NationStates Jolt Archive

I am not stating an opinion for or against. I am asking for your opinion, and for your support. Please state your stance, as well as why you hold that stance. Please, no biblical proof since (though I am religious and try to use religious texts as my guide to life) the government does not acknowledge religious proof and does not take it into consideration when deciding the laws of the country (I am referring to the U.S.A., and to what is supposed to happen, not necissarily what does).

You should not respond to the posts of anybody else in this thread. I am asking for why you think yes/no, not why somebody else is right/wrong. There should be no interaction between posters, since it will quickly dissolve into nothing short of a flamewar. Thank you.

Sorry, but I think, regardless of any requests, it will just become a flame war anyway. Sorry to be a pessimist, but so many good threads like this have gone bad just like that. I used to try to involve myself(as Burning Hate), but I gave up, because my opinions were always attacked by those too ignorant to have their own.

Most likely. I've resigned myself to having all my General threads end in flames, and I want to maybe get a few good posts in before this one goes down the tube.

Wrong: Cause it's not right!
Right: Because in section II Article 15 of the USconstitution it says that blah blah blah shoppingblah yada yada bush sux0r yada yada yada introduce puppies! MADNESS! Because you are and dancin' queen

I'm pro-gay marriage in America

Why? Because they have as much right to be as miserable as anyone else...


Okay, seriously. Because gay marriages actually last longer, and divorce rates are soring (sp?). If they decide to adopt, that's one less child in an orphanage. If statistics stay the same, the child will grow up with a smaller probability of going through the suffering of having his/her parents have domestic issues.

Also, because "all men are created equal." It caused great controversy over the issue of slavery. It later was one of the reasons that abolished slavery once and for all. Why doesn't it apply to gays as well? Lack of knowledge and bad role-models is a good reason.

That's another reason. Gay marriages would drop the number of people who discriminate based on sexual preferences among younger children. Sure, the older generation will probably keep their beliefs, but their children won't. The kids will grow up in a more diverse society, which is ultimately good for everyone.

Gay marriage is wrong... for me.

However, there are millions of people who are not me, and would enjoy such a right.

I also happen to think that there SHOULD be a legal recognition of a longterm commitment between ANY two consenting adults, regardless of gender, that allows gays the same basic rights as a "straight" married couple. Call it a civil union if it will shut up the religious morons, but make it legally identical to the current "marriage" licenses.

WHY IS THERE MORE OF THESE THREADS??? :x

well I personally due to religious beliefs find it immoral and against God's teachings, against what the bible teaches however I must say it is not an issue for government. Government should stay out of this it is primarily a private/religious matter for the invidiual it effects me little.

These folks out trying to stop this which is inevetible are fools rather they should be living what they preach, not divorcing and the like but whatever do as I say not as I do is a fave mott of theirs. Look at jerry falwell or good ol' phelps the creeps.

WHY IS THERE MORE OF THESE THREADS??? :x

Because all the other threads I see have to do with somebody giving their opinion and then arguing with everybody else, I have yet to see a thread that merely asks for your opinion and support.

I'm pro gay marriage because frankly it's none of my buisness. I'm not gay, so why should i decide wat gay ppl are allowed do? Thats just stupid. It's their right to get married; and i don't see how too women or two men exchangeing nuptials is hurting anyone. Just cause you don't like somthing doesn't mean the entire country has to dislike it too.

They have as much right to get married as everone else.

Well Klonor, it was almost gone for a second there, but props for keeping it going this long. Most of the reson is probably that most of the people like Red Arrow are gone now.

Who does it hurt?

Who does it hurt? I'm glad you're still around, CP, and very upset that Parratoga and NEE have left. You three were always little islands of rationality for me in my earlier days. (Burning Hate)

I think that it is none of my business, nor is it any of the states business. Get married, or don't. It should be the choice of the people in the relationship.

I think marriage, in American at least, is currently defined by the Christian view of what marrying means... I'm all for gay marriage, being a lesbian myself, but first I think the definition of marriage in mainstream America must change before we try and pass laws forcing those who don't believe in allowing all to marry marry.

i'm pro-gay marriage because of alot of the same reasons everyone else is.

I think marriage has ceased to be a binding between man, woman, and God, and become more of a legal tie between two people and the government. And since the government is not religiously inclinded (atleast, they're not suppose to be), and there is more than one religion out there, and other religions can support gay marriage, and athiests don't have a religion, so should they support a not technically Christian inclinded definition of "marriage is a union between one human male, one human female."

Personally, i think that "union between two humans" solves a lot of our problems. In Issues in Government, we had a kid who always brought up marrying Lassie... :lol:

Pro Gay Marriage. Firstly, because denying them marriage doesn't make any sense. Marriage is a union between two people, and that should not be a restriction. Marriage gives you more rights, and tax benefits.

Imposing your will on other people doesn't make you a better christian. People have their right to choice, unfortunately for the church, they don't own the concept of marriage. I don't believe that it actually offends someone so much that they would want it banned. It really doesn't affect anyone but the two people getting married. Any legislation passed won't have effect. Try putting this cat back in the bag.

Read the bible...

Read the bible...

Why ? I am not christian.

I believe that marriage between homosexuals should be legal, and a constitutional amendment to ban it is stupid. furthermore, it should not be made that the church (used to signify the entire christian collective) does not have to recognize said marraige. the reason is a religious one, and we still have a first amendment. The official view of the Catholic Church, taken from the Catechism states that those who harbor homosexual feelings or what have you are not evil at all. they should be afforded the same amount of respect as anyone else. to discriminate or chastise someone becoause of this is inherently wrong towards the christian faith and its teachings. the Catechism also states that homosexuals are called to a life of chastity, though i still support gay unions. be well all:) :D

im pro gay marriage because i am gay and i would like to be able to have all the rights that the heteros have and not be religated(sp?) as a second class citizen because i fancy other men :)








p.s. sorry for the bad grammar but its quite late and i have college in the morn

If someone can give me five good reasons why same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry, and none of the reasons have anything to do with religion, I may consider it. But I probably still will be for gay marriage.

In America, out of every two couples one will most likely end up divorced. The if they remarry, they are even more likely to get divorced the next time around. The children produced in these marriages are more likely to become divorcees, along with having to suffer the stress of a divorce along with their parents. Divorce may seem like it only affects two people, but it has a huge effect on the entire family, from parents of the divorcees to children and grandchildren. Now.. think about all the long-term same-sex couples that would be getting married for good. I'd have to say it's more likely a group who has been denied this right would be able to appreciate and respect it more than heterosexuals. (Though after a while they would become more used to this privilege, and divorce rates could go up in the gay community, too.)

There are also plenty of same-sex couples who would be overjoyed to be able to adopt children. There are children in foster care who would jump at the chance to have a stable home with loving parents. Does it matter what gender or sexual preference the married couple is, as long as they can properly care for the child?

Well, I'm could go on, but this already sounds bad enough seeing as how I'm writing at 2 a.m. on minimum sleep. Maybe I'll actually think before I post next time.

If someone can give me five good reasons why same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry, and none of the reasons have anything to do with religion, I may consider it. But I probably still will be for gay marriage. And to this day I have not had anyone do this. No argument (that has not been completly stupid or distorted) has been made aginst gays or gay Marriage that has NOT Included religious arguments in one form or another...

Its wrong the whole practise of homosexuality is wrong, it goes against the moral fibers of our world, and threatens the future of humanity

Its wrong the whole practise of homosexuality is wrong, it goes against the moral fibers of our world, and threatens the future of humanity

I am going to steal a line and insist that you give me 5 reasons that do not involve religion of any sort.

Or are you just trolling ?

Its wrong the whole practise of homosexuality is wrong, it goes against the moral fibers of our world, and threatens the future of humanity

I am going to steal a line and insist that you give me 5 reasons that do not involve religion of any sort.

Or are you just trolling ?

Reason the first: It is not a biologically natural process.

Reason the second: It is purely immoral

Reason the third: Homosexuality brought down one of the Greek empires.

Reason the fourth: It could further destroy humanity, more gays means less children, eventually we become extinct.

Reason the fifth: It goes against the laws of evolution.

Reason the first: It is not a biologically natural process.

Define your methods of determining the definition of biologically natural process

Reason the second: It is purely immoral

That is a religious definition, the point is void.

Reason the third: Homosexuality brought down one of the Greek empires.

No it did not. Poor political and military planning brought it down.

Reason the fourth: It could further destroy humanity, more gays means less children, eventually we become extinct.

Only if everyone was gay. Humanity is in noi danger of extenction.

Reason the fifth: It goes against the laws of evolution.

Infact it does not. Some member of the species become homosexual to allow other genetic material to be passed on.

Sorry you lose.

Reason the first: It is not a biologically natural process.

Reason the second: It is purely immoral

Reason the third: Homosexuality brought down one of the Greek empires.

Reason the fourth: It could further destroy humanity, more gays means less children, eventually we become extinct.

Reason the fifth: It goes against the laws of evolution. Hmmm, after weighing the great 'Logic' behind those five 'reason' am going to go out on a limb here and say hes trolling...

Also, one other thing, People who argue 'reason Four' really REALLY get on my nerves. They seem to forget that Homosexuals can STILL Have babies. I maybe gay... But if im going to choose between the 'extinction' of humanity, and doing it with a chick, I think im going to choose the chick...

It's not anybody business, I mean if they want to get married than they can. It's not hurting anybody.

I,personally, am for gay marriages. I do not see what's wrong with them. Love is love, in whatever form it takes, and I believe it's wrong to try to make others unable to marry, because people aren't comfortable with it.

I,personally, am for gay marriages. I do not see what's wrong with them. Love is love, in whatever form it takes, and I believe it's wrong to try to make others unable to marry, because people aren't comfortable with it.

we get too hung up on the sexual aspects of marriage. after all, gay people have sex now without the benefits of marriage. that wont change

marriage is about the creation of a new family unit. 2 unrelated people becoming a family. some will have children, some wont but the married couple is the basis of a new family

as long as it is freely entered into by people capable of informed consent why would it ever matter what the gender of those people are? if it makes you feel better you can pretend they dont have sex, since its none of your business what they do anway.

I'm FOR gay marriage because I'm gay and I deserve the right to choose wheter I marry, or not marry, the man I love.

I'm AGAINST FORCING ANY CHURCH to celebrate an union between two men or two women if they don't feel like it because they deserve the right to choose which marriages they perform.

I'm COMPLETELY FOR giving the right to Churche who DO want to perform same-sex marriages if it takes their fancy. It's something a lot of Christians against gay marriage forget : even though they have freedom of religion, SO DOES OTHER CHURCHES. That means Churches like The United Church of Canada(to name one I know) who supports gay marriage also have the right to choose which marriages they perform.

P.S. Capitals in my post were used to put emphasis, not give the impression that I was shouting or being agressive.

how many threads are there like this now??
hmm.. im going to start a contest for whoever can make the most original post... just to get away from generic stuff like this.

I'm AGAINST FORCING ANY CHURCH to celebrate an union between two men or two women if they don't feel like it because they deserve the right to choose which marriages they perform.

Love you because you put one of the main points I forgot..

Gay marriage is not a RELIGIOUS issue when we're talking about laws. It's a LEGAL issue. As far as I'm concerned, every church on this side of the Mississippi can ban gay marriage if they so choose. Same-sex couples should be able to go to the courthouse and get married and have the same legal rights as heterosexuals who are married.

Okay, dangit, enough late night posting for me! Second time in a row..

I'm leaning towards the libertarian viewpoint at this point. Why? Because gays exist, and they have the same rights we do, and they are no longer a quiet mini-minority.

I say, let them ALL be called civil unions in the eyes of the law, and let the religions and society label whatever they want as a "marriage." That way, it's ot seperate but equal, it's lower and equal.

On the other hand, a good 2/3 of americans are against gay marriage, because they feel strongly that it is a further degradation of traditional family values. I mean, single-parent familys suck, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone, but I am most certainly not for abortion. Along the same lines, I do not believe gay parents would be all too much better than single... it is in most cases worse.... gay marriage encourages this family structure on children... and frankly, it's not healthy.

Man and woman is what works. Woman by herself has problems raising kids, and Man by himself has 10 times as many problems. Putting 2 guys together or 2 girls together will not solve the problems.

If enough people come out against gay marriage, and the silent majority speaks out, then I'll join in with a constitutional ammendment... but if it turns out that the only a minority (less than half) share my feelings, I will stick with the Libertarian (everything civil union) stance.

All in all, think of the children.

--On an additional note, there are MANY legal complications with gay marriage being where it is... we have to decide, as a nation, which path... all legal, all illegal, or all civil unions.

On the other hand, a good 2/3 of americans are against gay marriage, because they feel strongly that it is a further degradation of traditional family values. I mean, single-parent familys suck, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone, but I am most certainly not for abortion. Along the same lines, I do not believe gay parents would be all too much better than single... it is in most cases worse.... gay marriage encourages this family structure on children... and frankly, it's not healthy.

If the family type a child is in encourages the family type they will try to create, how come so many homosexuals grow up in heterosexual households?

And, how is being raised by two parents of the same sex unhealthy?

Single-parent families are bad, but what about the parent who is gone? Maybe they were abusive, addicts, or something that was damaging to the family. There are things worse than single-parent families.

I'm leaning towards the libertarian viewpoint at this point. Why? Because gays exist, and they have the same rights we do, and they are no longer a quiet mini-minority.

Wow I agree with you on something....

I say, let them ALL be called civil unions in the eyes of the law, and let the religions and society label whatever they want as a "marriage." That way, it's ot seperate but equal, it's lower and equal.

OMG !!! Two in a row.

On the other hand, a good 2/3 of americans are against gay marriage, because they feel strongly that it is a further degradation of traditional family values.

2/3 of Americans were against the emancipation proclomation at one point also....

I mean, single-parent familys suck, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone, but I am most certainly not for abortion. Along the same lines, I do not believe gay parents would be all too much better than single... it is in most cases worse.... gay marriage encourages this family structure on children... and frankly, it's not healthy.

What is not healthy about it ? (Please without biblical referances.) I must say that in a perfect world parents would be one of each sex, just so the child has a balanced upbringing, but this is not a perfect world, and being raised by two people who love each other , even if they are of the same sex, is better than being raised by two people who hate each other, even if they are of opposite sexes.


Man and woman is what works.

Not always, I know a lot of divorved people (hell, I am one)

Woman by herself has problems raising kids, and Man by himself has 10 times as many problems. Putting 2 guys together or 2 girls together will not solve the problems.

I think it would go a long way to help the problem. A lot of the problem is that there is only one person trying to make enough money to live and provide a happy loving enviornment for the child. The reason that single fathers have more problems is because welfare does not support them as well as single mothers, there are not as many social programs for them, and they therefore have to spend more time out of the house to provide for the child. It is about economics, not sexuality. Two parents, even if they are of the same sex, stand a better chance of providing everything the child needs, both material and other.

If enough people come out against gay marriage, and the silent majority speaks out, then I'll join in with a constitutional ammendment... but if it turns out that the only a minority (less than half) share my feelings, I will stick with the Libertarian (everything civil union) stance.

Just because more people want it does not make it right. If that were true we would still be a part of the British empire, have slaves, and women would be second class citizens. Think about it.

All in all, think of the children.

I do. Please see my statements above.

--On an additional note, there are MANY legal complications with gay marriage being where it is... we have to decide, as a nation, which path... all legal, all illegal, or all civil unions.

No we have to decide as a nation if we are ready to step out of the dark ages of religious dogma, and not judge people based on thier sexuality and place them in a secondary class of society.

On the other hand, a good 2/3 of americans are against gay marriage, because they feel strongly that it is a further degradation of traditional family values. I mean, single-parent familys suck, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone, but I am most certainly not for abortion. Along the same lines, I do not believe gay parents would be all too much better than single... it is in most cases worse.... gay marriage encourages this family structure on children... and frankly, it's not healthy.

If the family type a child is in encourages the family type they will try to create, how come so many homosexuals grow up in heterosexual households? You misunderstood. Gay Marriages, in many cases, will adopt kids. You could easily say that Marrying a gay couple encourages them to adopt a child. To me, that's worse than a single mom adopting, let alone a single father. It just causes problems.

And, how is being raised by two parents of the same sex unhealthy?I just said. Man and woman is what works. man by himself has problems, woman by herself has problems. 2 woman or 2 men does not fix the problem, or even make it any better. And it most certainly creates a humiliating circumstance for the kids, who will most likely be made fun of at school... not like the latter is really important.

Single-parent families are bad, but what about the parent who is gone? Maybe they were abusive, addicts, or something that was damaging to the family. There are things worse than single-parent families.Yeah, but the point is: We don't encourage single-parent families, they are a last resort, after an intolerable failure of a marriage.

Just like we don't encourage teen pregnancies, or single-parent families, or single-parent adoption... we should not encourage adoption by same-sex couples. It's just asking for problems.

I just said. Man and woman is what works.

Who is lying to you? I had that for the first 10 years of my life. It didn't work.

man by himself has problems, woman by herself has problems.

My father raised me after the divorce, and I had no problems...I chose to live with him.

2 woman or 2 men does not fix the problem, or even make it any better. And it most certainly creates a humiliating circumstance for the kids, who will most likely be made fun of at school... not like the latter is really important.

In this day of age, I think it is becoming quite common in comparison with the days of yore. It is not something that is just going to go away.

Well, I for one would like to see Raysia give a better explination of the problems would be with a gay couple and children, other than thay will be made fun of in school. All kids are made fun of in school. If this was a good reason to disallow people to adopt children, then Mormons should not be allowed to adopt.

--On an additional note, there are MANY legal complications with gay marriage being where it is... we have to decide, as a nation, which path... all legal, all illegal, or all civil unions.

No we have to decide as a nation if we are ready to step out of the dark ages of religious dogma, and not judge people based on thier sexuality and place them in a secondary class of society.It's not necesarily about religious reference, it's about the fact that people in this nation actually HAVE religions, and moral standards. People have an idealistic idea of what they think their nation should look like, and will do anything to make sure we don't stray too far from it.

Don't want to encourage non-traditional family structures? Ban Gay Marriage.
Don't want to encourage murder as birth control? Ban abortion.
Don't want to let leaders of other nations kill off their own people? Go to war.
See a elected representative of your city/county/state/nation blow off the Moral values of the people who voted for them and go out and cheat on their wives or something like that? call them out, get them out.
Can't show your cross/display your manger scene/yell merry christmas/say god bless you in public? Yell at the ACLU.
Can't get a job because the employer must meet a minority quota? Yell at the NAACP or AA.

Et cetera, et cetera... it's how the average american conservative thinks... just common sense and inherent values that they feel are worth standing up for.

It isn't necessarily about religion, or discrimination, simply right and wrong and ridiculous and outrageous.

Well, I for one would like to see Raysia give a better explination of the problems would be with a gay couple and children, other than thay will be made fun of in school. All kids are made fun of in school. If this was a good reason to disallow people to adopt children, then Mormons should not be allowed to adopt.OK, I'll admit, that was not the most thought-out part of my reasoning for anti gay marriage.

I'll back down from that point.

See above post for better explanation of my stance.

It's not necesarily about religious reference, it's about the fact that people in this nation actually HAVE religions, and moral standards.

But we do not all have the same religion or moral standards. Why should I be subject to your religious beliefs ? Would you like to be subject to mine ?


People have an idealistic idea of what they think their nation should look like, and will do anything to make sure we don't stray too far from it.

And they haved no right to force me or anyone else into thier narrow views. THAT is America.

Don't want to encourage non-traditional family structures?

Don't have a nontraditional family. But don't tell me what kind of family to have.

Don't want to encourage murder as birth control?

Don't have an abortion, but don't tell women that they do not have the choice.
Don't want to let leaders of other nations kill off their own people?

Then equalateraly establish boycotts of products from all nations with this problem, do not give them money, do not sell things to them.

See a elected representative of your city/county/state/nation blow off the Moral values of the people who voted for them and go out and cheat on their wives or something like that?

Don't vote for them again, unless it does not offend you.

Can't show your cross/display your manger scene/yell merry christmas/say god bless you in public?

Think about the pagans with the same problem, except they get fired for wearing thier religous jewelry...

Can't get a job because the employer must meet a minority quota?

Work with the government (which established this rule not the NAACP) to change it.

Et cetera, et cetera... it's how the average american conservative thinks... just common sense and inherent values that they feel are worth standing up for.

It is not just common sense, it is a group of people trying to empose thier values and life style on others. It needs to stop. This is not the America of the conservatives, it is America with liberty and justice FOR ALL

It isn't necessarily about religion, or discrimination, simply right and wrong and ridiculous and outrageous.

It all starts with religon...And facisim.

I'm leaning towards the libertarian viewpoint at this point. Why? Because gays exist, and they have the same rights we do, and they are no longer a quiet mini-minority.

I say, let them ALL be called civil unions in the eyes of the law, and let the religions and society label whatever they want as a "marriage." That way, it's ot seperate but equal, it's lower and equal.

On the other hand, a good 2/3 of americans are against gay marriage, because they feel strongly that it is a further degradation of traditional family values. I mean, single-parent familys suck, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone, but I am most certainly not for abortion. Along the same lines, I do not believe gay parents would be all too much better than single... it is in most cases worse.... gay marriage encourages this family structure on children... and frankly, it's not healthy.

Man and woman is what works. Woman by herself has problems raising kids, and Man by himself has 10 times as many problems. Putting 2 guys together or 2 girls together will not solve the problems.

If enough people come out against gay marriage, and the silent majority speaks out, then I'll join in with a constitutional ammendment... but if it turns out that the only a minority (less than half) share my feelings, I will stick with the Libertarian (everything civil union) stance.

All in all, think of the children.

--On an additional note, there are MANY legal complications with gay marriage being where it is... we have to decide, as a nation, which path... all legal, all illegal, or all civil unions.

So you're for it, but against it?

Okay, one thing here: gay parents are not worse than straight parents. A few years back, a large investigation was performed in my country to see how children living with same-sex parents (because they already exist) fared in comparison to children with a mother and father. The results showed no difference. The children were about the same in both types of families. I can add that the investigation was initiated by a member of the Christian Democrat party.

By the way, I can say that I automatically disregard any argument using the phrase "think of the children!" because experience has shown me that those who say this don't think of the children at all. They only use them as a shamless emotional button to promote their own moral beliefs.

Not that adoption really has ANYTHING to do with this issue. This is about marraige and the legalities thereof. In my opinion (being gay), marraige should be equal for all from a legal aspect.

It isn't necessarily about religion, or discrimination, simply right and wrong and ridiculous and outrageous.

It all starts with religon...And facisim.Fascism is where the government, or a dictator, impose ideas values on their nation. Democracy is where the majority of the people impose their values on their nation.

See the obvious difference?

If 2/3 of america thinks something is bad... chances are there will soon be a law that supports them.

Despite the pro-gay and homophobiaphobia assaults from the media and hollywood, 2/3 of americans still have some conscienscious problem with gay marriage.

If 2/3 of amercians were anti-war, we would never had gone to Iraq.

See how this works? it's called a democracy... not fascism. Rather than having some dictator tell us what is right and wrong, we go with a majority vote.

Fascism is where the government, or a dictator, impose ideas values on their nation. Democracy is where the majority of the people impose their values on their nation.

In a Republic(we are not a democracy) the government protects the minority from the majority.


If 2/3 of america thinks something is bad... chances are there will soon be a law that supports them.

Are you even reading my posts ? In case you are not let me tell you one more time : If this was the case, we would still have slavery, we would still be part of the British empire, and women would be second class citizens.


Despite the pro-gay and homophobiaphobia assaults from the media and hollywood, 2/3 of americans still have some conscienscious problem with gay marriage.

So ? Just because a large portion of the people polled does not mean it is right. Hell I bet I could run a poll that would say 2/3 of Americans think that Mormons worship satan and should be cast out of the US. DOes that make it right ? No it does not. Your majority point holds no water.


If 2/3 of amercians were anti-war, we would never had gone to Iraq.

The approval numbers on the Iraq incident (it is not a war) would prove you wrong. Most Americans want us out of there, but so long as Bush wants us there, that is where our troops will be.


See how this works? it's called a democracy... not fascism. Rather than having some dictator tell us what is right and wrong, we go with a majority vote.

Sorry dude, but we are not a democracy, we are a republic. Your argument holds not water. We do not vote on every issue. And as I have said before, the government is there to protect the minority from the majority.

Oppression in any form, and induced for whatever reason, is still oppression. To say that gay people shouldn't get married is oppression and is thus a violation of human rights ... well I think so anyway :wink:

Fascism is where the government, or a dictator, impose ideas values on their nation. Democracy is where the majority of the people impose their values on their nation.

In a Republic(we are not a democracy) the government protects the minority from the majority.and says "screw you" to the ideas of the majority? You think that's the right way to go?


If 2/3 of america thinks something is bad... chances are there will soon be a law that supports them.

Are you even reading my posts ? In case you are not let me tell you one more time : If this was the case, we would still have slavery, we would still be part of the British empire, and women would be second class citizens.Hey, when people high up started speaking out, the ideas of the majority changed.


Despite the pro-gay and homophobiaphobia assaults from the media and hollywood, 2/3 of americans still have some conscienscious problem with gay marriage.

So ? Just because a large portion of the people polled does not mean it is right. Hell I bet I could run a poll that would say 2/3 of Americans think that Mormons worship satan and should be cast out of the US. DOes that make it right ? No it does not. Your majority point holds no water.If the mormons did something to convince 2/3 of the people that we worship satan, they might have some good reason to think that... thank goodness it isn't the case. But in the past, when that WAS the case, we were run outta town. Was it right? No. Was it democratic? Sorta. :P


If 2/3 of amercians were anti-war, we would never had gone to Iraq.

The approval numbers on the Iraq incident (it is not a war) would prove you wrong. Most Americans want us out of there, but so long as Bush wants us there, that is where our troops will be.You're talking about current approoival ratings... those mean nothing. I was talking about when we FIRST went in. We can't back out now... you should know that by now.


See how this works? it's called a democracy... not fascism. Rather than having some dictator tell us what is right and wrong, we go with a majority vote.

Sorry dude, but we are not a democracy, we are a republic. Your argument holds not water. We do not vote on every issue. And as I have said before, the government is there to protect the minority from the majority.Yeah, which is why I support the recall of activist judges and commissioners who try to abolish democracy. Here in portland, gay marriage was legalized without even informally consulting the public... these commissioners just went around democratic procedure and did it anyway... it pisses people like me off.

We are not a total democracy, by any means... nor are we a total republic, by any means. And most certainly, we are not a fascist dictatorship. POSSIBLY a partial theocracy, but not arguably.

Oppression in any form, and induced for whatever reason, is still oppression. To say that gay people shouldn't get married is oppression and is thus a violation of human rights ... well I think so anyway :wink:Human rights... yeah, because we all know that it's natural law that gays should be able to marry each other *roll* Gay marriage serves no purpose, whatsoever, other than to say 2 gay people are more than friends who sodomize each other... big whoop. I'm sure there is no natural human right that guarantees you that :P

Life, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness... rights endowed upon us by our creator that you guys don't believe in anyway... I don't see marriage or gay sex there anywhere... where do you get this human rights crap?

Applause for Celeborne. (and thanks)

Yes, there have been many of these threads, so it is nice to see someone willing to keep fighting the ignorant and bigoted.

Fascism is where the government, or a dictator, impose ideas values on their nation. Democracy is where the majority of the people impose their values on their nation.

In a Republic(we are not a democracy) the government protects the minority from the majority.and says "screw you" to the ideas of the majority? You think that's the right way to go?

Sigh...what part of "equal rights" is so hard to understand? The minorities and the majorities should all have the same rights, no one should have privelages over the other.

Applause for Celeborne. (and thanks)

Yes, there have been many of these threads, so it is nice to see someone willing to keep fighting the ignorant and bigoted.OK, I'll admit ignorance on the parenting issue. But bigotry? Don't talk about bigotry to me... you guys want your values imposed on us just as much as we ours on you.

Fascism is where the government, or a dictator, impose ideas values on their nation. Democracy is where the majority of the people impose their values on their nation.

In a Republic(we are not a democracy) the government protects the minority from the majority.and says "screw you" to the ideas of the majority? You think that's the right way to go?

Sigh...what part of "equal rights" is so hard to understand? The minorities and the majorities should all have the same rights, no one should have privelages over the other.They do have equal rights. They can marry the exact same way straights can. They just have to do what marriage is, and that involves a man and a woman.

But then, this goes back to my libertarian stance... if that's not equal enough, then we'll drop our standards of "marriage" down to simply "civil unions" and let the churches decide who to "marry". It isn't the government's business to define marriage, it's the people's

and says "screw you" to the ideas of the majority? You think that's the right way to go?

Yes. If the majority is attempting to take away or deny rights to the minority. Dude, the way you think scares me a little.


Hey, when people high up started speaking out, the ideas of the majority changed.

Nope, the laws were changed without an agreement, consent, or vote of the majority. Most people were against those changes, thus the upheaveal. You are wrong.

If the mormons did something to convince 2/3 of the people that we worship satan, they might have some good reason to think that... thank goodness it isn't the case. But in the past, when that WAS the case, we were run outta town. Was it right? No. Was it democratic? Sorta. :P

This is not about good reason, this is about the majority of Americans beliefs. So if 2/3 of the American populace decided that LDS should be an Illegal religion, would you be behind it being outlawed ??

You're talking about current approoival ratings... those mean nothing. I was talking about when we FIRST went in. We can't back out now... you should know that by now.

Hey, the majority of Americans think we should get out of Iraq, so by your reasoning we should just pack up and be gone tomorrow. And there are already gay marriages, I guess it is to late to back out there also.

Yeah, which is why I support the recall of activist judges and commissioners who try to abolish democracy. Here in portland, gay marriage was legalized without even informally consulting the public... these commissioners just went around democratic procedure and did it anyway... it pisses people like me off.

Yeah, how dare those people do thier jobs and interpret the law to avoid descrimination against a minority group. Dang them all.

POSSIBLY a partial theocracy, but not arguably.

A partial theocracy is to much. I would like my government Jesus free, thank you.

Applause for Celeborne. (and thanks)

Yes, there have been many of these threads, so it is nice to see someone willing to keep fighting the ignorant and bigoted.

Thank you.

OK, I'll admit ignorance on the parenting issue. But bigotry? Don't talk about bigotry to me... you guys want your values imposed on us just as much as we ours on you.

WRONG

I will not allow you to impose your short commings on me. I do not want my values impossed on anyone. You against gay marriage ? I say don't have one. You want to have a heterosexual relationship, more power to you, I hope you have great kids. You wanna pray in school, super. Just don't make me pray to your god with you, and don't stop me from praying to mine. Against abortion? don't have one. Don't stop women from exercising there right to choose.

Do you see the difference ? You want to tell people they cannot do things, that is imposing your views on people.
I want to tell people that they can do things. I do not impose my views on anyone, I give them the freedom to choose.

Oppression in any form, and induced for whatever reason, is still oppression. To say that gay people shouldn't get married is oppression and is thus a violation of human rights ... well I think so anyway :wink:Human rights... yeah, because we all know that it's natural law that gays should be able to marry each other *roll* Gay marriage serves no purpose, whatsoever, other than to say 2 gay people are more than friends who sodomize each other... big whoop. I'm sure there is no natural human right that guarantees you that :P

Life, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness... rights endowed upon us by our creator that you guys don't believe in anyway... I don't see marriage or gay sex there anywhere... where do you get this human rights crap?

"Human rights crap"?!! How evil are you? Now you want to abolish human rights?

If gay marraige serves no purpose, then neither does straight marraige! A man and a woman are infatuated with each other and have intercourse, at least until they grow tired of each other and divorce. Whee.

There is nothing natural about marraige at all. It is a legal union of the man-made kind between two people who (at the moment) want to spend the rest of their lives together. The purpose it serves is mainly legal. You don't need a marraige to make children.

Oh, and "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness" are rights endowed to America by the founding fathers not by the "Creator". Had it been up to the writers of the Bible we would basically have no rights whatsoever.

Marriage is not something the government should be involved in at all. For time beyond rememberance, marriage has been a privilage extended to people by their faith. Whether it's a priest in a Cathedral or a Witch-doctor sprinkling the couple with chicken innards, marriage has been as long as anyone can remember a religious practice.

What does this mean? The government should abandon the term marriage. If they want to recognize couples who live together, whatever, don't use the word married. And, since the majority of churches in the U.S., hell, anywhere, disapprove of homosexual marriage, it shouldn't take place.

OK, I'll admit ignorance on the parenting issue. But bigotry? Don't talk about bigotry to me... you guys want your values imposed on us just as much as we ours on you.

WRONG

I will not allow you to impose your short commings on me. I do not want my values impossed on anyone. You against gay marriage ? I say don't have one. You want to have a heterosexual relationship, more power to you, I hope you have great kids. You wanna pray in school, super. Just don't make me pray to your god with you, and don't stop me from praying to mine. Against abortion? don't have one. Don't stop women from exercising there right to choose.

Do you see the difference ? You want to tell people they cannot do things, that is imposing your views on people.
I want to tell people that they can do things. I do not impose my views on anyone, I give them the freedom to choose.What governs your definition of right and wrong? You're seriously going to try to convince me that your views are unbiased to any sort of ideals or values?

Marriage is not something the government should be involved in at all. For time beyond rememberance, marriage has been a privilage extended to people by their faith. Whether it's a priest in a Cathedral or a Witch-doctor sprinkling the couple with chicken innards, marriage has been as long as anyone can remember a religious practice.

What does this mean? The government should abandon the term marriage. If they want to recognize couples who live together, whatever, don't use the word married. And, since the majority of churches in the U.S., hell, anywhere, disapprove of homosexual marriage, it shouldn't take place.*applauds* Thanks for getting back to my original viewpoint. I agree with you completely. Let everything be called a civil union, and let the churches and society decide what to call marriage.

My only objection to that idea would be if enough (2/3 or more of americans) came out in defense of marriage. But the way things are going, that option doesn't sound like it'll go anywhere... so I'll hold to it as long as possible, but realistically I'll go with your idea.

OK, I'll admit ignorance on the parenting issue. But bigotry? Don't talk about bigotry to me... you guys want your values imposed on us just as much as we ours on you.

WRONG

I will not allow you to impose your short commings on me. I do not want my values impossed on anyone. You against gay marriage ? I say don't have one. You want to have a heterosexual relationship, more power to you, I hope you have great kids. You wanna pray in school, super. Just don't make me pray to your god with you, and don't stop me from praying to mine. Against abortion? don't have one. Don't stop women from exercising there right to choose.

Do you see the difference ? You want to tell people they cannot do things, that is imposing your views on people.
I want to tell people that they can do things. I do not impose my views on anyone, I give them the freedom to choose.What governs your definition of right and wrong? You're seriously going to try to convince me that your views are unbiased to any sort of ideals or values?

*confused look* Did you even read my post before you responded ?
What governs my definition is none of your business, just know that I am not attempting to make you do anything, I am insisting that people be allowed in these cases to make thier own determinations of right and wrong without interference from the government or religious groups. My views are biased (all views are) and my Ideals are freedom and my values : choice. To very American things that you and your ilk wish to seen stolen from the great American birthright.

Marriage is a religious institution, which should have no place in a secular government like the U.S.

Therefore, the rights currently attributed to marriages - ownership, taxing, succession, etc. - should be assigned to civil unions (which merely represent the union of multiple individuals and are nonspecific to gender).

So basically, gay couples should have the same rights as hetero couples, but heteros have the benefit of the additional religious significance.

OK, I'll admit ignorance on the parenting issue. But bigotry? Don't talk about bigotry to me... you guys want your values imposed on us just as much as we ours on you.

WRONG

I will not allow you to impose your short commings on me. I do not want my values impossed on anyone. You against gay marriage ? I say don't have one. You want to have a heterosexual relationship, more power to you, I hope you have great kids. You wanna pray in school, super. Just don't make me pray to your god with you, and don't stop me from praying to mine. Against abortion? don't have one. Don't stop women from exercising there right to choose.

Do you see the difference ? You want to tell people they cannot do things, that is imposing your views on people.
I want to tell people that they can do things. I do not impose my views on anyone, I give them the freedom to choose.What governs your definition of right and wrong? You're seriously going to try to convince me that your views are unbiased to any sort of ideals or values?

*confused look* Did you even read my post before you responded ?
What governs my definition is none of your business, just know that I am not attempting to make you do anything, I am insisting that people be allowed in these cases to make thier own determinations of right and wrong without interference from the government or religious groups. My views are biased (all views are) and my Ideals are freedom and my values : choice. To very American things that you and your ilk wish to seen stolen from the great American birthright.So... what about decency, censorship, acts of vandalism, or hate, or deception, or even violence? Why should some values be respected/condemned and others ignored in favor of freedom of choice?

Marriage is a religious institution, which should have no place in a secular government like the U.S.

Therefore, the rights currently attributed to marriages - ownership, taxing, succession, etc. - should be assigned to civil unions (which merely represent the union of multiple individuals and are nonspecific to gender).

So basically, gay couples should have the same rights as hetero couples, but heteros have the benefit of the additional religious significance.*applauds* 2 in a row!

The only good reason to object to gay marriage, is to protect these poor humans from the horrible engagament of wedlock before it's to late. At least now, they have an excuse not to get married.

Besides that, I can't see any valuable reason why gays should be denied marriage.

By the way: how is it possible to forbid weddings? Any group of people can get married at any time and any place. If you're thinking instances such as a priest or a representative of bureaucracy are needed in this, you don't know the meaning of a wedding

-Macaroni from Hell

Marriage is a religious institution, which should have no place in a secular government like the U.S.

Therefore, the rights currently attributed to marriages - ownership, taxing, succession, etc. - should be assigned to civil unions (which merely represent the union of multiple individuals and are nonspecific to gender).

So basically, gay couples should have the same rights as hetero couples, but heteros have the benefit of the additional religious significance.*applauds* 2 in a row!

Thoust underestimates the anitpathy homsexuals have for most mainstream religions. :evil: Not all but most. That said, they are not terribly interested in any sort of "religious significance."

]So... what about decency, censorship, acts of vandalism, or hate, or deception, or even violence? Why should some values be respected/condemned and others ignored in favor of freedom of choice?

What is so funny about your post is that I knew you would do that.
Let me break it down for you.
Decency : Find a good definition and we can discuss it (in another thread)
Censorship : Against it. However the people who fund whatever performance,ect. have the right to not sponser something they do not wish to publish. The government needs to stay the hell out of it, so long no one is being hurt or doing things that they cannot consent to. (child porn ect.)
Vandalism : Destruction of private property is not an issue of freedom, buit thanks for playing.
Violence :Again, this causes harm to an unwilling person so it is infringing on the rights (not to be harmed) of someone else.
And none of these things equate to the right to marry someone.

ANd to answer the second part of your question : If it infringes on the life, safety, personal property or rights of someone else it is bad. If it does not do those things, not bad. There are many shades of grey and this is just general so please do not post a page of things that you want me to say if I think they are good or bad.

Exactly, let the people who care about the religious significance have it.. by no means should it be compulsory.

Gay and lesbian couples only care about the civil rights anyway. If they want to change the religion, then that's something they will have to address within the Church. Keep it out of the courtrooms so I don't have to pay my tax dollars for a judge to listen to something that shouldn't even be an issue.

Only because the fundies get their panties in a bunch whenever something doesn't go their way...

*Sings to Celeborne*
"Did you ever know that you're my heeeero..."
:lol:

*Sings to Celeborne*
"Did you ever know that you're my heeeero..."
:lol:

Thank you
*Takes a bow*

Exactly, let the people who care about the religious significance have it.. by no means should it be compulsory.

Gay and lesbian couples only care about the civil rights anyway. If they want to change the religion, then that's something they will have to address within the Church. Keep it out of the courtrooms so I don't have to pay my tax dollars for a judge to listen to something that shouldn't even be an issue.

Only because the fundies get their panties in a bunch whenever something doesn't go their way...

It's not really the religion that needs to be changed, it's how people interpret the religion. Sweden is Christian also, but the higher-ups of our church have OK:ed gay marraiges in church. Isn't it odd how the same religion can be so different depending on who practices it?

It's not really the religion that needs to be changed, it's how people interpret the religion. Sweden is Christian also, but the higher-ups of our church have OK:ed gay marraiges in church. Isn't it odd how the same religion can be so different depending on who practices it?

I never knew that. Thanks for the education, and the thought provoking post. Now I have to do research on Sweden....

And that's not even addressing the hypocrisy...

That's why I'm not devout - I believe it's far more important to be a good person 7 days out of the week and quietly do the good work instead of a "Sunday Christian" - the kind who are all loud and obnoxious about praising God for the hour they're at church on Sunday and then cuts everybody else off pulling out of the parking lot.

Talk about love for your fellow man...

It's not really the religion that needs to be changed, it's how people interpret the religion. Sweden is Christian also, but the higher-ups of our church have OK:ed gay marraiges in church. Isn't it odd how the same religion can be so different depending on who practices it?

I never knew that. Thanks for the education, and the thought provoking post. Now I have to do research on Sweden....

Specifically, it was our arch-bishop K G Hammar that said it was ok. Some are still opposed, of course, but the topic of gender-neutral matrimonial law is currently being worked on in parliament.

As a gay person, I can't really be objective. I can, however, offer my opinion, which is simply based on experience.
I have always been very conservative politically and supported the Republican party ademantly. Since Bush started his campaign to illegalize gay marriages, I have supported the Democratic party. I am certain that the love between two men or women is just as strong as the love between a man and a woman. I am astonished at the audacity of the President and many Church officials who are arrogant enough to presume to interpret God's words. Many feel that God is against gay marriage and that it violates His laws. I am a compassionate, spiritual individual who loves God and knows that homosexuality is not a sin. Why is it wrong that I am romantically attracted to men? I am not permiscuous, in fact, I am a virgin, and I intend to be monogomous with my partner.
To briefly address the issue of whether homosexuality is a choice or not, it is not. To suggest that would be like telling a straight man to be intimate with another man. Intimate feelings cannot be fabricated or forced. They simply are innate. Who would ever choose a life of ostracism or ridicule? Not I. It is simply illogical.

Human rights... yeah, because we all know that it's natural law that gays should be able to marry each other *roll*

Define human rights for me deary. The last time I checked it meant the rights of humans, it did NOT mean science (which is obviously what you have mistaken it for)

By your definition, refugees would be what exactly? They are not a natural law but does that mean that they are not a human rights issue? *roll*

There is a lot of wisdom to the Bible, but it cannot all be taken literally. It contradicts itself.

I'm strongly against state recognition of gay marriage. This is not for any bigoted religious reason. I'm also strongly against state recognition of heterosexual marriage. When the state gains the (illegitimate, in my opinion) authority to decide that certain lifestyles are preferable to others, it gains power. This is a terrible thing. The government should have considerably less power than it currently has, and it should be cut off completely from attempting to influence the personal lives of citizens with economic incentives or even recognition.

That said, as long as the state recognizes heterosexual marriage, it ought to at least abide by the Fourteenth Amendment and recognize gay marriage as well.

If {the Christian} God is so concerned about homosexuality, how come he didn't have Jesus say a couple of words on the subject?

Reason the first: It is not a biologically natural process.

You can naturally do it without human help. How is it 'bioglogically un-natural'? You mean it doesn't produce children? Well neither does eating or crapping. Doesn't mean we should ban it.



Reason the second: It is purely immoral

And morals are purely subjective.



Reason the third: Homosexuality brought down one of the Greek empires.

Debatable. It also 'made' Sparta great. And didn't do Alexander the Great much harm, either.


Reason the fourth: It could further destroy humanity, more gays means less children, eventually we become extinct.

Because the world has a massive problem with under-population, as we all know. Not only that, but gay people don't advocate 'turning' everyone gay, just that people who are gay can live their life to the full. You're advocating gay people getting married to the opposite sex and living in unhappy relationships?


Reason the fifth: It goes against the laws of evolution.

How dare you abuse and misrepresent a scientific theory in such an intolerant way? There are no 'laws' in evolution. Evolution and Nature are neither good nor bad, punitive or benevolent. They simply ARE. They exist, they have no rules or emotions. Homosexuals can be seen as aan evolutionary dead end. But they don't break 'evolutionary law'. If you think they do, please expand your interesting scientific theory.

If you don't, please stop abusing scientific theory and claim your bigotry as some scientific basis.

I am for homosexual unions. I do not think they're damaging to the so-called traditional roles in society as the roles have changed drastically over the last, oh, 100 years or so. Every day we are fighting for the rights of everybody, from women and children to those of various ethnicities and religions. Why are we stopping at those who prefer a different sexual orientation?

Because of religion? Sorry, not buying that. America's constitution said freedom of religion--meaning you can't force your religious beliefs on me if I don't want you to. 'Sides, if we were to rule a nation with the bible as a guide, that means my father has the right to sell me into slavery because it mentions the right to sell your female children. Oh golly. Good thing slavery was outlawed, isn't it? Or I'd be serving some stinky, perverted old man.

Don't like it? Tough.

In fact, I'm going to share a post that I had written in another forum also debating this very topic. It's extremely personal but I have the feeling it needs to be.

I feel I'm going to have to throw in my own two cents. First off, I am not Christian. I was raised as one and found the religion too... well, let's just say I have a lot of issues with the Christian bible and leave it at that. I have been for the past, oh, eleven years been following a wiccan/pagan belief. I am not a member of any coven or official pagan group. I follow my own, leaving my worship between myself and the Divine Being. (Notice I did not say God or Goddess because I believe it is much broader than a word.)

Now that I have stated what I believe for the sake of sharing my opinion. I do not believe marriage is a religious establishment. I do not personally think the bible started it all. It predates the bible. It predates any official record. Why? Because I am certain over the thousands of years, people have been joining together to form a family. Perhaps they didn't share their vows and exchange tokens before some religious figure and before their God, but it's there nonetheless. Is it any less real because it wasn't shared in a religious form? Heavens no!

When people join for love, that's it. It is not any less meaningful or real if it wasn't said before their God and their church. It is not any less meaningful if it wasn't said before their government to have it legally recognized. I personally believe the government should butt out on many, many things that go on in a family home.

Take the sodomy law in Texas that was recently reversed. They had that law to ban any gay sexual relationship. Since when can the government police our own sexual relationship? Hells, I recall reading somewhere that only the missionary sexual position was legal! Anything else was considered illegal!

Come again? Policing our pleasure in bed? Next thing you know they'll be policing how we raise our sons and daughters!

There is a fine line as to where the government should be allowed to interfere. I believe the government should be allowed to police a family IF:

1) Spousal abuse occurs
2) Sexual abuse towards children
3) Physical abuse of any and all kind

I'm sure there's more but this is what I thought of off the top of my head. It is firmly believed that if the government starts to interfere in child rearing that it'll eventually spread to the genetics of a child before it's born. And when that happens, you'd be better believe they'll eventually start outlawing having deaf, blind, mentally handicapped and many other defects in children.

I'm sorry, but I was actually born in a deaf family. I am not deaf but my parents, brothers, uncles, aunts, counsins, grandparents, etc are deaf. Does this mean I'm a genetic fluke? Yes. No one can actually determine how a child will be because so much can happen during the pregnancy.

Should I suddenly allow the government to decide if I will have a deaf child or not? I have a 50-50 chance of it happening, yes, but I also have a 50-50 chance of having a son or daughter. They could have dark hair and blue eyes like my father. Or brown hair and brown eyes like me and my mother. Or....

See where I'm getting at? There is so much the government cannot and SHOULD NOT decide for us! Before you know it we'll be drones mindlessly following what they think we should do and say.

And it starts here. In our own home. With our children being what they want to be. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, straight, neutral. It shouldn't matter. They are, and shall always be, fundamentally human at the core of who they are. Black, white, asian, hispanic. Does it really matter?

It shouldn't.

Religion is but a part of who we are. Religion does not make me any less or more human than the next person. It does not make me better or worse.

I love cats. I love writing. I love art. I love reading. I love playing video and computer games. I love the night with the full moon and a sky full of stars. I love the color silver. I love green trees and blue water. I love the sound of the ocean crashing upon the shore. I love how at sunset and sunrise the sky is suddenly ablaze.

I am woman. I am pagan. I am bisexual.

I am human.

That's all that should truly matter. Let the gays have their marriage. Let the gays adopt children (for it is proven they cannot influence a child's sexuality). Let the married people not have children if they so desire. Let the single people remain single and not be any less than a married person.

This is my two cents.

Here's a breakdown of the arguments against gay marriage, and why none of them works:

1. Marriage is between a man and a woman, has been for centuries, and we have no right to upset that tradition.

Reply: about 150 years ago we upset an even longer standing tradition called slavery. Just because we've done something a certain way for a long time doesn't mean it is right.

2. Homosexuality is unnatural.

Reply: Actually, homosexuality is found throughout nature, and has been directly observed in over 150 species of animal. Bottlenose dolphins, for example, do not form life-long heterosexual pairs, but do form life-long homosexual pairs; these pairs are only briefly interrupted by mating season, and then the couples reunite. Our closest genetic relatives, the Bonobo chimpanzees, are 100% bisexual, and lesbian sex is more common than heterosexual intercourse among Bonobos. There are many different reasons why homosexuality has been selected for, and they often vary by species. If anybody wants more information on those specifics let me know.

3. Homosexuality is immoral.

Reply: To whom? 45% of Americans don't find it immoral in the slightest, and fully support gay marriage rights. Are we really going to try to impose tyranny of the majority, despite the fact that our founding fathers specifically designed our system of law to avoid that? Morality is in the eye of the beholder, and I fail to see why the government should be defining love.

3b. The Bible says homosexuality is a sin.

Reply: So what? My Two Daddies says it's not. Just because you found a book that says something doesn't mean the world has to care. I can find you several libraries' worth of books on why homosexuality is just as natural and healthy as heterosexuality, but you don't have to care about that either. If your religion tells you being gay is wrong then don't be gay. But don't expect the rest of us to live our lives the way you claim some supernatural figure wants us to. And no, the founding fathers weren't all Christians, and no they didn't found American as a Christian nation, and yes I can provide scathing quotations from Sam Adams, Ben Franklin, John Adams, and many others to back that up. Just don't go there.

4. Homosexual unions can't produce children, which is the whole point of marriage.

Reply: My infertile aunt and her husband of 15 years will be fascinated to hear that. So why exactly do we allow infertile people to marrry? or people who don't plan to have children (like me)? or women past menopause? Hell, why do we even allow people to stay married once their kids are grown and out of the house? Their procreative function is done, so that's it for the marriage!

5. If we allow homosexual marriage then soon we'll be allowing polygamy, beastiality, and all sorts of perverted stuff! (Slippery-slope argument).

Reply: This doesn't work for many, many reasons. First of all, it's the exact same argument used half a century ago to argue against mixed-race marriage. You'll note that we haven't allowed polygamy or gotten complacent about child molestation yet. Further more, slippery slope could be applied to anything we do...for example, "if we let adults drink alcohol then soon we're going to allow kids to drink alcohol!" We always have to draw the line somewhere, and we do. And I'm not even going to touch the whole area of consent, since nobody seems to understand that adult humans can consent and minors and animals cannot...that's obviously too tough a concept to be included in this little spiel of mine.

6. Homosexual unions will destroy the American family.

Tell that to Massachusetts' first married gay couple, who have been together for 27 years and have a 24 year old child.


Whew, I think that's quite enough from me for now.

Dear Bottle, May I copy and past your last argument and send it to everyone on my E-mail list? As it is the best point by point breakdown of the arguments aginst Gays and Gay marriage I have EVER Seen ((bows, "Im not worthy!"))

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW03-03-04.gif

Hakartopia, where did you get that delightful little piece of art? :D
Kudos for posting it!

www.thismodernworld.com
What, never heard of it? For shame! Go browse the site right away!

+200 points for Hakartopia for a very amusing comic!

Dear Bottle, May I copy and past your last argument and send it to everyone on my E-mail list? As it is the best point by point breakdown of the arguments aginst Gays and Gay marriage I have EVER Seen ((bows, "Im not worthy!"))

most certainly. though i'm no genius, i've just had to make these damn arguments so many times that the practice has done me good. you should really be thanking the ignorant homophobes who populate these forums, for it is against the stone of their blind stupidity that i have sharpened my rapier wit :P.

I can tollerate Gay and Lesbian people they are free to doas they may, but marrage should be in the eyes of our God and should be one man and one women. As it goes 'marrage is the union of one MAN and one WOMEN not of two men or women

I can tollerate Gay and Lesbian people they are free to doas they may, but marrage should be in the eyes of our God and should be one man and one women. As it goes 'marrage is the union of one MAN and one WOMEN not of two men or women

Why?

Hakartopia, I officially renounce my atheist government and make adoration of your person compulsory, and main religion of my country. You are our God and we worship you *bows*

Hakartopia, I officially renounce my atheist government and make adoration of your person compulsory, and main religion of my country. You are our God and we worship you *bows*

WTF, you can't do that. :shock:

I can tollerate Gay and Lesbian people they are free to doas they may, but marrage should be in the eyes of our God and should be one man and one women. As it goes 'marrage is the union of one MAN and one WOMEN not of two men or women

you homophobes can't even read, can you? did you notice the page of rebuttal i already posted on this page, shooting down your narrow-minded and self-serving hypocricy?

which God? why yours? why God at all? my union has no place in it for superstition, it is about the love and honor between me and my partner. are you then going to deny me the right to marry?

better question: ARE YOU IDIOTS EVEN GOING TO TRY TO ARGUE FOR REAL ANYMORE?! come up with actual points, or go the hell away. i am so sick and tired of people posting nothing but their own opinions and expecting people to just submit to them and their holier-than-thou crap. either debate or prepare to be laughed at.

When you rule out religious arguments and the like, you've ruled out all of them.

The better question you should be asking is why should states be defining and licensing marriage to begin with?

When you rule out religious arguments and the like, you've ruled out all of them.

The better question you should be asking is why should states be defining and licensing marriage to begin with?

true. personally i think the government has no place in marriage at all, in any way. however, so long as the government IS recognizing marriage i think that option needs to be made available to all consenting adult citizens equally. i am 100% in favor of civil unions, myself, even though i would probably have a heterosexual one...i think the insitution of marriage has a hideous and shameful history, and i would want to distance my relationship with my partner from that history as much as possible.

there are so many legal and financial benefits to legal marriage that it's totally unreasonable to deny those rights to any couple based on gender. however, the ideal solution would be to eliminate those benefits entirely, and let marriage be about the couple and not about the tax breaks and the legal status.

Reason the third: Homosexuality brought down one of the Greek empires.


It may just be that I'm a really lousy ancient history student, but I can't recall a Greek Empire brought down by homosexuality.
Anyone?

Reason the third: Homosexuality brought down one of the Greek empires.


It may just be that I'm a really lousy ancient history student, but I can't recall a Greek Empire brought down by homosexuality.
Anyone?

it wasn't. at all. but homophobes like to claim that, because they like to think that civilization will colapse if homosexuals are allowed to be publically acceptable.

THE BIBLE ALSO SAID THAT ALL MEN WITH LONG HAIR SHOULD BE STONED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THE BIBLE ALSO SAID THAT ALL MEN WITH LONG HAIR SHOULD BE STONED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

who cares? the Bible has nothing to do with the current debate on gay marriage, since our system of law is not based on or contingent upon the Bible.

Hakartopia, I officially renounce my atheist government and make adoration of your person compulsory, and main religion of my country. You are our God and we worship you *bows*

WTF, you can't do that. :shock:

Why, of course we can! After all, we're now a theocracy, so we can do whatever we damn please without any regard whatsoever to the well-being of our population, as long as it's acceptable by our holy scriptures(which incidentally are thousands of years old and have gotten quite confused and contradictory with all those translations)

[/sarcasm] :roll:

Hakartopia, I officially renounce my atheist government and make adoration of your person compulsory, and main religion of my country. You are our God and we worship you *bows*

WTF, you can't do that. :shock:

Why, of course we can! After all, we're now a theocracy, so we can do whatever we damn please without any regard whatsoever to the well-being of our population, as long as it's acceptable by our holy scriptures(which incidentally are thousands of years old and have gotten quite confused and contradictory with all those translations)

[/sarcasm] :roll:

I still do not understand why I should run my life the way a book that is over 2000 years tells me to. I know that religion has a place in society (all religions not just christianity) but that place is not in the affairs of government. I am a Buddhist, and I do not impose my beliefs on anyone. The fact is that marriage is a union between two people that love one another and I do not see anything wrong with that. History has shown us that the more loving and tolerant society becomes, the more advanced it becomes. As cliche as it sounds we have to love our brothers (and sisters). That is the biblical message that we should be paying attention to.

I'm completely in favor of equal status for the gay community.

I would argue in favor of abolishing marriage as a government-recognized arrangement in favor of civil unions for same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

-del-

When you rule out religious arguments and the like, you've ruled out all of them.

The better question you should be asking is why should states be defining and licensing marriage to begin with? Did I not say on page two that without Religion there is NO Valid argument against Gays and Gay marriage? Every time anyone mentions 'Morals' or 'against marriage' its really about religion, and anyone thing the argument that "If we allow Gay marriage, the whole world would 'Go Gay' and Humanity would die out" REALLY has their head up their ass.

I am glad I stayed out of the massive-shouting match on pages 3 & 4 with Raysia and a few others. Look over the arguments there and on this page, Every Single argument boils down to Religious fundamentalism. Now... I am Catholic, I go to church, Shouldn't that say something? That even religion can change? I worship in an openly gay church. Even Religion in the end cannot be justified against homosexuality. Come ON People come up with something NEW!!

I DARE you to give ONE Argument that we have not already heard a 1000 times and shot down 1000 times.

I think that I should have as much right as anyone else to get married.

I do not believe though, that the church should be forced to marry gay people if they don't want to. It should be a choice. If a church wants to allow it then it is fine, if it doesn't, then that's fine too. But at the very least, gay civil unions should be allowed.

I'm completely in favor of equal status for the gay community.

I would argue in favor of abolishing marriage as a government-recognized arrangement in favor of civil unions for same-sex and opposite-sex couples.That's how I've felt about it for a long time. Make the government's interest in the civil side and let the church handle the religious side. They can have the term marriage, as long as the state sees it only as a civil union, regardless of the sexes of the participants.

THE BIBLE ALSO SAID THAT ALL MEN WITH LONG HAIR SHOULD BE STONED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, what kind of hippies would they be if they weren't? It's just common sense...

My position on gay marriage is as it has always been - rights to all or rights to none. If heterosexual marriage is legal (and carries an abundance of social and financial benefits), the homosexual marriage ought to be legal as well.

[quote=Recon Warriors]THE BIBLE ALSO SAID THAT ALL MEN WITH LONG HAIR SHOULD BE STONED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yet another great example of Christianity's hypocrisy. How come Jesus is always portrayed with long hair then?

(back to our normal thread)

Anyway, gay marriage should be allowed becaue by banning it we are descriminating!! Descrimination is the very antithesis of American society

THE BIBLE ALSO SAID THAT ALL MEN WITH LONG HAIR SHOULD BE STONED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, what kind of hippies would they be if they weren't? It's just common sense...

Damn.. beat me to it....

I've read the bible, and I don't remember it ever saying that men with long hair should be stoned (in fact, I seem to remember it saying that long hair was favorable to god or something), but then, I was half-asleep most of the time I was "reading" it, so....

"When David was hit with a rock and fell off his donkey, we don't say he was 'stoned off his ass.'"
(some joke I heard.... somewhere)

For what it's worth, I like the idea of leaving the status of 'marriage' up to churches. I'm also cool with the idea of homosexual civil unions (or marriage or whatever you want to call it), whether it offends 2/3 of the population or 9/10, largely because, as my libertarian high school US History teacher once said, "you do NOT have the right to not be offended." Denying certain people an otherwise harmless civil right like this just because it happens to offend a lot of people seems wrong.

(heh.. my inability to keep my mouth shut about my opinions has probably drawn me into yet another flamewar... at least I'm on the 'winning' side this time)

I'm for gay marriage. Simply because gay people should have any rights that straight people have. Discrimmination based on sexual orientation is just as wrong as racism, sexism, agism, or whatever.
Being gay is not a choice, and you don't get "raised" gay. It is pretty random. It is not something someone can help, and therefore is no basis for discrimmination. No one should be discrimminated against. Passing a law to outlaw same sex marriage is blatent discrimmination.

Oh yea, I'm a lesbian, but that's not the issue.

You should not respond to the posts of anybody else in this thread. I am asking for why you think yes/no, not why somebody else is right/wrong. There should be no interaction between posters, since it will quickly dissolve into nothing short of a flamewar. Thank you.

Just thought I'd quote for you a part of the very first post, which I'm sure almost none of you read.

Reason the third: Homosexuality brought down one of the Greek empires.


It may just be that I'm a really lousy ancient history student, but I can't recall a Greek Empire brought down by homosexuality.
Anyone?

it wasn't. at all. but homophobes like to claim that, because they like to think that civilization will colapse if homosexuals are allowed to be publically acceptable.

You know, I can think of at least one 'thousand-year empire' that openly hated gays. Guess how long it lasted?

I'm pro-gay marriage in America


Also, because "all men are created equal." It caused great controversy over the issue of slavery. It later was one of the reasons that abolished slavery once and for all. Why doesn't it apply to gays as well? Lack of knowledge and bad role-models is a good reason.



Whoever said all men were created equal has obviously never been into a locker room before...

Hakartopia, I officially renounce my atheist government and make adoration of your person compulsory, and main religion of my country. You are our God and we worship you *bows*

WTF, you can't do that. :shock:

Why, of course we can! After all, we're now a theocracy, so we can do whatever we damn please without any regard whatsoever to the well-being of our population, as long as it's acceptable by our holy scriptures(which incidentally are thousands of years old and have gotten quite confused and contradictory with all those translations)

[/sarcasm] :roll:

Oh ok ok, I'll be your God. Yeesh. :roll:

Alright my worthy follower, here's my commandmends:

1: Be nice to each other.
2: Trying to change how others are because you don't like what they are is not nice. Nice try though.
3: You're allowed to hate, dispise and abhore everyone else as much as you want, in the privacy of your own bedroom.
4: I made this world for you, be nice to it.
5: Don't make up any silly laws or rules limiting yourself because of some devotion to me.
6: A little competition is fine, but don't cut throats to get rich or powerfull.


That should be enough.

Ya know, I did once come upon a small argument against 2 men marrying. (and only men)
Some study showed that, unlike women, men get less happy or even depressed after marrying, so imagine 2 of them. :P
*shrugs*

I got an idea, since Mass. can now let gays wed, does anyone want to make a bet on how long it is before we have the country's first "gay divorce"?

I don't buy into this kind of "let others do as they please," and/or "I don't impose my values," garbage. Trust me, I've heard it all. One of my friends has strongly adopted this view. I, however, remain unconvinced. The reason being, that this viewpoint tends to come out more as "I don't care." This is why, despite widespread support on this forum and my hometown, I cannot accept this stance. Because I do care. I don't claim to have all the answers, or hold the most compelling arguments, but like it or not I have access to life's handbook. Yes, it's been said that religious arguments are invalid, but why? It has no authority? Religion commands the staggering majority of the world population, in one way or another. Our government doesn't operate on biblical principles? It was BUILT on biblical principles. And to whomever said something about "Why didn't God say anything about homosexuality," He did. Look into it, then post please. And to Recon Warriors, regarding the long hair stonings, please provide me with a passage, I would very much like to investigate for my own personal gain.

I don't buy into this kind of "let others do as they please," and/or "I don't impose my values," garbage. Trust me, I've heard it all. One of my friends has strongly adopted this view. I, however, remain unconvinced. The reason being, that this viewpoint tends to come out more as "I don't care." This is why, despite widespread support on this forum and my hometown, I cannot accept this stance. Because I do care. I don't claim to have all the answers, or hold the most compelling arguments, but like it or not I have access to life's handbook. Yes, it's been said that religious arguments are invalid, but why? It has no authority? Religion commands the staggering majority of the world population, in one way or another. Our government doesn't operate on biblical principles? It was BUILT on biblical principles. And to whomever said something about "Why didn't God say anything about homosexuality," He did. Look into it, then post please. And to Recon Warriors, regarding the long hair stonings, please provide me with a passage, I would very much like to investigate for my own personal gain.

Honestly, why should you care? What is the reason?

As far as religious arguments being invalid is that a) western liberal demcracies are not theocracies b) this issue is at its core is about civil/legal rights extending beyond the ceremonial aspect of marriage, not about seeking the blessings of an organisation unfit to grant it c) not everyone has the same 'religion' as you if any at all and extending a "moral" argument is therefore absolutely invalid.

Further I suggest you spend some time reading about the US founding fathers and their sentiments towards Christianity and separation of Church and State. I'd also suggest reading a few history books coz the US legal system is based on English Common Law, not the bible though itself is imperfectly influenced by religion. Lastly, before you reply with biblical quotes, and please skip over the OT coz Jesus said so, consider for a moment the context of the message(s) and translations with respect to the times and culture as well as the fact the Bible says relatively little about "homosexuality." Except of course in Romans where in some versions, the word homosexual appears in black and white alongside drunkards and thieves though this word is only a couple centuries old. Are you sure "God" wrote this book or was it merely penned/translated by egocentric medieval dullards?

Very well put, and I apreciate your time and calm tone. However you are completely wrong.
The beauty of the "I don't impose my values" stance is just this : I don't impose my values, and I refuse to have your values imposed on me. So you are unconvenced, super. You don't have to be for gay marriage, you just can't try to stop someone else from having one. You see in this case the actions of others do not effect you, therefor you have no right to a say in what they do, simple eh ?
It is not that I don't care, it is that I do not believe that I have the right to impose my view on someone else (you don't see me forcing gay folks to get married), and niether do you.
You can care all you want. You can instill in your children whatever you (and your religion) think is right, however you cannot impose that view on me. Are you starting to see a trend yet ? Lets carry on, shall we ?
Religious arguments do not sway me because (and how can I say this nicely ?) Chrisitanity is full of crap, and I am not a christian, therefore your bible holds no power in this arguement. I love Jesus, he was a great teacher, but the child of god...ummmm...no. Just because religion controls a large portion of the worlds population, does not make it right. Remember that thing about "if all your friends jumped off a bridge..." that your mother used to say.
Our government was not built on biblical principles (check your history books) it was based on libritarian views and native american teachings. Do the reasearch and you will find that this is true.
The biblical references to homosexulaity are very iffy and easily enterpreted however you want. Not much to base an opinion on.
Have a nice day.

Trust me, I've heard it all.

I will not! You lie! Lies!

Our government doesn't operate on biblical principles? It was BUILT on biblical principles.

Christians love to claim this, though they haven't got any ground to stand on. i can give you direct quotations from our founding fathers that show they really weren't intending a Christian nation at all, but i've done that before and it never seems to get through to you people. i also will refrain from pointing out that the Bible is pretty much entirely stolen from other religions (largely paganism and the Egyptian gods), and was assembled as a political manuever by a non-Christian. even if our government were based on the Bible, that would only mean it is based on the Macheavelian logic of a 5th century secular ruler.

but instead of all that i will just content myself with pointing out that our alegedly Christian nation recognizes only 3 of your 10 Commandments, and those three are present in virutally every single religion in the world (no murder, theft, or false witness).

30% is a failing grade in every class i've ever taken.

You should not respond to the posts of anybody else in this thread. I am asking for why you think yes/no, not why somebody else is right/wrong. There should be no interaction between posters, since it will quickly dissolve into nothing short of a flamewar. Thank you.

Just thought I'd quote for you a part of the very first post, which I'm sure almost none of you read.

Jesus Christ, do you people even read anything before you post?

You should not respond to the posts of anybody else in this thread. I am asking for why you think yes/no, not why somebody else is right/wrong. There should be no interaction between posters, since it will quickly dissolve into nothing short of a flamewar. Thank you.

Just thought I'd quote for you a part of the very first post, which I'm sure almost none of you read.

Jesus Christ, do you people even read anything before you post?

i read your request, and don't want to obey it. i come on these forums to discuss things, not to just post my opinion and run away. if you don't like it feel free to not read my posts.

and to say that interaction between players will just lead to flamewar is, honestly, quite condescending and insulting of you. most discussions around here don't end up that way, and it is foolish and rude to punish all the good and reasoned players by holding them to the lowest possible standard because of the actions of a silly and rude minority. if you don't want intelligent discussions and interactions between players then this is not the forum for you.

Normally I'd agree with your post except for one simple reason:

Discussion is not the point of this thread. This thread is a survey, a census of the general opinion on Gay marriage. I was then going to start a new thread with the point of discussing gay marriage.

Did you not think that I might not have some reason for forbidding interaction? Or did you think I was just a jackass who didn't want to have to substantiate my point of view (hard to do, since I have not stated my point of view)? This is an information gathering thread which will lead to a discussion, a discussion where we will have access to already posted information which can be easily accessed. Where we will not need to have 3 pages of "What proof do you have?" since we will already have their support posted here.

I said it will all end in flames because, based on past experience, that's what happenes when people just start going at it. I made this thread so that, if one person says something amazingly bigoted and hateful, everybody else can read it, digest it, and come to terms with it before they need to respond. They will have time to think up an approriate response, and time to allow for a correction on the original posters part. I, myself, once made an amazingly racist post (by accident) because I mistyped one single word. I was flamed beyond belief by no less than seven people in the time it took me to go back and edit what I'd written (correcting that one word). With this thread, if that had happened I would be able to go back, write what I originally wanted to, and then apologise before being flamed.

In conclusion: What I just said means nothing. Absolutely nothing. It's all true, but it doesn't really matter. I could have said that I asked for no interaction because I thought it would make wild monkeys attack my great aunt Cindy, and that would make no difference. Because I, the originator of the thread, asked for no interaction. It's not a rule that you need to obey everything I say, it's not even commonly done, since often times the originator of a thread will make idiotic requirements (Example: No gays allowed in this pure thread, only trans-atlantic fliers can post here, you can only post if you've been killed by a bear, etc.), but it is just common courtesy that you respect the wishes of the author. I do it when I post in other threads, and I thought it would be the same the other way around.

you can only post if you've been killed by a bear

I was severely mauled by a koala bear once. Does that count?

I believe it is wrong for two reasons:
1) My belief system condemns it (you may or may not care)
2) It hurts our national image and gives the terrorists more reason to hate us. I don't think a country that won't let women show their faces in public and already hates us would approve of gay marraige. It's just adding fuel to the fire.

I believe it is wrong for two reasons:
1) My belief system condemns it (you may or may not care)
2) It hurts our national image and gives the terrorists more reason to hate us. I don't think a country that won't let women show their faces in public and already hates us would approve of gay marraige. It's just adding fuel to the fire.

I don't buy into this kind of "let others do as they please," and/or "I don't impose my values," garbage. Trust me, I've heard it all. One of my friends has strongly adopted this view. I, however, remain unconvinced. The reason being, that this viewpoint tends to come out more as "I don't care." This is why, despite widespread support on this forum and my hometown, I cannot accept this stance. Because I do care.

It should also be noted that people have committed all manner of atrocities because they "care" more than the other side does.


I don't claim to have all the answers, or hold the most compelling arguments, but like it or not I have access to life's handbook.


Erm, right. Which particular variation on the handbook would that be? King James edition? Perhaps the Koran is more to your taste? Or are we going to be more exotic and start pulling quotes and illustrations from the various Sutras? Perhaps we could choose some of Anton Lavey's writings as the handbook of choice?


Yes, it's been said that religious arguments are invalid, but why? It has no authority?


In dictating my choice of partners - it has none whatsoever.


Religion commands the staggering majority of the world population, in one way or another.


To quote Marylin Manson, "50 million screaming Christians can't be wrong."

And again, as many people have already stated - nobody is taking your rights away. Nobody is infringing on your rights or freedoms. However, you and your side are hell-bent on preventing a whole subsect of society from enjoying the same quality of life that you have. All in the name of your particular variation on "Life's Handbook".


Our government doesn't operate on biblical principles? It was BUILT on biblical principles. And to whomever said something about "Why didn't God say anything about homosexuality," He did. Look into it, then post please. And to Recon Warriors, regarding the long hair stonings, please provide me with a passage, I would very much like to investigate for my own personal gain.

I would also suggest you research the difference between a "participatory democracy" and a "spectatorial democracy". And keep God out of my damned bedroom.

I believe it is wrong for two reasons:
1) My belief system condemns it (you may or may not care)
2) It hurts our national image and gives the terrorists more reason to hate us. I don't think a country that won't let women show their faces in public and already hates us would approve of gay marraige. It's just adding fuel to the fire.

okay, #1 is your business, and you're right that i don't care. but #2 is just plain silly...

the terrorists hate us for being capitalists, too...should we abandon our system of economics to make them happy? they hate us for not being an Islamic theocracy, so should we overhaul our government to make them happy? they hate that we allow our uppity women to own property, wear whatever clothes they chose, and vote...should we put our females back in the damn kitchen to make the terrorists happy?

are you seriously proposing that we change our national policies to make terrorists happy?! you can't be, you just can't...that would be insanity...

I believe it is wrong for two reasons:
1) My belief system condemns it (you may or may not care)
2) It hurts our national image and gives the terrorists more reason to hate us. I don't think a country that won't let women show their faces in public and already hates us would approve of gay marraige. It's just adding fuel to the fire.

1. Yay seperation of church and state (I know I'm not first). Fine your belief system says its wrong. But why should that have any relevene on a national/state level. My belief system says that 'Big Brother' is wrong. But I accept that I cannot stop it.

2. Maybe I'm reading this wrong but, isn't this similar to "letting the terrorists win"? I mean, America (except a few places) is doing what the want. Which is similar to was happened in Spain after the Madrid bombings (apparently).

Personally I don't think the internal workings of the US bother the terrorists much anyway, they already feel that they have enough reason to hate the US, I really don't think Osama is in a cave now thinking "Now that just does it, first I was rather annoyed with the US, but come gay marriages I'm now furious"

I'm pro-gay marriage in America

Why? Because they have as much right to be as miserable as anyone else...


Okay, seriously. Because gay marriages actually last longer, and divorce rates are soring (sp?). If they decide to adopt, that's one less child in an orphanage. If statistics stay the same, the child will grow up with a smaller probability of going through the suffering of having his/her parents have domestic issues.

Also, because "all men are created equal." It caused great controversy over the issue of slavery. It later was one of the reasons that abolished slavery once and for all. Why doesn't it apply to gays as well? Lack of knowledge and bad role-models is a good reason.

That's another reason. Gay marriages would drop the number of people who discriminate based on sexual preferences among younger children. Sure, the older generation will probably keep their beliefs, but their children won't. The kids will grow up in a more diverse society, which is ultimately good for everyone.

You better get another term such as union or whatever. You cant go around redefining what words mean!
:!:

mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
A wedding.
A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:idea:
Was instituted in Paradise when man was in innocence (Gen. 2:18-24). Here we
have its original charter, which was confirmed by our Lord, as the basis on
which all regulations are to be framed (Matt. 19:4, 5). It is evident that
monogamy was the original law of marriage (Matt. 19:5; 1 Cor. 6:16). This law
was violated in after times, when corrupt usages began to be introduced (Gen.
4:19; 6:2). We meet with the prevalence of polygamy and concubinage in the
patriarchal age (Gen. 16:1-4; 22:21-24; 28:8, 9; 29:23-30, etc.). Polygamy was
acknowledged in the Mosaic law and made the basis of legislation, and continued
to be practised all down through the period of Jewish histroy to the Captivity,
after which there is no instance of it on record. It seems to have been the
practice from the beginning for fathers to select wives for their sons (Gen.
24:3; 38:6). Sometimes also proposals were initiated by the father of the
maiden (Ex. 2:21). The brothers of the maiden were also sometimes consulted
(Gen. 24:51; 34:11), but her own consent was not required. The young man was
bound to give a price to the father of the maiden (31:15; 34:12; Ex. 22:16, 17;
1 Sam. 18:23, 25; Ruth 4:10; Hos. 3:2) On these patriarchal customs the Mosaic
law made no change. In the pre-Mosaic times, when the proposals were accepted
and the marriage price given, the bridegroom could come at once and take away
his bride to his own house (Gen. 24:63-67). But in general the marriage was
celebrated by a feast in the house of the bride's parents, to which all friends
were invited (29:22, 27); and on the day of the marriage the bride, concealed
under a thick veil, was conducted to her future husband's home. Our Lord
corrected many false notions then existing on the subject of marriage (Matt.
22:23-30), and placed it as a divine institution on the highest grounds. The
apostles state clearly and enforce the nuptial duties of husband and wife (Eph.
5:22-33; Col. 3:18, 19; 1 Pet. 3:1-7). Marriage is said to be "honourable"
(Heb. 13:4), and the prohibition of it is noted as one of the marks of
degenerate times (1 Tim. 4:3). The marriage relation is used to represent the
union between God and his people (Isa. 54:5; Jer. 3:1-14; Hos. 2:9, 20). In the
New Testament the same figure is employed in representing the love of Christ to
his saints (Eph. 5:25-27). The Church of the redeemed is the "Bride, the Lamb's
wife" (Rev. 19:7-9).

You better get another term such as union or whatever. You cant go around redefining what words mean!

The minute it became a legal institution outside of the church, it was redefined. Sorry.

the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

Hmmm, looks like it almost works even according to your own definition, all people want to do is take out the "usually not the legal force" part.

It seems to have been the
practice from the beginning for fathers to select wives for their sons (Gen.
24:3; 38:6). Sometimes also proposals were initiated by the father of the
maiden (Ex. 2:21). The brothers of the maiden were also sometimes consulted (Gen. 24:51; 34:11), but her own consent was not required.

Ok, so we should start marrying off our maidens without their consent. Hmmmmm......no. Looks like the definition has already been changed, bud.

I think it should b legal. I mean, what does it have to do with ppls like me who arn't gay? Does it really matter that much if gay ppls can get married? Marriage isn't about being able to have a child without getting sued by parents. It's about....well i don't really know xD but i know what it isn't. Anyway, it going to be made legal (except in a few states, ie Vegas and other places with a high 'drunk marriage' rate). Anyway, why is this thread here? And I'm surprised it hasn't been locked or bumped. I mean, really. I guess its mostly because it is in the General area.

I fail to see why those who are religeous have the right to lecture others on the immorality of homosexuality. If they are so convinced that their way is the right way, why do they not simply be content with the fact that they are going to heaven and the homosexuals are going to hell?

And since in Christian theology there is actually no hell (the bible says there is a purgatory), Christians should be content with the fact that homosexuals will go to purgatory and atone for there sins before going to heaven.

Religious dissent over the marriage issue makes no logical sense even within the boundaries of their own theology.

You better get another term such as union or whatever. You cant go around redefining what words mean!

Because it is not like this never happens ever right?

Words change meanings over time, get over it.

But then again, you really don't care about the word, you are just grasping at straws to justify you homophobia and irrational intolerance of something you cannot understand.

You better get another term such as union or whatever. You cant go around redefining what words mean!

Because it is not like this never happens ever right?

Words change meanings over time, get over it.

But then again, you really don't care about the word, you are just grasping at straws to justify you homophobia and irrational intolerance of something you cannot understand.

i think gay marriage is a good thing. i'm not american though, i'm canadian... but if pretty much anyone but the conservatives get in power, then it'll be legal nationwide.

i think that it's a good thing because well, it's a matter of love, not gender. two adults love each other, they should be entitled to the same rights as a married couple if they want them.

i think gay marriage is a good thing. i'm not american though, i'm canadian... but if pretty much anyone but the conservatives get in power, then it'll be legal nationwide.

i think that it's a good thing because well, it's a matter of love, not gender. two adults love each other, they should be entitled to the same rights as a married couple if they want them.

only people who don't have love in their life are threatened when others do. nobody with a real marriage and a loving family is the least bit worried about gay people enjoying equal marital rights, it's just the repressed and angry individuals who can't stand the thought of other people being happy and free to love as they will.

anybody who watched the recent celebrations in Massachusetts will know that homosexual marriage is a wonderful boon to our country and the American family as an institution; i personally was lucky enough to witness one particular union, where two women who have been together for 27 years and have raised two children together were finally granted the marriage they have carried in their hearts for almost three decades. i don't like to toss insults, but anybody who thinks those people are a threat to marriage is either a fool, a liar, or a politician trying to score votes from fools and liars.

i think gay marriage is a good thing. i'm not american though, i'm canadian... but if pretty much anyone but the conservatives get in power, then it'll be legal nationwide.

i think that it's a good thing because well, it's a matter of love, not gender. two adults love each other, they should be entitled to the same rights as a married couple if they want them.

only people who don't have love in their life are threatened when others do. nobody with a real marriage and a loving family is the least bit worried about gay people enjoying equal marital rights, it's just the repressed and angry individuals who can't stand the thought of other people being happy and free to love as they will.

anybody who watched the recent celebrations in Massachusetts will know that homosexual marriage is a wonderful boon to our country and the American family as an institution; i personally was lucky enough to witness one particular union, where two women who have been together for 27 years and have raised two children together were finally granted the marriage they have carried in their hearts for almost three decades. i don't like to toss insults, but anybody who thinks those people are a threat to marriage is either a fool, a liar, or a politician trying to score votes from fools and liars.

fucking tax breaks dude, thats why im against it

i think gay marriage is a good thing. i'm not american though, i'm canadian... but if pretty much anyone but the conservatives get in power, then it'll be legal nationwide.

i think that it's a good thing because well, it's a matter of love, not gender. two adults love each other, they should be entitled to the same rights as a married couple if they want them.

only people who don't have love in their life are threatened when others do. nobody with a real marriage and a loving family is the least bit worried about gay people enjoying equal marital rights, it's just the repressed and angry individuals who can't stand the thought of other people being happy and free to love as they will.

anybody who watched the recent celebrations in Massachusetts will know that homosexual marriage is a wonderful boon to our country and the American family as an institution; i personally was lucky enough to witness one particular union, where two women who have been together for 27 years and have raised two children together were finally granted the marriage they have carried in their hearts for almost three decades. i don't like to toss insults, but anybody who thinks those people are a threat to marriage is either a fool, a liar, or a politician trying to score votes from fools and liars.

f--- tax breaks dude, thats why im against it

as i have said before, i am against the government having a part in ANY marriages, straight or gay, but as long as our government recognizes heterosexual unions it must also recognize homosexual unions. i would be equally comfortable doing away with both. i was simply pointing out that the main argument used against gay marriage (that it will somehow hurt the American family) is pure, unadulterated bunk.

i think gay marriage is a good thing. i'm not american though, i'm canadian... but if pretty much anyone but the conservatives get in power, then it'll be legal nationwide.

i think that it's a good thing because well, it's a matter of love, not gender. two adults love each other, they should be entitled to the same rights as a married couple if they want them.

only people who don't have love in their life are threatened when others do. nobody with a real marriage and a loving family is the least bit worried about gay people enjoying equal marital rights, it's just the repressed and angry individuals who can't stand the thought of other people being happy and free to love as they will.

anybody who watched the recent celebrations in Massachusetts will know that homosexual marriage is a wonderful boon to our country and the American family as an institution; i personally was lucky enough to witness one particular union, where two women who have been together for 27 years and have raised two children together were finally granted the marriage they have carried in their hearts for almost three decades. i don't like to toss insults, but anybody who thinks those people are a threat to marriage is either a fool, a liar, or a politician trying to score votes from fools and liars.

f--- tax breaks dude, thats why im against it

as i have said before, i am against the government having a part in ANY marriages, straight or gay, but as long as our government recognizes heterosexual unions it must also recognize homosexual unions. i would be equally comfortable doing away with both. i was simply pointing out that the main argument used against gay marriage (that it will somehow hurt the American family) is pure, unadulterated bunk.

well i dont really care either way about that, but i do know some people who arent gay, but would but would get married anyway for the tax benefits :?

it's not just tax breaks. consider that married couples have familial rights when it comes to hospital visits, funeral planning et c. if one partner's parents dispproved of him/her being gay, then they could exclude the other partner from seeing them in the hospital or attending a funeral..

i think gay marriage is a good thing. i'm not american though, i'm canadian... but if pretty much anyone but the conservatives get in power, then it'll be legal nationwide.

i think that it's a good thing because well, it's a matter of love, not gender. two adults love each other, they should be entitled to the same rights as a married couple if they want them.

only people who don't have love in their life are threatened when others do. nobody with a real marriage and a loving family is the least bit worried about gay people enjoying equal marital rights, it's just the repressed and angry individuals who can't stand the thought of other people being happy and free to love as they will.

anybody who watched the recent celebrations in Massachusetts will know that homosexual marriage is a wonderful boon to our country and the American family as an institution; i personally was lucky enough to witness one particular union, where two women who have been together for 27 years and have raised two children together were finally granted the marriage they have carried in their hearts for almost three decades. i don't like to toss insults, but anybody who thinks those people are a threat to marriage is either a fool, a liar, or a politician trying to score votes from fools and liars.

f--- tax breaks dude, thats why im against it

as i have said before, i am against the government having a part in ANY marriages, straight or gay, but as long as our government recognizes heterosexual unions it must also recognize homosexual unions. i would be equally comfortable doing away with both. i was simply pointing out that the main argument used against gay marriage (that it will somehow hurt the American family) is pure, unadulterated bunk.

well i dont really care either way about that, but i do know some people who arent gay, but would but would get married anyway for the tax benefits :?

and i actually know two hetero couples who did precisely that, despite not being in any way involved or in love. what's your point?

my point? well, it seems to have been lost on you in your blind and unrelenting defense of homosexual marrige

my point? well, it seems to have been lost on you in your blind and unrelenting defense of homosexual marrige

so you don't have one, is what you are saying?

from what i read, it seems like your "point" was that same-sex individuals would just get married to get tax breaks and therefore we shouldn't allow gay marriage. my response was that heterosexuals already do that, so we should either abolish marriage altogether or allow gay people the same crack at it that straight people get. i know it really sucks when somebody makes you look stupid, but you shouldn't resort to insults if you're losing an argument...it just makes you look worse.

"blind and unrelenting" is an interesting choice of words, since i am indeed legally blind without my glasses and i certainly am unrelenting in my dedication to logic and solid scientific reasoning. so i guess i should thank you for the compliment.

my point? well, it seems to have been lost on you in your blind and unrelenting defense of homosexual marrige

so you don't have one, is what you are saying?

from what i read, it seems like your "point" was that same-sex individuals would just get married to get tax breaks and therefore we shouldn't allow gay marriage. my response was that heterosexuals already do that, so we should either abolish marriage altogether or allow gay people the same crack at it that straight people get. i know it really sucks when somebody makes you look stupid, but you shouldn't resort to insults if you're losing an argument...it just makes you look worse.

"blind and unrelenting" is an interesting choice of words, since i am indeed legally blind without my glasses and i certainly am unrelenting in my dedication to logic and solid scientific reasoning. so i guess i should thank you for the compliment.

If I may interrupt for a moment. There seems to be some confusion as to what his sentence meant. I think this was GV's point:

well i dont really care either way about that, but i do know some people who arent gay, but would but would get married anyway for the tax benefits

It changes the sentence dramatically, yes?

my point? well, it seems to have been lost on you in your blind and unrelenting defense of homosexual marrige

so you don't have one, is what you are saying?

from what i read, it seems like your "point" was that same-sex individuals would just get married to get tax breaks and therefore we shouldn't allow gay marriage. my response was that heterosexuals already do that, so we should either abolish marriage altogether or allow gay people the same crack at it that straight people get. i know it really sucks when somebody makes you look stupid, but you shouldn't resort to insults if you're losing an argument...it just makes you look worse.

"blind and unrelenting" is an interesting choice of words, since i am indeed legally blind without my glasses and i certainly am unrelenting in my dedication to logic and solid scientific reasoning. so i guess i should thank you for the compliment.

If I may interrupt for a moment. There seems to be some confusion as to what his sentence meant. I think this was GV's point:

well i dont really care either way about that, but i do know some people who arent gay, but would but would get married anyway for the tax benefits

It changes the sentence dramatically, yes?

not really...a lesbian and a gay man can get married to each other (or to unsuspecting straight partners) right now, and this happens quite frequently for financial reasons. any number of marriages are arranged or carried out with no underlying love or physical attraction. so i don't think it really changes much in what he was trying to say. maybe i'm wrong, though...feel free to clear up more if you can, i'm a bit stumped by this chap so far :).

a thought occurs: does anybody happen to have statistics on what percentage of adoptions are by gay parents?

You better get another term such as union or whatever. You cant go around redefining what words mean!

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW03-03-04.gif

my point? well, it seems to have been lost on you in your blind and unrelenting defense of homosexual marrige

so you don't have one, is what you are saying?

from what i read, it seems like your "point" was that same-sex individuals would just get married to get tax breaks and therefore we shouldn't allow gay marriage. my response was that heterosexuals already do that, so we should either abolish marriage altogether or allow gay people the same crack at it that straight people get. i know it really sucks when somebody makes you look stupid, but you shouldn't resort to insults if you're losing an argument...it just makes you look worse.

"blind and unrelenting" is an interesting choice of words, since i am indeed legally blind without my glasses and i certainly am unrelenting in my dedication to logic and solid scientific reasoning. so i guess i should thank you for the compliment.

If I may interrupt for a moment. There seems to be some confusion as to what his sentence meant. I think this was GV's point:

well i dont really care either way about that, but i do know some people who arent gay, but would but would get married anyway for the tax benefits

It changes the sentence dramatically, yes?

Bottle's point is that people are already getting married for the benefits alone, and not out of love or anything.
So how will allowing same-sex marriages change anything?

Gay marriage is fine for those who want to marr. Their are some gays who are more in love than us heterosexuals.

I support same sex marriages because i believe in equality for all people. I think that as long as they are not hurting anyone else, people should be allowed to live their lives as they see fit, to make their own choices and be who they are. Everyone should be able to love who their hearts tell them to and marry who they love. I do think that churches should be able to make that decision for themselves, because i strongly believe in a separation of church and state. I believe that gay people should be allowed to have a legal union though.

Gay marriage is fine for those who want to marr. Their are some gays who are more in love than us heterosexuals.

true, and sometimes disgustingly so...imagine the cutsie, girly, cuddlesome type of girlfriend that we all have seen or (shudder) dated at one point. you know, the one that calls you "snuggybear" and actually says she "wuvs oo bewy much." now make two of those girls and have them date each other. this is what i lived nextdoor to.

i'm telling you, homosexuality is not always a beautiful thing :P.

I think gay marriage should be legalized. Period.

(a) Although I am Christian, I don't think homosexuality is wrong. I believe that God wants human beings to experience the type of love that can only occur between two people who are in a lifelong relationship and I believe that sex is intended to be both a means of procreation and a *physical expression of that love.* Thus, the God I worship would not create a subset of people who cannot share that type of love with a member of the opposite sex unless homosexuality was ok.

(b) Even if I did believe homosexuality was wrong, it wouldn't matter because I can think of no *legal* reason that it is wrong and therefore could not use my belief to deny the *legal* institution of marriage to a subset of American people.

(c) Gay couples should be able to adopt animals and/or children together. They should have next-of-kin rights to each other. They should be able to have joint custody of children. They should be able to file taxes together, buy things together, and they should get the same 5th Ammendment rights that married straight couples get.

only a fool gets married for the tax situation
the cost of divorce will cancell it out in the end

(a) Although I am Christian, I don't think homosexuality is wrong. I believe that God wants human beings to experience the type of love that can only occur between two people who are in a lifelong relationship and I believe that sex is intended to be both a means of procreation and a *physical expression of that love.* Thus, the God I worship would not create a subset of people who cannot share that type of love with a member of the opposite sex unless homosexuality was ok.


Amen to that.
Why aren't YOU the pope? :shock: You're more coherent and "love thy neighbours" than the whole city of Vatican. If only more christians (particularly those conservative fundamentalist types) thought like you did, Christianty would have a MUCH better reputation :D

It's always refreshing to see someone who actually thinks and builds upon his religious belief system rather than blindly follow some dogma set by rigid-minded patricians an eternity ago.