the argument that "homosexuality is not inbuilt", which is something I don't accept as being true. Secondly, a typically moralistic argument of "if we allow X to happen, then more people will do X". While there will obviously be an upsurge in gay marriages if/when it is legalised, that's going to be due in no small part to the fact that in 2003 it wasn't legal, but suddenly it became legal. The numbers will go from 0 to however many. There might also be a small increase in the number of people coming out in the first place because they aren't condemning themselves to a second-class life.

3. Homosexuality is a choice.
As stated above, I don't buy that. Don't go saying that people will sometimes choose a lifestyle which invites persecution - that's masochism, not homosexuality. I've never heard of massive numbers of people joining the Communist Party during McCarthyism for the simple reason that Communists were persecuted at the time. So where are these people making choices which invite persecution?

4. There are documented cases of gays becoming straight again.
There are also documented cases of the psychotherapy used to "straighten" gays proving very harmful indeed. The bottom line is that there are documented cases of almost anything you'd care to name and the fact that some gays have "straightened" doesn't mean that rights should be denied to the remainder of that population.

5. Gays do have the right to their opinion.
Good, we're in agreement here. At least you're not trying to deny them that.

6. Christians have equal rights to our opinions.
True again. However, as a Christian myself (and a heterosexual, for anyone who must know), I don't find my opinions lining up with yours to any great degree. There are scripture-based objections to the anti-gay stance of the conservative church leadership, and they make perfect sense to me.

7. Not allowing gay marriage makes gays unhappy.
Clearly this isn't a reason in itself, since it's an argument For, rather than Against.

8. Allowing gay marriage makes Christians equally unhappy.

See under 6. I think you might be using false synonyms again, anyway. "Christian" and "moralistic conservative" don't mean the same thing either.

9. This is not a racial discrimination issue.
And this is relevant because....? Of course, a black gay man wanting to marry his hispanic boyfriend would be an interesting challenge to equal rights.

10. Gays are not a race: they have a choice to be different.
And here we go again with the "choice of lifestyle" argument, although at least you've had the courtesy to use the word "different" instead of "wrong" (although that says to me that your synonyms are faulty).

11. Races don't have this choice.
Exactly my point. If we get rid of this "choice" argument, you really don't have much of a leg to stand on over the 11 points you've raised so far. In fact, I'm yet to meet anyone who is anti-gay for reasons which don't include "it's their choice".

12. Christians are a minority too.
I'd have to see the latest figures, but this at least sounds plausible. 2 out of 12 statements where we seem to be in agreement, we're doing well.

13. Christians are being persecuted as much, or more than gays.
And how do you figure that, exactly? As a Christian are you banned from getting married to your partner? Perhaps that's something the lawmakers of this world should think about.

14. Gays have the same rights as straights, they just want more.
BZZZ. Thankyou for playing. You get the stick-pin. Do you honestly believe that statement you just made? Straight people can marry their boyfriends or girlfriends - gay people can't. Sounds like a lack of rights over on the gay side.

15. Christians don't want the right to marry same sex.
Unless they're gay Christians (and there are such people, even on these forums), then you're quite correct.

16. Christians are losing rights, as well as being denied others.
Such as which ones?

17. Gays aren't losing rights, just being denied one.
Yes, true. But then again, black people and women used to be denied the right to vote and laws were passed allowing both. Society doesn't seem to have deteriorated as a result, or do you believe that it has?

18. Allowing gay marriages will lead to more compromises.
Ahh. Society is on a slippery slope, is it? Well in that case, let's all revert 40 years and get rid of any compromises we've struck with dangerous minority groups since that time. Come off it. Is this really something you believe? More to the point, what possible proof do you have?

19. Gays have the right to leave if they want.
I take it you mean "and go to the Netherlands or elsewhere where gay marriage is allowed"? For a country founded by religious malcontents who wanted somewhere to practice their religion without government interference and who actually had a revolution because they didn't like the government of the day, this sounds rather rich.

20. This isn't a personal issue for me. I have gay friends. I just think homosexuality is wrong, and they agree.
Your gay friends sound remarkably intolerant...as do you, as a matter of fact. I've got gay friends too, gay Christian friends, as a matter of fact. They're not going to stand up and say "homosexuality is the way of the future", but neither will they say that it's wrong.
Of course, there's no need for me to mention the famous "token argument", in which someone says "of course I'm not racist/homophobic/anti-semitic, I have black/gay/Jewish friends" and expects to get away with that.

The bottom line, pull your head out from the sand and realise that we're living in 2004. You might not enjoy the 21st century - there are some things about it I could do without too - but the 1950s were a long time ago.

Which "orientations" are okay and which ones are wrong?

did you perhaps see the post i made in response to a similar question you posed earlier in the thread? you must have, the server screwed up and made me post a million times... with its lies of not being able to contact the server.... *grumbles*

in any case, the only sexual orientations that exist range from completely heterosexual to completly homosexual.
apparantly you're going to make a case for pedophiles, and pedophilia is not a sexual orientation... most pedophiles are heterosexual men (note how i stated the sexual orientation then the gender...)

who is the victim of gay relationships? who is hurt by homosexuality itself? were gay people to marry, who would be harmed and how?
Allow me to summarize what you're saying. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are only different as to the choice of their partner, one is same-sex, the other opposite sex, but that they are equal in that both engage in the same types of sexual conduct. You also believe that society has no right to regulate sexual conduct even if it threatens public health, but you would make an exception for pedophiles. Is that about right?

if you can't answer the questions then just admit it and be done with it, dude.

just giving this a bump, so Snubis has the opportunity to answer my questions.

one more bump, and then i'll save this as evidence that Snubis hasn't got a leg to stand on :).

who is the victim of gay relationships? who is hurt by homosexuality itself? were gay people to marry, who would be harmed and how?
Allow me to summarize what you're saying. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are only different as to the choice of their partner, one is same-sex, the other opposite sex, but that they are equal in that both engage in the same types of sexual conduct. You also believe that society has no right to regulate sexual conduct even if it threatens public health, but you would make an exception for pedophiles. Is that about right?

if you can't answer the questions then just admit it and be done with it, dude.

just giving this a bump, so Snubis has the opportunity to answer my questions.

one more bump, and then i'll save this as evidence that Snubis hasn't got a leg to stand on :).

Yes...I would like to hear Snubis's answer too... :lol:

From an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality is "wrong", seeing as how a given species wouldn't make it too far if they couldn't tell the difference between stuff they can and can not produce offspring with. However, that said, we've obviously made it pretty far now so it doesn't matter as much. With sentience comes the ability to make more advanced choices, and if some people do, good for them. Gay vs. Straight arguments make about as much sense as Jock vs. Nerd ass-kickery. Should have gotten over it in middle school, this is the way the world is. To deny someone who has made a simple, irrelevant choise a basic human freedom like the right to a marriage seems asinine and childish to me.

From an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality is "wrong", seeing as how a given species wouldn't make it too far if they couldn't tell the difference between stuff they can and can not produce offspring with.

actually, that's not true at all. via natural selection, traits that are not advantageous are weeded out of any given population; because homosexual activity has been observed in dozens of animal taxa it is not reasonable to conclude that homosexuality is a maladaption. a wide range of possible advantages have been proposed for homosexual activity and pair bonding, not the least of which is cooperative rearing of young which can increase an individual's reproductive success.

you have to keep in mind that homosexuals most certainly CAN tell the difference between "stuff they can and cannot produce offspring with," they simply chose to have sexual contact with individuals who are not potential reproductive partners. also, infertility has never been linked with homosexuality, and homosexuals are just as capable of producing children as heterosexuals, from a biological standpoint.

according to primate biologists, bisexuality is the most advantageous orientation in terms of long-range reproductive success. interesting, no?

who is the victim of gay relationships? who is hurt by homosexuality itself? were gay people to marry, who would be harmed and how?
Allow me to summarize what you're saying. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are only different as to the choice of their partner, one is same-sex, the other opposite sex, but that they are equal in that both engage in the same types of sexual conduct. You also believe that society has no right to regulate sexual conduct even if it threatens public health, but you would make an exception for pedophiles. Is that about right?

if you can't answer the questions then just admit it and be done with it, dude.

just giving this a bump, so Snubis has the opportunity to answer my questions.

one more bump, and then i'll save this as evidence that Snubis hasn't got a leg to stand on :).

Yes...I would like to hear Snubis's answer too... :lol:

[fake Snubis]
I don't have time to answer every silly argument put up by yo loony liberals.
Besides, you're gayt so I'm right, GOD is mightly and you'te twisting my workds like all liberals do to push their faggot agenda and make themself feel superior.
btw, christians never do that.[/fake snubis]

4. There are documented cases of gays becoming straight again.
Perhaps so. I have not seen any. I have seen documented cases of gays who have entered into heterosexual marriages. But what NARTH & Co, don't like mention is that so-called ex-gays still "struggle" with same-sex attractions. Neither do they like to mention that many ex-gays become ex-ex-gays. Now perhaps some people do change from gay to straight, who knows? But appears that the vast majority of gays simply cannot change their sexual orientation much if at all. Nor should they have to. I'm not inclined to deny someone a fullfilling relationship just because it happens to be with someone of the same sex. It would an evil for me to tell gays their attractions are wrong.
Which "orientations" are okay and which ones are wrong?

Personally, I like the classic missionary orientation, though doggy style is my favorite, and cowgirl is great too. But I'm willing to experiment.

Bad ones, in my opinion, would include those that hurt or humiliate one of the partners.

Interesting indeed, and it makes a lot of sense. Bisexuality is most certainly advantageous, but, hypothetically speaking and severely dumbed-down, if everyone was gay, where would the babies come from? ;)

you have to keep in mind that homosexuals most certainly CAN tell the difference between "stuff they can and cannot produce offspring with," they simply chose to have sexual contact with individuals who are not potential reproductive partners.
Oh, I am well aware of that. I was referring more towards lesser creatures, ones that can't make complex decisions like humans can. The point is that we've moved beyond the evolutionary step where this would be an issue, and now it doesn't matter. Segregation due to sexual preference is just utterly ludicrous, and shouldn't be happening.

Whilst the point that homosexuality is contrary to evolutionary principles sounds somewhat valid on the surface (and at least is a pleasant break from the "it's a sin ergo evil ergo burn 'em!" that we usually hear), I would rather argue that it would explain why it is not a dominant trait in our species.

Evolution tends to promote successful traits within the population because those with these traits tend to survive and pass them on. In many instances of Mendellian Genetics thais can be seen in the diference between dominant and recessive genes. However this does not mean that the recessive gene disapears.

If you are following the evolutionary model one assumes that we arose from hunter-gatherers. Traits that would lend themselves to poor surviveability for our ancestors would therefore include things like congenital deafness, blindness, and ordinary stupidity!

But those traits still exist in our species. Just look at the White House! ;)


The species can afford to have a few members that create no progeny, and indeed I can think of several people who I hope never do reproduce! But less desireable traits do not generally completely disapear through evolution - they just manifest in a smaller part of the group.

Hey, here is a thought:
Suppose we legalize gay marriage. In that case, shouldn't we legalize polygamy, marriage between consenting children and adults, and marriage between people and animals?

Hey, here is a thought:
Suppose we legalize gay marriage. In that case, shouldn't we legalize polygamy, marriage between consenting children and adults, and marriage between people and animals?

Marriage between consenting ADULTS wouldn't lead to pedophilia or beastiality. Polgamy, yes, but none of the other things you mentioned.

The logic just doesn't follow.

Hey, here is a thought:
Suppose we legalize gay marriage. In that case, shouldn't we legalize polygamy, marriage between consenting children and adults, and marriage between people and animals?

children cannot consent. animals cannot consent.

and polygamy can cause lots of social problems unless you allow women to have multiple husbands as well as husbands having multiple wives...
in some countries, the rich get all the women and there are none for anyone else.

Lol don't jump down my throat! I wasn't advocating any of them!

It just seems that if we're going to allow rights for some groups, oughtn't we allow them for all? It might surprise you to learn that there are several groups that are trying to get sex between adult and child legal. Why should we deny them? And then there is the animal thing...why should we deny them, either?

All I'm saying, is if we're going to use the logic train of "to each his own" it ought to be for everyone, not just who we decided.

Hey, here is a thought:
Suppose we legalize gay marriage. In that case, shouldn't we legalize polygamy, marriage between consenting children and adults, and marriage between people and animals?

Children and animals don't have the mental capacity to make such complex decisions for themselves. The animal one should be obvious.. as to the child one.. that is why we don't give them rights to choose for themselves until they are of a certain legal age.. because they don't have the mental ability to do so for themselves until they mature. As for polygamy, in almost all cases studied polygamy is more of a man's choice and leaves little choice and or decision up to the woman. In fact most cases that have become public have shown that women were basically forced into these marriages as young as 14. So... I don't think you can compare these three options with that of two consenting adults such as gay people. It's apples and oranges.

I personally don't care who marries who as long as they're consenting adults. It will have no impact on me personally nor will it take any thing away from my marriage personally. It just wouldn't affect my life.. and chances are all of you who are against it.. it wouldn't affect your life either. So, I have no idea why people feel the need to try and dictate their morality onto others. It's stupid and arrogant and makes no logical sense. I'm sure you would not like it very much if the power structure were to change tomorrow and what you hold dear in your life was outlawed and you were told that the government no longer deems how you live your life to be moral.

Put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. Why should you care what other adults do as long as it doesn't affect your life? Ask yourself that.

It might surprise you to learn that there are several groups that are trying to get sex between adult and child legal. Why should we deny them?

children can't consent. adults can. adults have the experience and the mental capacity to enter into lifelong unions and to have sex... children do not.

And then there is the animal thing...why should we deny them, either?

animals can't consent either.

All I'm saying, is if we're going to use the logic train of "to each his own" it ought to be for everyone, not just who we decided.

but we have to defend those who aren't yet capable of choosing what they want from people who want to force themselves on them.
i mean, that's like saying that if someone can only get off by raping people, then they should be allowed to rape people to their heart's content.

Suppose we give women the right to vote. Then we might have to give teenagers, infants, chimpanzees, bacteria, and staplers the right to vote. Good Lord, where would we draw the line?! Therefore, we shouldn't give women the right to vote.

Spot the logical flaw.

I read one of the front page people talking about the Xians, and I find that HIGHLY offensive. Please do not discuss Xians. (Xianism is a Veddic religion based off the teachings of the 2M. So chill.)

To put it in simplest terms: Why do so many people care about who other people choose to f***? If it makes them happy, and it doesn't harm anyone else, what's the big deal?

Suppose we give women the right to vote. Then we might have to give teenagers, infants, chimpanzees, bacteria, and staplers the right to vote. Good Lord, where would we draw the line?! Therefore, we shouldn't give women the right to vote.

Spot the logical flaw.

:mrgreen:

Besides...I have a hard time believing that some guy is sitting on a cloud, running the universe and being deeply concerned about where I stick my penis...

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like left handedness.:evil:

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children.
Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because
the world needs more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight
parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is
allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was
meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't
changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and
divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because
the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically
protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. American has only one religion, and in a theocracy like ours, the values of that religion are imposed on the entire country.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that
hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model
at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual
marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to
new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or
longer lifespans.

11. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage
with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal"
institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-
Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and
lesbians will. :evil: :evil:

Suppose we give women the right to vote. Then we might have to give teenagers, infants, chimpanzees, bacteria, and staplers the right to vote. Good Lord, where would we draw the line?! Therefore, we shouldn't give women the right to vote.

Spot the logical flaw.

Well if bacteria get to vote, then will be get the right to give consent and therefore will be able to have sex with married animal pedophiliacs

It just seems that if we're going to allow rights for some groups, oughtn't we allow them for all?
As Big Melon said, the logic just doesn't follow. By the nature of what rights are, everyone ought to have them (except with good reason), and whether gays can get their marriages recognized by the state or not does not change this in any way.
It might surprise you to learn that there are several groups that are trying to get sex between adult and child legal.
Naw, I've heard of two.
Why should we deny them?
Children cannot give consent in this and many other areas of law (children generally are a special case even in libertarian political theory). The state has deemed on their behalf that children are not to have sex. And given the harm that sex with children often causes, this seems like a good decision to me. But what does this have to do with gay marriage?
And then there is the animal thing...why should we deny them, either?
Sex or marriage? Now this is a more interesting case. Animals (other than h. sapiens) cannot consent to sex, but then they can't consent to being eaten either, and most of us do that with no compunction. But again, what does this have to do with gay marriage?
All I'm saying, is if we're going to use the logic train of "to each his own" it ought to be for everyone, not just who we decided.
Ah, ok, makes sense. You're quite right that "to each his own" leads to conclusions that very few people would support. But I don't think that is quite what most people are arguing.
I rather like "to each his own" or "live and let live" as a general principle, but not as an absolute principle. I just don't see any reason to make gays an exception to the principle.

Ok homsexuality is definitely immoral. I do know the moral standards have changed quite a bit since the early to mid 20th century but I do still believe they remain true.

When I am old enough and I have children, I don't want to go to Disneyland with my child and have to worry about homosexuality becoming a topic in my household. A child doesn't need to learn about homosexuality at such a young age, and I think hardly anyone would like to explain it to them.

Being born a homosexual is completely ludicrous. It's likegrowing up your whole life with your family and then realizing you love them later in your life. It makes no sense. And think about it, the people who choose to be gay are generally the outcasts who can't get a girl/boyfriend. So when they start to "question" their sexuality they see the only way to get a much desired "partner" is to long after the same sex.

And what the original poster said about more gay marriages resulting in more people being gay is absolutely correct. As homosexual popularity rises, the number of gays also rises. Think about all the gay-themed shows on tv right now. Granted, there's not THAT many but there is certainly a lot more than 10 years ago. More people see homosexuality as "cool" and "hip". And now that celebrities are "coming out" it's even more of an oppurtunity to be "cool".

Christian are losing some rights when it comes to the gay community. If a minister is preaching, he cannot denounce homosexuality or he would be imprisoned. A church cannot refuse the right of service to a homosexual even if they weren't qualified for the job.

And, one last thing, True Christians are a minority. Many people claim to be Christian but they really aren't. Being a Christian doesn't mean you go to church every Sunday and live like hell for the rest of the week. You have to have a true relationship with God.

"19.Gays have the right to leave if they want."
(he didn't tell gays to go anywhere. The keywords are "right" and "if they want".)

Ok homsexuality is definitely immoral. I do know the moral standards have changed quite a bit since the early to mid 20th century but I do still believe they remain true.
Slavery was once thought of as moral, women remaining umarried were once thought of as questionable. The only difference between those views and the ones we hold now on both topics is the passage of time. So exactly how many years are we to revert in our moral values?

When I am old enough and I have children, I don't want to go to Disneyland with my child and have to worry about homosexuality becoming a topic in my household. A child doesn't need to learn about homosexuality at such a young age, and I think hardly anyone would like to explain it to them.
If a child is old enough to be given the talk on "the birds and the bees", then they're clearly old enough to be told about homosexuality. If they're not old enough to be given that talk in the first place, then why not just tell them "those two guys are holding hands because they're good friends" or something equally inoccuous. Do you honestly mean that you'll never tell any children you might have about homosexuality?

Being born a homosexual is completely ludicrous. It's likegrowing up your whole life with your family and then realizing you love them later in your life. It makes no sense. And think about it, the people who choose to be gay are generally the outcasts who can't get a girl/boyfriend. So when they start to "question" their sexuality they see the only way to get a much desired "partner" is to long after the same sex.
I think you're mistake cause and effect here. I can't say that this is true for all homosexual people - but it's certainly true for the ones I know. They were "outcasts" before they came out because of the feelings they had, they didn't have the feelings because they were outcasts. There might be some people out there who decided "well, I'm not going to get a partner in a straight fashion, so I may as well be gay", but to claim that this is the case in 100% of cases is completely ludicrous.
As for your analogy about familial love, I'm afraid I don't see how it works in relation to homosexuality.

And what the original poster said about more gay marriages resulting in more people being gay is absolutely correct. As homosexual popularity rises, the number of gays also rises. Think about all the gay-themed shows on tv right now. Granted, there's not THAT many but there is certainly a lot more than 10 years ago. More people see homosexuality as "cool" and "hip". And now that celebrities are "coming out" it's even more of an oppurtunity to be "cool".
Regarding your "cool and hip" point, see earlier. Regarding your more substantive argument, again you're missing the point. Let's take a hypothetical location where gay marriage is not legal - how many gay marriages are there? 0. Right, so in the next year this location legalises gay marriage and all 3000 gay people get married. How many gay marriages are there then? 3000, up from 0 in the previous year. WOW. That's a huge increase, so that clearly demonstrates that legalisation of gay marriage has caused an increase in homosexuality. BZZZ. What it demonstrates is that there were 3000 gay people who were going to get married if you gave them a chance. The next year, there might be 1/10th that number because you're now only getting the recently "out" and those who were too young to marry in the first place.

Christian are losing some rights when it comes to the gay community. If a minister is preaching, he cannot denounce homosexuality or he would be imprisoned. A church cannot refuse the right of service to a homosexual even if they weren't qualified for the job.
Given that far too many Christian organisations subscribe to this insane view that homosexuality is something which must be fought against, this strikes me as a good thing rather than a bad one. I can't quite fathom your last sentence, though. Do you perhaps mean "rite of service"? In that case, there are no "qualifications for the job". Otherwise, I'm confused.

And, one last thing, True Christians are a minority. Many people claim to be Christian but they really aren't. Being a Christian doesn't mean you go to church every Sunday and live like hell for the rest of the week. You have to have a true relationship with God.
Many people even seem to think that True Christianity requires this militant fundamentalist attitude that the Pat Robertsons of this world are fond of having. Christianity requires more than going to Church on a Sunday, true. It also requires some form of Christ-like compassion (which tends to come with a relationship with God). A passing understanding of scripture and theology helps, but it's not essential. These last two (the compassion and the knowledge) seem to say that militant anti-gay activism by the Church isn't a good idea.

"19.Gays have the right to leave if they want."
(he didn't tell gays to go anywhere. The keywords are "right" and "if they want".)
Christians, too, have the right to leave if they want. However, the context in which that post was made was that "we aren't going to give you the right to marry your partner, so you'll have to go somewhere else to do it". Sounds suspiciously like "we're not going to give you the right to practice your version of Christianity here, so you'll have to go somewhere else to do it. Here's a ship called the Mayflower to go in." For a nation founded as a result of a bunch of persecuted minorities fleeing from oppressive rulers, you Americans sure know how to party.

Well there is new evidence to show that being gay is -not- a choice. Besides, if it was a choice, it could work either way right? If thats so just to make sure your not wrong, try being gay for a few years, ya never know, you might perfer it.

In the documents that the United states was founded upon, some of the first words were about how the people could have " Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" so what happend to that last bit of it if gays are not aloud to marry? They are being denied rights that are aloud to everyone else.

Then again, I have to support the christian point of view -sort of-, Marriage is "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife." by definition. But definitions change, and just recently "A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage. " was added to the definition of marriage.

You know what I want to see? I want to see a gay person post on here that they CHOSE to be gay, and WHY. That would ruin my view that being gay is not a choice, which I have heard from every gay friend I have ever had.

Christian are losing some rights when it comes to the gay community. If a minister is preaching, he cannot denounce homosexuality or he would be imprisoned. A church cannot refuse the right of service to a homosexual even if they weren't qualified for the job.

This is bull. As long as the church is not receiving government funds, they can discriminate against whoever they want. And as long as the preacher just says "Being gay is wrong" and doesn't say "Go out and kill all the gays!", his opinion is covered by free speech.

And, one last thing, True Christians are a minority. Many people claim to be Christian but they really aren't. Being a Christian doesn't mean you go to church every Sunday and live like hell for the rest of the week. You have to have a true relationship with God.

You're right. Some people only have a true relationship with the parts of the Bible they have decided are important, deny the fact that God loves all people, and go to church every Sunday because they don't have a personal relationship with God, they only want to listen to whatever the preacher tells them. True Christians wouldn't do any of that, but they are certainly in the minority.

"19.Gays have the right to leave if they want."
(he didn't tell gays to go anywhere. The keywords are "right" and "if they want".)

You're right. They all have the money to rent a space shuttle and go live on the moon! Send gays to the moon! Oh, wait, we "Christians" don't want the gays on our moon! Send them to Mars. Oh wait, we "Christians" don't want the gays in our Solar system! ...

Ok, this is my final word on the subject. I'm not trying to argue, i'm just stating my position. This is my opinion, so if you disagree, fine, but don't act like I'm evil or a Nazi or whatever.

1. Homosexuality is wrong.
2. Allowing them to marry will only encourage more to be gay.
3. Homosexuality is a choice.
4. There are documented cases of gays becoming straight again.
5. Gays do have the right to their opinion.
6. Christians have equal rights to our opinions.
7. Not allowing gay marriage makes gays unhappy.
8. Allowing gay marriage makes Christians equally unhappy.
9. This is not a racial discrimination issue.
10. Gays are not a race: they have a choice to be different.
11. Races don't have this choice.
12. Christians are a minority too.
13. Christians are being persecuted as much, or more than gays.
14. Gays have the same rights as straights, they just want more.
15. Christians don't want the right to marry same sex.
16. Christians are losing rights, as well as being denied others.
17. Gays aren't losing rights, just being denied one.
18. Allowing gay marriages will lead to more compromises.
19. Gays have the right to leave if they want.
20. This isn't a personal issue for me. I have gay friends. I just think homosexuality is wrong, and they agree.

Rather simplistic for such a complex issue if you ask me. Perhaps you could elaborate on these 20 points starting with why homosexuality is wrong.

You know what I want to see? I want to see a gay person post on here that they CHOSE to be gay, and WHY. That would ruin my view that being gay is not a choice, which I have heard from every gay friend I have ever had.

Homosexuality is not a choice, I agree there. However homosexuals do have a choice as to whether they want to live life as a heterosexual or a homosexual (this simply means who they choose to be with and it has no bearing on their life per se). Many gay people live fulfilling heterosexual lives, either because they feel it in themselves as wrong to be gay or because they fear society's reaction.

If homosexuality is a choice, does this mean heterosexuality is also a choice? Do we choose to be straight and gay? This seems to be the crux of the 1st poster's argument.

'True Christians'......Hmm, interesting concept. Jesus was a radical for his times. He taught tolerence and love for your fellow man, no matter what his beliefs or actions. Kinda doesn't fit in with the Conservative Christians message of intolerance torwards homosexuality.


Now that I think of it 'Conservative' doesn't really fit with 'True Christian' at all. Jesus was, after all, about as liberal as they get.

My personal belief is that the practice is wrong. That one can not be a christian or a true christian and be a homosexual or married. My stance on all marriage is this: the government should stay out of it stop taxing people with its marriage tax etc. and let people control their own affairs the regulation of marriage is a big pain a mess and unnescessary I could care less you can't force it I am against homosexuality and marriage of homosexuals but I say lets just make it a truly personal issue.

What the hell are you people talking about? You should know something about the gays. Look at their soil, for god's sake. You can't freakin' grow anything in it, can't build crap on it. The government says it's due to poor farming, but I know what they're up to! THEY'RE BUILDING LANDING STRIPS, FOR GAY MARTIANS!!


Ok homsexuality is definitely immoral. I do know the moral standards have changed quite a bit since the early to mid 20th century but I do still believe they remain true.

Just mind your own goddamned business. What a man, another man and a midget do in their bedroom is their business only. What I mean is, if you hump a camel, the camel actually feels the same about you and you're not doing it in public (which you would only do if you're a freakin' moron), then you can go ahead.

When I am old enough and I have children, I don't want to go to Disneyland with my child and have to worry about homosexuality becoming a topic in my household. A child doesn't need to learn about homosexuality at such a young age, and I think hardly anyone would like to explain it to them.

I don't get it, I learned about homosexuals at the age of six, it didn't really influence me much. As for the so-called "indecent" things I've written above, I learned about that by myself and because you touch yourself.

Just say it in the simple way: "People who like people of the same sex."

I wasn't traumatized, instead, I was busy undressing barbie dolls and making fun of girls. In fact, I really miss doing that... the latter part, that is.

Being born a homosexual is completely ludicrous. It's likegrowing up your whole life with your family and then realizing you love them later in your life. It makes no sense. And think about it, the people who choose to be gay are generally the outcasts who can't get a girl/boyfriend. So when they start to "question" their sexuality they see the only way to get a much desired "partner" is to long after the same sex.

So? The choice thing is complete utter bull. Even then, it's THEIR choice, right? Screw off.

Now, allow me to ramble about fat people. Fat people are freaking fat because it's their goddamn choice. They chose to be so goddamn ugly, it's their own damn fault for looking like crap. They shouldn't have eaten so much at McDonald's, I mean, what kinda moron eats over there? Now they tell us to not mock them for looking like that? Hah, yeah right. Just freakin' lose weight. And some say that they ate too much to fill voids, complete B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T, who the hell eats for a hobby? Accepting fat people is a completely stupid thing. And there's no such thing as a fat disease, those wussies just can't face the fact that they look like a soccer ball. By being bigger, those people only make easier targets for my AK-47. Hah!

Oh, and I was being sarcastic. Heh, I should've said that first. But then, may I shouldn't have, it would be funny to see your reaction.

And what the original poster said about more gay marriages resulting in more people being gay is absolutely correct. As homosexual popularity rises, the number of gays also rises. Think about all the gay-themed shows on tv right now. Granted, there's not THAT many but there is certainly a lot more than 10 years ago. More people see homosexuality as "cool" and "hip". And now that celebrities are "coming out" it's even more of an oppurtunity to be "cool".

If people are stupid enough to think that having a certain sexuality is cool, then let them. They won't be able to reproduce anyway.

Christian are losing some rights when it comes to the gay community. If a minister is preaching, he cannot denounce homosexuality or he would be imprisoned. A church cannot refuse the right of service to a homosexual even if they weren't qualified for the job.

Removing the rights of others isn't a right.

And, one last thing, True Christians are a minority. Many people claim to be Christian but they really aren't.

I'm also Bill Gates' one and only heir. I have already tracked you down. Several hitmen and a donkey are on their way to your home as I am typing this.

"19.Gays have the right to leave if they want."
(he didn't tell gays to go anywhere. The keywords are "right" and "if they want".)

As in: "If you don't like this place, screw off ya faggot."

Ah, my first post. I think I'm going to love it here, I can just tell... :D

Anyhow, here's my two cents.

The key question here imo, is what is marriage? Is it a right to be bestowed or denied according to the whims of the Church, the government, and society at large?

Or is it something else altogether?

If it is primarily something which will make a difference in citizens lives, their status, or their place in society, then it should properly be considered a right.

If on the other hand, it is primarily a religous denotation, with lesser influence upon the regulation of society, then it should be governed by its religious masters in whatever manner they see fit, and the state should play a secondary role in its regulation.

I think the whole gay marriage debate is a matter of semantics more than anything else, & it is semantics the gays are fighting over, as they believe it is important to have the title to ensure their place as equal members of society.

I'm not so sure this is the case.

Gays most everywhere (around here anywhere) are fully entitled to all the benefits granted by law to married couples, even if in some instances this status is called a civil union, not marriage. Where I live they do actually have full marriage rights.

But marriage originated with religion, not the state. It is still primarily a religious concept. How many people want to get married in a church, even if they're not religious? Why is this?

Furthermore, rightly or wrongly, it is an intensely important issue to religous people. Imo this is partially why gays want it; they would be able to force their will upon the Church, thereby showing "those intolerant bastards" that their will trumps that of the Church. Otherwise, why is a civil union not an acceptable term?

I say this, because while I believe the Church is in many ways backwards & homophobic, it is an institution that imo should be allowed to exist intact in our society, even if some of their ideas are a bit wacko. Denying them the definition of marriage goes right to their soul & would be a crushing blow to them.

Imo giving what is basically a title to gays does not justify the damage it would do to certain religions.

Even from a non religious point of view I'd say from a naturalist point of view that we human beings are not born gay for obvious reproductive reasons. My church would certainly allow homosexuals to attend but not hold a postition of power or even be a member.

marriage is well how about its left to individuals say a hetero couple gets married in church if they like or not and stay devoted to each other its a partnership for life a commitment.

Homosexuals can do this as well even in some churches and I could care less or just among themselves minus religion or government.

Sounds good to me. personal!

My church would certainly allow homosexuals to attend but not hold a postition of power or even be a member.
Is yours a Christian faith? If so, please explain to me how you reconcile this with the teachings of Christ. Or do you honestly believe a man who would wash the feet of a beggar and embrace leppers would cast out someone for their sexual preference?

Well I say let gays marry or have civil unions - that way the government can treat them as a family and tax them!

Well I say let gays marry or have civil unions - that way the government can treat them as a family and tax them!Uh, the government taxes single people too. :roll:

Well I say let gays marry or have civil unions - that way the government can treat them as a family and tax them!Uh, the government taxes single people too. :roll:

Not as much as married couples.

Well I say let gays marry or have civil unions - that way the government can treat them as a family and tax them!Uh, the government taxes single people too. :roll:

Not as much as married couples. :? Not sure where you live but here in the U.S. the exemptions for married people are more than those for single people, meaning they pay less in taxes for the same income. (this is one of the reasons Gay people want the right to marry, so they are entitled to the same tax breaks as heterosexual couples)

Well I say let gays marry or have civil unions - that way the government can treat them as a family and tax them!Uh, the government taxes single people too. :roll:

Not as much as married couples.

Yeah thats true.

Here in Australia families are taxed heavily (combine the income of the husband and wife and then determine family benefits and other welfare and special levies - who they apply to). Gay couples are treated as individuals so a gay couple with a combined income of $80,000 are better off than a straight, married couple also on $80,000. While I believe in income splitting, I think gays have had it too good for too long - tax them like the rest of us.

Manarth's View

1. Marriage is a word used to describe the joining of two people, either within a religious service, or by the government.
2. The changing of the government's ideas of the meaning of that word would not affect the religious ideas adversely.
3. This would not adversely affect taxes to a great extent, and the damage done could easily be fixed.
3. Ergo, there is no legitmate reason, excluding religiously inspired ones, preventing this from taking place.
4. Ergo, it should take place.

Okay, on with the indepth discussion:

1. Marriage is defined as the union of both a man and a woman by the government, and a wide variety of churches. While some might argue that God or Allah defines marriage, or that some other deity does, the only soverignty that the deity has is over thier own religion, and not the US government (1st ammendment). Furthermore, the legal definition would be easily altered through law, showing it's inherent flexablility.

2. As above, deity's are in control over thier own religion, whether through religious books, word of mouth or devine revelation. However, for those religions, marriage is a sacriment, and can only be an arraingemnt made with their deity. As previously described, a government cannot interfere with religious observences, and as such, religions would not be required to acknowlege legal marriages as spiritual marriages. As such, the deity need not worry about those who sin against him/her poisoning his/her flock; because the deity has no need to worry as to what they do, after all, his wrath will visit them soon enough.

3. While changing this would allow a larger number of people to fall within the married tax bracket, the biggest credits come to those with dependents. Without a natural means of reproduction, the homosexual marriages will face a much greater tax burden anyway.

In addition, the married, no children tax could be increased, further promoting the importance of the nuclear family, while punishing the gay and contraceptive/abortion using familys more interested in their own gains than bringing another child into the world. It would also make adoption a much friendlier option for those who cannot naturally reproduce, those to anxious to wait, and those who's religion tells them that sex is an unholy act, lowering our dependance on foster care and providing a true need for non-aborted but "unwanted" (by their birth mother only, someone sure would want them) children.

4. Without religion or taxation, what problems does that leave in the way of legal homosexual marriage? None. *Please do not refute 4 if your main arguement is religion or taxation as those are discussed in 2 and 3 respectively*

5. Therefore, without any reason not to pass it, and a vast number of people in the US that want it passed, it should be implimented.

Hmm... If marriage is a religious institution, than why not just stop legally recognizing it. Civil unions for everyone.

Get married in a church or something.

Hmm... 3am... that's all I got.

Frankly, this thread is hilarious in a tragicomic sort of way. If anyone in my country published something like the first post in a newspaper or such they'd be a laughing stock. Even the archbishop of Sweden has condoned gay marraige, stating that "love is love, no matter what the form."

Frankly, this thread is hilarious in a tragicomic sort of way. If anyone in my country published something like the first post in a newspaper or such they'd be a laughing stock. Even the archbishop of Sweden has condoned gay marraige, stating that "love is love, no matter what the form."

i am ashamed to admit that my country tends to give credence to the wild theories of homophobes, depsite there being no evidence supporting them and piles of evidence refuting them. chalk another one up to America's crap-ass public education system.

if the 'phobes have internet access then they also have no excuse for their ignorance on the subject. a wide variety of scientific journals on the subject of homosexuality have address their concerns from many angles. for instance, the argument that homosexuality is unnatural is disproven by the data on animal species; of the 1500 species for which reproductive behavior has been observed, 450 have shown homosexual activity. reproductive fitness has been shown to INCREASE in animals with homosexual tendencies, for several different reasons. in some cases those animals help rear siblings (since siblings are genetically just as related to them as offspring would be) and are more successful at that then they would be striking out on their own. in other cases the homosexual bond helps them to raise offspring from heterosexual matings...in fact, many species (such as dolphins) have life-long homosexual bonds that are only briefly interrupted by the mating season.

if the 'phobes read history they'd also give up on their "slippery slope argument." they'd realize that their words were used 60 years ago to try to prevent interracial marriages. strangely, the country hasn't decended into anarchy, incest and molestation aren't legal, and the institution of marriage remains weakened only by the poor judgment of heterosexuals.

if they checked up on the laws of the land they would know that the "for the good of the children" argument is pathetically frail, since convicted child molesters, murderers, rapists, and terrorists can legally marry. anybody who thinks a straight child molester is better for children than a loving gay couple isn't worth arguing with anyhow.

but hey, i've posted such information before, and none of the 'phobes reply. they know they're wrong, and that their views are nothing more than "I THINK GAY IS ICKY!!! TAKE THEIR RIGHTS AWAY!!" but they won't own up...if they admitted their own weakness i might have some respect for them, but as it is i just point and laugh.

If it is primarily something which will make a difference in citizens lives, their status, or their place in society, then it should properly be considered a right.

In this society, it is.

Gays most everywhere (around here anywhere) are fully entitled to all the benefits granted by law to married couples, even if in some instances this status is called a civil union, not marriage. Where I live they do actually have full marriage rights.

I don't know where you live, but this is not true anywhere in the United States. Even Vermont's civil unions don't allow full marriage rights because the federal government does not recognize them.

Furthermore, rightly or wrongly, it is an intensely important issue to religous people. Imo this is partially why gays want it; they would be able to force their will upon the Church, thereby showing "those intolerant bastards" that their will trumps that of the Church. Otherwise, why is a civil union not an acceptable term?

Most gay people want marriages so that they can take care of their partners later in life, share insurance benefits, not have an estranged family take everything away if their partner dies, not lose a child if their partner dies, not have to testify against their partner in the case where that might be necessary, etc, etc, etc

I say this, because while I believe the Church is in many ways backwards & homophobic, it is an institution that imo should be allowed to exist intact in our society, even if some of their ideas are a bit wacko. Denying them the definition of marriage goes right to their soul & would be a crushing blow to them.

No one is denying any church the right to define marriage however they want. They are simply being denied the power to define the legal definition of marriage according to their personal religious views.

Imo giving what is basically a title to gays does not justify the damage it would do to certain religions.

A legal change wouldn't damage any religion, as the religion would not have to recognize it any more than some churches recognize the right to drink or (in some states) gamble.

Ok, this is my final word on the subject. <snip>

So you have decided not to think about this any more?

I have changed my opinions a lot over the years through passionate argument and observation...

Don't go brain-dead on us now...

I plan on being wrong a lot in the next fifty years... I hope.

Ok, this is my final word on the subject. I'm not trying to argue, i'm just stating my position. This is my opinion, so if you disagree, fine, but don't act like I'm evil or a Nazi or whatever.

1. Homosexuality is wrong.
2. Allowing them to marry will only encourage more to be gay.
3. Homosexuality is a choice.
4. There are documented cases of gays becoming straight again.
5. Gays do have the right to their opinion.
6. Christians have equal rights to our opinions.
7. Not allowing gay marriage makes gays unhappy.
8. Allowing gay marriage makes Christians equally unhappy.
9. This is not a racial discrimination issue.
10. Gays are not a race: they have a choice to be different.
11. Races don't have this choice.
12. Christians are a minority too.
13. Christians are being persecuted as much, or more than gays.
14. Gays have the same rights as straights, they just want more.
15. Christians don't want the right to marry same sex.
16. Christians are losing rights, as well as being denied others.
17. Gays aren't losing rights, just being denied one.
18. Allowing gay marriages will lead to more compromises.
19. Gays have the right to leave if they want.
20. This isn't a personal issue for me. I have gay friends. I just think homosexuality is wrong, and they agree.

I can agree with you except with 20. That just doesn't make any sense at all. I don't approve of gays and their actions true enough but i don't speak out about it nor do i persecute them for it. It’s their choice so i leave it at that.