NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm going to continue this. Shutting it down is not the answer.


----
Use my brain?
You're saying that "Children are not old enough to legally give their consent". Note the mark "legally". Well, it's illegal to marry someone of the same gender. You wan't to change this law - some would sure like to change the law of children not being able to give their consent. It's just a law like any else: if you can change the law of homosexual marriages, you can change this one aswell. Don't you think? Is it an untouchable law?

Well, now it isn't. Wanting to have sex and sexual relationships with anything and anyone else than a person of the other gender isn't the biological way to go. It isn't normal.

I can't proof that being gay is a choice - and you can't proof that it's not. I can, though, say that I can decide to be gay if I really want to. If you lie enough to yourself you will finally see your lies as the truth.

Then again, we can go to the homosexuality/paedophilism (even if it's old in you minds): if being homosexual isn't a choice, then being a paedophile isn't either. So why don't give the paedophiles the same rights as anybody else? Wht shouldn't they be able to get married to the one they love, just because he/she is a child?

Yes, yes, I know your answer.
Children can't give their consent. If so, read the top again.

---

"and even attempting mating with humans."
Then, shouldn't they be allowed to marry humans aswell? And I never spoke a word about killing all homosexuals. That isn't a solution.

---

Children do not have the wisdom and experience one hopefully gains in life to make such a decision.

That's where there are laws regarding the age of sexual consent.

As for homosexuality not being biologically normal, once agian you ignore the facts that many, MANY other animals have homosexual tendencies. Are they not biologically normal either?

Or are they unnatural? Kinda odd, nature being seen as unnatural.


And the problem with the other thread, was that it was made as flamebait.

Hopefully we can debate and discuss this like civilized beings :)

Although I only partially understand your comment, I will try to respond.
I don't think children are only legally unable to consent, I think that under a certain age they are emotionally and physically incapable of truly giving consent. Besides, in the case of paedophilia, if the couple waits a few years then it will be legal for them to get married. Gay couples don't suddenly attain the right to wed when they reach a certain age. As for "it's not normal"....Totally lame argument. There are plenty of qualities people have that may not be the average, but that doesn't mean they should have fewer rights. For example, in a typology test (http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp), I am an Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking, Judger- only 1% of the population is INTJ. In other words, there are a lot more gay people out there than there are folks like me. But do you think that I shouldn't be able to marry the person of my choice? I think I should, even if he (and yes, I'm a female) is also an INTJ. Not being "normal" is not an argument. I bet you have an abnormal quality or two yourself.

I would say that any church should have the right to refuse to marry homosexuals, because excluding the case of human sacrifice, religion is not a matter for the state to regulate.

Whether homosexuals shoud have the right to a state marriage is a matter for debate. They should probably have the right to obtain a status whereby they have equivalent property laws to heterosexual married couples. That would tidy up a few annoying problems involving inheritance, etc. I don't really have an opinion on the actual "marriage" part. Marriage is a sort of brand, I suppose, I am a bit old-fashioned, but widening its scope would be a bit weird.

I'm going to continue this. Shutting it down is not the answer.

I can't proof that being gay is a choice - and you can't proof that it's not. I can, though, say that I can decide to be gay if I really want to. If you lie enough to yourself you will finally see your lies as the truth.

---
um
assuming you are male
i think that if you arent gay you will find yourself unable to consumate a gay relationship. there are just some things that cant be forced.

so it is being gay thats the problem... as in "they could get married if they promised not to have sex" or is it the marrying part thats the problem.... as in "they can do what they like as long as they dont ask the states blessing on it"?

havent you had enough of this topic yet? If you want to discuss this I suggest you read the hundred other threads and talk to yourself. this one is just OLD. But I guess not so ill bite. First of all, ther is a lot of evidence showign that sexual orientation is not a choice at all. (If you like I can give you references, or you could just read all the other threads and save time/bandwidth) Second, you are right that the laws against marring children could be repealed as well, but no one wants too except for a small segment of the population, while the rest of us recognize the need to protect children until they can make their own decisions. Banning same-sex marriage doesnt protect anybody except you and your delicate littel brain from thinking about grown men having sex with each other in the privacy of their own home. (GROSS!!) The pedophile arguement on this issue has no substance, this is why we have a legislature, to decide what laws to make and which ones to repeal, come on man arent you tire of having your points knocked over time and time again? On that noteill leave you to your idocy.

I can, though, say that I can decide to be gay if I really want to.


That sounds like a challenge.

Okay, I throw the lavender gauntlet down at you.

Prove it.

Go out there.

Blow some guy.

Take pictures.

Perhaps video.

Enjoy it.

Only then will your argument have some point.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Wanting to have sex and sexual relationships with anything and anyone else than a person of the other gender isn't the biological way to go. It isn't normal.

try telling that to chimpanzees and bonobos.

and as far as im concerned, the rules of marrying withing any particular religion must be up to that religion. requirements differ. for example, the catholic church's stance against marrying divorced people is their business and is just fine as long as we dont change our marriage laws to accomodate their rules.
there are christian denominations who have no problems with marrying people of the same gender. i dont see why those marriages shouldnt be as legal as any. just as your denomination allowing divorced people to remarry might be considered a bastardization of the divine institution of marriage by catholics

keeping religious considerations out of our laws preserves the rights of all religions, including your own.

consenting adults who are not already members of the same family should be allowed to marry.

Ive got an idea, lets give up the word marriage as a legal term. Lets have civil unions for everybody, in the states eyes, then the religous right doent have their precious institution of American values sullied, and the law can be fair and just. Marriage could be a religous ceremony (defined by the religion performing it) that results in a civil union (in the eyes of the state) This simple solution seems like it would work well the only people who can possibly disagree are those who think that homosexuals simply should not have the rights that other people do, those who aer concered with saving the institution of marriage would have to keep it to themselves. What do people think?

Actually, I think that sounds like a damn good idea :p

I seriously don't get why everyone is freaking out about this.

It's really not a big deal. If two gay people get married, it won't affect anyone. At all.
Honestly, what difference does it make to you? It's kind of rediculous, the amount of upheval over such a silly argument.

Yes, let them marry.

I seriously don't get why everyone is freaking out about this.

It's really not a big deal. If two gay people get married, it won't affect anyone. At all.
Honestly, what difference does it make to you? It's kind of rediculous, the amount of upheval over such a silly argument.

Yes, let them marry.

Some people (especially those on the religious right) see it as a sullying of an institution they hold sacred (as well as extending moral acceptance of what they see as an immoral lifestyle), so they oppose it, simply because of that. I think out of the ideas I've seen, BoogieDown's proposal has the most merit for both sides, as by changing the legal language one could avoid having the sanctity of "marriage" broken and those homosexual couples who want the legal rights and privilages extended by the state could get them. Aren't samantics fun?

BoogieDown's idea is the best

But it'll never pass -_-

And on what basis do you assume that I am a man?

I am straight. But that doesn't mean that I can't decide tomorrow morning that I'm going to be gay. It's not a problem for me. It's as easy as becoming a beliver in God if I would want to. The will in itself is grand enough to make me anything (at least in front of myself. I saw a man on TV today who thought he was a bunny. Well, for himself he was. Good for him).

When it comes to homosexuality being something natural and such, I can just add that once the most beautiful love was between a old man and a young boy.

Every species lives to reproduce. And it's a fact that homosexual couples can't do that. No other animal lives i homosexual relationships or raise children as a gay couple. The act is one thing - the relationship is another.


As for the INTJ-thing: This is a combination of things. Each one do other people have. Homosexuality is just one. It's not a combination. To compare a combination like this with one special thing is not interesting.

Every species lives to reproduce. And it's a fact that homosexual couples can't do that. No other animal lives i homosexual relationships or raise children as a gay couple. The act is one thing - the relationship is another.

*coughpenguinscough*

Wait, so it's unnatural to be in a homosexual relationship because of reproduction?

And you haven't proven it to be "unnatural," you just randomly pulled something out of your ass. Please direct me to where that comment came from (that is, link me up).

And if you could "decide" to be gay, then congratulations-you're part of the 0% of the human population that determines who he finds attractive based purely on your own willpower.

The same people who start the umpteenth thread about this are the same people who bitch about the coverage of the death of a President.

Thank you for that irrelevant and idiotic statement

Every species lives to reproduce. And it's a fact that homosexual couples can't do that. No other animal lives i homosexual relationships or raise children as a gay couple. The act is one thing - the relationship is another.

In the modern world, yes they can, it would all be a simple matter of using commonly practiced scientific techniques to allow them to produce off-spring. While they cannot do it using both of their DNA, they (unless they are for some reason infertile, which heterosexuals can be as well) can do so as individuals. And while it is true that as a collective group, species "live" to reproduce, individuals of that species don't necessarily have to, especially humans. There are quite a number of heterosexual people I know who have no desire to reproduce, and yet they live quite happy lives and some of them are even married. And to refute your claim that no animals have on-going homosexual relationships, scientists in Antarctica have observed Emperor Penguins that have been homosexuals, and as a species they mate for life, and these particular penguins they observed did the same.

I would say that any church should have the right to refuse to marry homosexuals, because excluding the case of human sacrifice, religion is not a matter for the state to regulate.

Whether homosexuals shoud have the right to a state marriage is a matter for debate. They should probably have the right to obtain a status whereby they have equivalent property laws to heterosexual married couples. That would tidy up a few annoying problems involving inheritance, etc. I don't really have an opinion on the actual "marriage" part. Marriage is a sort of brand, I suppose, I am a bit old-fashioned, but widening its scope would be a bit weird.

I believe that is the best idea for "gay marriage". I am adamantly opposed to the, as I call it, "bastardization", of the divine institution of marriage. This stance comes from my Christian beliefs, and in the words of the Bible. I do think however, that homosexuals should have some, but not all, of the benefits of civil union and living with a partner.

I agree wholeheartedly. Religious Types will get uppy if you call it marrige, lets just call it, I dunno, grouped or something(Better than civil union, can you imagine? "We got unionized last fall") Give them the same rights, call it something new.

Note to all those using the Biology aspect: I have a cro-magnon's bone to pick with you. (If you do, in fact, acknowledge evolution, and oppose gay union, you can ignore this last bit)

I would say that any church should have the right to refuse to marry homosexuals, because excluding the case of human sacrifice, religion is not a matter for the state to regulate.
Couldn't agree more- churches should not be forced to marry a couple that they don't believe should be wed. Of course, by the same token, another church should be allowed to marry the same sex couple if they want.

Whether homosexuals shoud have the right to a state marriage is a matter for debate. They should probably have the right to obtain a status whereby they have equivalent property laws to heterosexual married couples. That would tidy up a few annoying problems involving inheritance, etc. I don't really have an opinion on the actual "marriage" part. Marriage is a sort of brand, I suppose, I am a bit old-fashioned, but widening its scope would be a bit weird.
Ok now here I only sort of agree...For one, I don't think it's a matter for debate. As you said above, religion is not a matter for the state to regulate, and seeing as how marriage is pretty much a religious issue, marriage should not be a matter for the state to regulate. Therefore, if they want to offer the same privileges to homosexuals, but without the word "marriage" I would encourage them to do the same for heterosexual civil unions. In other words, if you do it before god, you're married, if you do it before....a judge...or whatever (heh, I don't know how it works) then you're legally recognized. As long as the words are different, they really don't have the same rights. It's like the star-belly sneetches...Sure, the sneetches without stars were basically the same...except for their label...And we all know how that turned out...Ok well in the end it all worked out, but that's because they were eventually allowed to choose if they wanted stars or not...ummm...anyway....kind of off topic, but...what the heck? (http://www.math.unt.edu/~johnq/creative/seuss.htm)

(no longer responding to TG) Oh, and don't forget about the whiptail lizard...All the lizards are now "female" and they form lesbian relationships to mate. It's not biologically necessary as far as we can tell, they just do it.

I would say that any church should have the right to refuse to marry homosexuals, because excluding the case of human sacrifice, religion is not a matter for the state to regulate.

Whether homosexuals shoud have the right to a state marriage is a matter for debate. They should probably have the right to obtain a status whereby they have equivalent property laws to heterosexual married couples. That would tidy up a few annoying problems involving inheritance, etc. I don't really have an opinion on the actual "marriage" part. Marriage is a sort of brand, I suppose, I am a bit old-fashioned, but widening its scope would be a bit weird.

I believe that is the best idea for "gay marriage". I am adamantly opposed to the, as I call it, "bastardization", of the divine institution of marriage. This stance comes from my Christian beliefs, and in the words of the Bible. I do think however, that homosexuals should have some, but not all, of the benefits of civil union and living with a partner.

I agree wholeheartedly. Religious Types will get uppy if you call it marrige, lets just call it, I dunno, grouped or something(Better than civil union, can you imagine? "We got unionized last fall") Give them the same rights, call it something new.

Note to all those using the Biology aspect: I have a cro-magnon's bone to pick with you. (If you do, in fact, acknowledge evolution, and oppose gay union, you can ignore this last bit)

To Boogiedown: Wonderful idea, next we have to get it through a massive morass of a beaurocracy

As for the INTJ-thing: This is a combination of things. Each one do other people have. Homosexuality is just one. It's not a combination. To compare a combination like this with one special thing is not interesting.
Well fine then, I'm an introvert, like only 25% of the population...Or intuitive, again like only 25% (http://www.davenevins.com/personalities/main/percentages.htm...Or agnostic, like about 1% of the population http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/pdf/wtwtogod.pdf
Note: I don't know how close these numbers actually are, but all that's really important is that they're less than 50% since apparently anyone who has one trait that isn't shared by the majority shouldn't be able to wed...If they reproduce we'll have more people that fall into that minority!!! Noooooo...!! :lol:
Wait, so it's unnatural to be in a homosexual relationship because of reproduction?

And you haven't proven it to be "unnatural," you just randomly pulled something out of your ass. Please direct me to where that comment came from (that is, link me up).

And if you could "decide" to be gay, then congratulations-you're part of the 0% of the human population that determines who he finds attractive based purely on your own willpower.
0% eh? Uh oh...looks like someone is in a minority

We'd better start stripping away his rights; he's "unnatural" :p

Oh my God. Everybody knows that species has to reproduce to stay in this world. How hard is that to get? And if you want to have it written down by another person - try Darwin.

Just because you don't know that you're choosing, that doesn't mean that you aren't. Unconsciously, all things you do depend on something. Read some Freud or something. And if you know that you're choosing all the time, you can in some way affect this choices.

Just a comment about this "link me up"-thing: Do you people have to copy other peoples opinions, or are you able to form something at all by yourselves? It seems to me like you have to have another persons approval before you think something. That's just an idea.

And just for the record. I'm a woman.

Every species lives to reproduce. And it's a fact that homosexual couples can't do that. No other animal lives i homosexual relationships or raise children as a gay couple. The act is one thing - the relationship is another.

In the modern world, yes they can, it would all be a simple matter of using commonly practiced scientific techniques to allow them to produce off-spring. While they cannot do it using both of their DNA, they (unless they are for some reason infertile, which heterosexuals can be as well) can do so as individuals. And while it is true that as a collective group, species "live" to reproduce, individuals of that species don't necessarily have to, especially humans. There are quite a number of heterosexual people I know who have no desire to reproduce, and yet they live quite happy lives and some of them are even married. And to refute your claim that no animals have on-going homosexual relationships, scientists in Antarctica have observed Emperor Penguins that have been homosexuals, and as a species they mate for life, and these particular penguins they observed did the same.

Why doesn't this poll have a none of the above (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=149779&highlight=) option?

"link me up" means "send me a link of where you're getting your information.

Fool.

And Freud was obsessed with the penis. I did a report on the guy. He thought all little boys felt superior because they had a dick, and all little girls felt inferior because they didn't have-what was the quote? Ah, yes-a "might penis."

The only good he did that I can think of off the top of my head is he helped formulize the idea behind the ego, superego, and ID

You can't affect all choices. I wish very fervently that I wasn't attracted to some of the girls I have been attracted to in the past. I wished THEN that I wasn't, and I wish now that I hadn't been.

But guess what? I was.

All things you do depend on something, yes. All things you do, however, do NOT depend on you.

And as for your first comment, I don't believe the entire world is homosexual :p. I could be the glaringly straight minority, but somehow I doubt it.

Just to point out, I noticed you didn't mention anything abotu certain penguins we talked about earlier. And how it is possible for two people of the same sex to, indeed, reproduce thanks to science.

In fact, in reference to same sex reproduction through science, I believe Darwin would be proud :)

Listen, no one can choose to be gay or not. What gays CAN choose is to stay in the closet, hidden, scared because of people who are constantly pushing gays down. Or they can choose to come out and live their lives (with all the discrimination that follows). My life as a lesbian can be practically calm (insults on the web are taken as nothing, to me).

I wish I could do more than just sit here. I wish I could help the lesbians, gays, bis and trans that are suffering because of discrimination and ridiculous fears.

What hurts me is not the insults, but the people who insult. I can't understand how a person can hate so much another person, who they don't know. And that saying "hate the sin, love the sinner". That's a big, dumb lie. You can't hate part of a person and love a person at the same time.

To me, being a lesbian is being myself. Hate lesbianism, you hate me.

Chiao

Oh my God. Everybody knows that species has to reproduce to stay in this world. How hard is that to get? And if you want to have it written down by another person - try Darwin.
Yes try Darwin. He would tell you that in our case, having a number of non-reproducing specimens would be evolutionarily beneficial to the species as a whole- and of course, that it doesn't matter, because if people don't have offspring, then their traits won't be passed along...So leave them alone and let them be with who they want to be with and in a matter of time, they won't be around anymore. If you keep forcing them into heterosexual relationships and they keep having children, the "gay gene" will just continue.

Just because you don't know that you're choosing, that doesn't mean that you aren't. Unconsciously, all things you do depend on something. Read some Freud or something. And if you know that you're choosing all the time, you can in some way affect this choices.
tee hee....he thinks Freud was right...

Just a comment about this "link me up"-thing: Do you people have to copy other peoples opinions, or are you able to form something at all by yourselves? It seems to me like you have to have another persons approval before you think something. That's just an idea.
We're perfectly able to form our own opinions...however, we don't like taking statements as fact unless there is some evidence to back it up. If you're just stating opinion that's fine, but opinion can't be used as proof that something works
And just for the record. I'm a woman.Heh, what do you know? So am I...

Every species lives to reproduce. And it's a fact that homosexual couples can't do that. No other animal lives i homosexual relationships or raise children as a gay couple. The act is one thing - the relationship is another.


have you not heard of any studies in animals at all?

there are penguins who will adopt eggs from other penguins (i.e. ones that are abandoned) and raise them as their own, gay penguins, mind you.
there are monkees that will have one-time flings with males and then go back to their female partners to raise the baby monkey.
there are swans that will steal eggs from other nests and raise the babies as their own.
there are countless examples of animals fighting off others who try to go after their same sex partner, raising babies together, building nests and grooming each other exclusively. it's not just about the sex in the animal kingdom, it's about the love too.

I am not aganst court marriage but I am against church marriage. Gays should be allowed to marry in the courts eyes but not gods. In the constitution it states that all men are created equal even gay men. However forcing a religous institution to marry anyone is wrong. You can't do that because that leads to communism or fascism. Really when you look at it they basicly have the same outcomes. i mean there has been no succesful communist dictatorship. Look at Stalin, Mao, Castro and Pol Pot. Also with Fascism look at Hitler. All have lead to mass murder and other atrocites. I mean it would seperate church and state.

I am not aganst court marriage but I am against church marriage. Gays should be allowed to marry in the courts eyes but not gods. In the constitution it states that all men are created equal even gay men. However forcing a religous institution to marry anyone is wrong. You can't do that because that leads to communism or fascism. Really when you look at it they basicly have the same outcomes. i mean there has been no succesful communist dictatorship. Look at Stalin, Mao, Castro and Pol Pot. Also with Fascism look at Hitler. All have lead to mass murder and other atrocites. I mean it would seperate church and state.

That's great. I agree. And noone has ever advocated that.

I try to be open minded. I am against marriages, especially in the barely legal form, and the illegal ones performed by activist officials. I do heartily support civil unions, because any strong relationship is due at least some support (but not the same as marriage, a sort of preferred status) But marriage? No. Marriage is a religious thing, a partnership between a man and a woman, and no government decree or popular movement should have the right to alter it. The times may change, but human sociology is an immortal thing, now established.

Yes sad to say no one has advocated this and that is why people are still debating. I think that on this subject if people learned to compromise then everyone would get what they want.

I still think the wisest idea is the remove "marrige" from the legal system period. Make marrige a religious thing and ONLY a religious thing.

I forget who, but someone earlier in this thread (or a very similer) one made a really excellent post on it

i don't think anyone has said that religious institutions should be forced to marry gay people. i mean, if they want to, then that's fine and dandy, but here when they started to put the gay marriage deal through parliment, they had a special part about how religious institutions didn't have to marry gay couples if they didn't want to.

also, marriage used to mean a man and a woman of the same race. it also used to mean a man and his property... then women's rights and civil rights came along and changed that. now it's about gay rights and i think it's time for another change.
marriage was a civil instiution before it was a religious one.

Whatever I just don't want the goverment to but into my religon and tell the catholic church what to do.

Just so long as the Catholic Church doesn't but in and tell the government what to do ^_^

Whatever I just don't want the goverment to but into my religon and tell the catholic church what to do.

i don't think anyone has suggested that churches will have to marry homosexuals if they don't want to.
though the churches have suggested that the nation not marry homosexuals for no reason other than the church doesn't want it.

the only way the government will interfere with the catholic church here is if they start bashing homosexuals now. well, assuming harper doesn't get elected, then attacks based on sexual orientation will be counted as hate crimes.

This is such a complicated issue because marriage exists on three spheres. There is a societal sphere. Nearly every society, even one devoid of laws and religion, has some sort of institution around pairing, creating families, and raising children.

Next it exists on a Religious level because religions need to answer big questions about how we lead our lives and declaring that adultery, fornication, etc. is a sin requires that you have some definition of what marriage is.

Finally it exists on a legal basis, having to do with joint property, inheritance, and a multitude of other rights.

Personally I was in favor of the idea of civil unions, because it addressed the issues that seemed most relevant to the needs of homosexual couples (the legal ones)

But frankly I also have trouble agreeing with those that are getting all worked up about how this is going to destroy the institution. If the institution was in trouble it was because too many people were considering it to be outdated, irrelevant, and unnecessary. so now we have a whole bunch of people saying that marriage is important, that lifelong committment is significant and worthwhile...that sounds like the best thing to happen to marriage in quite a long time.

As for homosexuality not being biologically normal, once agian you ignore the facts that many, MANY other animals have homosexual tendencies. Are they not biologically normal either?

Or are they unnatural? Kinda odd, nature being seen as unnatural.



So I got a question for you: Would you rather eat your own children/family or would you have someone do it for you?

Some snakes are known to eat their stillborn babies as they hatch from the eggs. Piranhas are known to attack and shread apart the fish in their own school if they feel any hunger pangs. Since animals eat eachother, should (sane) people eat eachother?

I believe that a (sane) person is not comparable to an animal. As people, we have no good natural waepons. We lack survival instincts. We even rely on other animals for provisions other than food (like clothes). The things that humans have are a good ability to adapt to the environments and a whole lot of intelligence compared to animals.

So what is natural? If animals kill eachother for the heck of it, would it be natural for people to kill eachother for the heck of it? Really, I do not see that how animal behavior could compare to human behavior. What is natural to one animal may not be natural to us: fish naturally survive underwater, sadly we can't.

Yet, the question people are asking is whether homosexuality is "natural" or not: does the "gay gene" really exists in the world or is being gay a choice. The problem is that no one knows. One way to find out is to put ALL (each and every; no slipping through the cracks) homosexual people in some secluded land. Since they do not reproduce, the homosexual community will die off. If people become gay after they all die off, then the so called "gay gene" exists. The main problem with this procedeure is that it is not humanely right to do something like this.

As a Roman Catholic, I choose to side with the Pope's decision on homosexuality: that is to remain neutral untill we find it a "gay gene" really exists. I would like to point out that various Catholic churches and people are choosing sides on this issue. They are allowed to since they have free will and the freedom of speech. Yet, I would like to also say that not everyone does what they are supposed to do: not all Catholics are neutral. This is parallel to the fact that people J-walk when they are not supposed to. The point of this paragraph is to say that the Church is supposed to be neutral on this decision, but people do choose sides.

As for homosexuality not being biologically normal, once agian you ignore the facts that many, MANY other animals have homosexual tendencies. Are they not biologically normal either?

Or are they unnatural? Kinda odd, nature being seen as unnatural.



So I got a question for you: Would you rather eat your own children/family or would you have someone do it for you?

Some snakes are known to eat their stillborn babies as they hatch from the eggs. Piranhas are known to attack and shread apart the fish in their own school if they feel any hunger pangs. Since animals eat eachother, should (sane) people eat eachother?

I believe that a (sane) person is not comparable to an animal. As people, we have no good natural waepons. We lack survival instincts. We even rely on other animals for provisions other than food (like clothes). The things that humans have are a good ability to adapt to the environments and a whole lot of intelligence compared to animals.

So what is natural? If animals kill eachother for the heck of it, would it be natural for people to kill eachother for the heck of it? Really, I do not see that how animal behavior could compare to human behavior. What is natural to one animal may not be natural to us: fish naturally survive underwater, sadly we can't.

Yet, the question people are asking is whether homosexuality is "natural" or not: does the "gay gene" really exists in the world or is being gay a choice. The problem is that no one knows. One way to find out is to put ALL (each and every; no slipping through the cracks) homosexual people in some secluded land. Since they do not reproduce, the homosexual community will die off. If people become gay after they all die off, then the so called "gay gene" exists. The main problem with this procedeure is that it is not humanely right to do something like this.

As a Roman Catholic, I choose to side with the Pope's decision on homosexuality: that is to remain neutral untill we find it a "gay gene" really exists. I would like to point out that various Catholic churches and people are choosing sides on this issue. They are allowed to since they have free will and the freedom of speech. Yet, I would like to also say that not everyone does what they are supposed to do: not all Catholics are neutral. This is parallel to the fact that people J-walk when they are not supposed to. The point of this paragraph is to say that the Church is supposed to be neutral on this decision, but people do choose sides.
None of the people are saying "Homosexuality exists in other animals, therefore it is good." We are saying "Don't use 'unnatural' as a reason for it being bad, because animals do it" If people would stop using the it's-not-natural "argument" we'd stop saying "yes it is"

i don't think anyone has suggested that churches will have to marry homosexuals if they don't want to.
Although I haven't heard anyone making this case yet...I can definitely see someone being kept out of the church they want to be wed in (after gay marriages are legal) and then suing the church for discrimination or something...It kinda makes me mad just to think about it. That's why I think we should totally get rid of state involvement in marriages...and then make it quite clear that a church doesn't have to wed any couple if it chooses not to.

The government gives special bonuses to married people because they wanted people to get married and have children. A lot of it has to do with tradition, but a lot of it means is that two people were designated mating partners. That means hands off to anyone else. You see the government wanted people to have children, it kept the society going. It also prevents people from fighting too much over mating rights. Once two people were married that meant that they wouldn’t be as likely to have to deal with further competition. Although sometimes it would still exist.

Much of this is still true today. However we don’t need everybody reproducing. So go ahead and strive for marriage if you want. The one thing that I want to see happen though is that any other bonuses not already mentioned to be done away with. The tradition marriage is going down the toilet anyway. Divorce rates are high and people can get married at a drive through window.

banning homosexual marriage only seems right when you are thinking of gay people as THEM and not US. what THEY do is nasty and unnatural. THEY shouldnt defile marriage ( something done every day by straight couples) THEY should be locked up or kept in the closet or something.

when its someone you know, a friend, a family member a neighbor, its different. imagine telling your brother that hes not GOOD enough to get married (esp if you are from one of those families where your sister has been married 3 times. )

i have several close gay friends who have come up on the wrong side of this issue. couples who can never be together because its fine for a straight couple to marry and bring the non citizen spouse into the US but its not OK for a gay couple to do so.

a couple where one man is in the military. every time the issue of his transfer comes up they face the possiblity that they will be forcibly seperated because only spouses get on base housing and certain areas are just too expensive to live in on a military salary. the non military partner cant even get information on his lover from the base in emergencies because he has no legal standing.

remember when jesus said "whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me"? these gay couples are the least of your brothers. if you are so freaking religious shouldnt you take the words of jesus more seriously?

very well put, Ash...

If two adults of a legal consenting age, let them marry; love knows no bounds.

If two adults of a legal consenting age, let them marry; love knows no bounds.
Although marriage can be a rather nasty bind if that love fades, or was never really there.

If two adults of a legal consenting age, let them marry; love knows no bounds.
Although marriage can be a rather nasty bind if that love fades, or was never really there.
very true...are you suggesting we ban heterosexual marriages too?

I can't help but say this: who gives a stuff if people are attracted to members of the same sex? I sure as hell don't. It doesn't really seem to be affecting the world's population, we're still somewhat overpopulated. Heterosexuals are still getting married, so who cares? If people choose their sexuality then homosexuality will probably eventually die down. If people can't help it, then there is nothing we can do. Simple eh?

very true...are you suggesting we ban heterosexual marriages too?
I imply no such thing. I just think that people shouldn’t take marriage so lightly in some situations or too seriously in other situations. But ultimately what I want to see is people to stop making such a big deal over the need to get married. All I get from my mother is “when are you getting married? When are you going to settle down with someone?” Hell she’s even buying stuff for her non-existing grandchildren.

Oh I almost forget...

I don't have a problem with homosexuals being entitled to some sort of civil union. I couldn't really care, there's no real reason why they shouldn't be. However they shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexuals
(such as to adopt children). The reasons for that are simple and reasonable.

On one side you have the social conscience. Criminals go to jail from the votes of people they never knew. Society decides something is wrong and will punish those who follow it. For example murder is wrong.

However, you also have personal liberties.people cant take everything away from you, becaue they dont like you.

Gay marriage is walking on a rope between these two values.

Am I going to let people do what I believe is wrong?
Am I going to let people do what they think is right?

To the creater of this thread I will say: The only way democracy works is in comromise. People have to accept what the majority wants. Do you really expect to outlaw gay marriage and not have people oppose you to the end, possibly violently?

Gay mariage may be "unatural" but to me buying an assault rifle is also "unatural." I have to accept that, and you and many others will have to accept that in the end, some agreement will have to be reached about gay marriage. Many of the reasonable ones have been said in this thread already.

Oh I almost forget...

I don't have a problem with homosexuals being entitled to some sort of civil union. I couldn't really care, there's no real reason why they shouldn't be. However they shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexuals
(such as to adopt children). The reasons for that are simple and reasonable.
Umm...I think you forgot the last couple sentences there.... :wink:

By my guess, I think homosexuality will have to find some kind of compromise in society. Whenever some issue like this lasts for a long time, people (in general) begin to accept homosexuality.

However they shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexuals (such as to adopt children). The reasons for that are simple and reasonable.

Well, if the reasons are so simple and reasonable, I'd assume you'd have no problem explaining them, and we'd all instantly agree right?
I'm waiting.

come on guys, you're flaying the hell out of a rotting horse corpse.

all these points have been discussed in depth before. try looking through past threads.

come on guys, you're flaying the hell out of a rotting horse corpse.

all these points have been discussed in depth before. try looking through past threads.

I did, and I still can't find any decent arguments to oppose gay marriage. Maybe this time, maybe this time...

Homosexuality is gross and threatens my masculinity. Also, Jesus hates it or something. No way.

Homosexuality is gross and threatens my masculinity. Also, Jesus hates it or something. No way.

my lord, you are SO funny. god. makes me chuckle vigorously, or even churfuckle if i'm feeling sassy.

Ya know, marrige was actually INVENTED as a legal concept by the catholic church. Wanna know why?
Was it some divine will?
Was it a biblical quote reinterpreted?

Nope. It was so they could have records keeping be easier for the home office people.

Nice to know that there are those out to protect the "purity" of an organization system!
Seriously, the religious texts of the old testament, new testament, and the (i know i spelled this wrong...) Koran, all imply marrige as being based on love. Hey, what do you know?! Isn't that the point of this?

Homosexuality is gross and threatens my masculinity. Also, Jesus hates it or something. No way.

Homosexuals are hideous space-aliens from the planet Blobnar. And that's why they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Ya know, marrige was actually INVENTED as a legal concept by the catholic church. Wanna know why?

Really? Try telling that to the Roman empire.

Ya know, marrige was actually INVENTED as a legal concept by the catholic church. Wanna know why?

Really? Try telling that to the Roman empire.

Or how about the Assyrians and Babylonians. What about the people in cities like Kush and Ur (among two of the first to have surviving records detailing marriage practices and laws, along with Babylon and the Egyptian city of Memphis)? The earliest codified system of marriage laws comes form Babylon, and it was mearly a broad outline of property inheiretance rights (which included the wife, as she was nothing more than property at the time, she was considered part of her own dowry) and various ways a husband could have the city punish his wife for a variety of sexual and non-sexual indiescrestions. Marriage has existed in a legal sense (Babylonians didn't put much stock in the religious aspect of it, the early Hewbrews were the first major religion to do so, it had more to do with ownership in Babylon and Egypt) for around 4000 years and in a major religious sense (through the Hebrews) for maybe 500 years less than that. The Catholics were hardly the first ones.

Although I only partially understand your comment, I will try to respond.
I don't think children are only legally unable to consent, I think that under a certain age they are emotionally and physically incapable of truly giving consent. Besides, in the case of paedophilia, if the couple waits a few years then it will be legal for them to get married. Gay couples don't suddenly attain the right to wed when they reach a certain age. As for "it's not normal"....Totally lame argument. There are plenty of qualities people have that may not be the average, but that doesn't mean they should have fewer rights. For example, in a typology test (http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp), I am an Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking, Judger- only 1% of the population is INTJ. In other words, there are a lot more gay people out there than there are folks like me. But do you think that I shouldn't be able to marry the person of my choice? I think I should, even if he (and yes, I'm a female) is also an INTJ. Not being "normal" is not an argument. I bet you have an abnormal quality or two yourself.

Your Type is
INTJ
Introverted Intuitive Thinking Judging

Cool, I guess I'm special like you. :D

Nevermind the whole gay part.

ALL GAYS SHOULD BE SENT TO MIDWAY ISLAND AND THEN WE SHOULD DROP 2 NUKES AND 1 HYDROGEN BOMB ON THERE...but only kill gays that get married!

Homosexuality is gross and threatens my masculinity. Also, Jesus hates it or something. No way.

http://www.goats.com/store/images/shirt_dick.png (http://www.goats.com/)

Oh my God. Everybody knows that species has to reproduce to stay in this world. How hard is that to get? And if you want to have it written down by another person - try Darwin.

Just because you don't know that you're choosing, that doesn't mean that you aren't. Unconsciously, all things you do depend on something. Read some Freud or something. And if you know that you're choosing all the time, you can in some way affect this choices.

Just a comment about this "link me up"-thing: Do you people have to copy other peoples opinions, or are you able to form something at all by yourselves? It seems to me like you have to have another persons approval before you think something. That's just an idea.

And just for the record. I'm a woman.

1.) Every single organism within a species reproducing is not conductive to the process of evolution or general ecology.
2.) Part of the definition of a choice is that it is conscious. A subconscious choice or an unconscious choice is not really a choice at all. Besides which, Freud's ideas are subjective, so they aren't really a good thing to base your argument off of.

Can I just ask all people that hasn't really got anything to say to stop putting all those meaningless messages out there? Like "no, i think they shouldn't" and nothing more? Add something, don't just say it again. And to the person who said that this is old: well, You don't have to be here to discuss it. But we want to. If you don't - fine, but let us do it. Sauch.

CoRRuPTeD HaLo's message stated a good thing: we can't compare humans to other animals, aswell as we can't compare cats to chickens or something like that. When I used unnatural, I meant for the humans - not for all species in the world. But ok, let's use unnormal instead. Good.

Freud had a dick complex? Was that some kind of an argument from you? Have you read any Freud at all? Much of todays psychology is based on his statements, and I can have them with me as an argument.

The thing with putting all homosexuals on an island somewhere is interesting. In order to get all the eventual "gay genes" on one place, you have to put all homosexuals (and bisexuals?) on the same place. Then you have to get their parents (we can directly decide that the homosexual gene has to be recessive [if it wasn't, two straight parents wouldn't be able to get a homosexual child], and therefore both parents of a homosexual most be carriers of the homosexual gene.) And then, we have to get all the grandparents (let's assume that every grand-parent are dead, but if they weren't, they would be here aswell), because at least one on each side of the family must be a carrier. Then we have to get the homosexuals sisters and brothers, because they may carry the gene aswell. You see my point? It would be a hard time.

Or we can just do this: Take one homosexual man and one homosexual woman. The gene must be recessive, so they both must have only homosexual genes. If they can raise a straight child together, homosexuality can't depend on a gene. Right?

If I didn't answer anything now, please remind me. It's hard when you get so many answers.

CoRRuPTeD HaLo's message stated a good thing: we can't compare humans to other animals, aswell as we can't compare cats to chickens or something like that.
Sure we can. Humans are animals. We’re just animals who like to poke an prod our way into other people’s affairs far too often than is necessary. It’s not like allowing a small group of people to get married whose major fallacy is not being able to have kids is going to destroy the world. In fact it can help save the world by reducing the human population expansion.

When I used unnatural, I meant for the humans - not for all species in the world. But ok, let's use unnormal instead. Good.
No, because that just bring us an entirely different debate as to what behavior can be considered normal. Referring to it as not being normal almost makes it sound like homosexuality is a mental disease.

When I use the word "normal" I mean the real definition, the one that's in your dictionary. The norm. What most are. 6% of the world's population isn't the norm.

"For example, in a typology test, I am an Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking, Judger- only 1% of the population is INTJ. In other words, there are a lot more gay people out there than there are folks like me."

i scored an INTJ as well, and are you calling me ga

To say that we should not care about gay marriage-that is totally stupid! If you do not stand up for your own morals and prinicples, then who will? You have a voice, it is not only your right, but your very duty as a human being to speak up and express yourself.

I am not a radical, but it just pisses me off when people lik you say that we should sit there and not say anything about what is going on...that is the cause for the Holocaust and it is the constant threat of medicracy that we must fight.

homosexuality is not a choice. it is a tendency that comes alive during puberty because of chemicals on the brain during the third or fourth month of the gestation period. people can not change the fact that the are homosexuals even if they want to.

Just think, Does it really matter? If they are away from you, then they wont bother you. And every state in the USA should follow MA's Example. But we all know that Texas will not.

CoRRuPTeD HaLo's message stated a good thing: we can't compare humans to other animals, aswell as we can't compare cats to chickens or something like that. When I used unnatural, I meant for the humans - not for all species in the world. But ok, let's use unnormal instead. Good.

It's been clarified already - the argument of that which is natural only comes up to refute claims such as yours that homosexuality is not natural. If one doesn't want to argue what "natural" means, one should use the "It's not natural" argument.

Freud had a dick complex? Was that some kind of an argument from you? Have you read any Freud at all? Much of todays psychology is based on his statements, and I can have them with me as an argument.

Much of contemporary psychology is based on his ideas of how to look at psychology. The majority of Freud's theories are merely relics, no longer seen as anything more than antiquated theories. One looks to Freud as the creator of psychotherapy, but his theories have not been cited for decades, because most have been proven wrong.

Or we can just do this: Take one homosexual man and one homosexual woman. The gene must be recessive, so they both must have only homosexual genes. If they can raise a straight child together, homosexuality can't depend on a gene. Right?

Oh, you people and your search for a "gay gene." No such thing will ever be found as the end-all determinant of sexual orientation. We already have the methods to test such theories (i.e. twin studies), and evidence thus far indicates a combination of biological and environmental factors. One does not have to prove "X or Y" to have a valid scientific theory, one can also propose "X and Y."

The experiment you propose is flawed on a number of levels - if you'd really like, I could point out why, but we certainly aren't lacking the methods to test these things. Neurologists, sociologists, and psychologists have all been conducting studies on this for some time.

Actually, you CAN compare humans to other animals.

See, a lot of animals (like dogs, monkeys, pigs) have similar brain structures to those of humans.

In experiments, they react much the same way as humans. It's done all the time in fields like psychology, other animals are used in place of humans.

Or we can just do this: Take one homosexual man and one homosexual woman. The gene must be recessive, so they both must have only homosexual genes. If they can raise a straight child together, homosexuality can't depend on a gene. Right?



If it's a recessive gene, there's only a 1 in 4 chance that the child will be homosexual.

R r

R RR Rr

r Rr rr<----That'd be the homosexual one.

Okay, this may or may not follow the argument but I think that if the government would have just recognized homosexual couples as legal couples us gays wouldn't be harrassing rightwinged, capatalist, rednecks to get married. The government brought this upon themselves.

As for homosexuality being a choice: It's not. No one would choose to be discriminated against and harrassed the way homosexuals are. Gays are beaten and discriminated against all the time. Do you think some one really chooses to go through this hell? Homosexuality isn't a tendency either. I have had homosexual feelings since I was at least 5 years old. Yes, I can remember that far back into my childhood.

And as it has been said MANY TIMES throughout this conversation, ANIMALS DO HAVE HOMOSEXUAL TENDENCIES. And you know what? Yes animals do rais their young but the male usually isn't present. So if we are to raise are young like the animals do, basically you go get some guy or girl. Engage in intercourse and then the man leaves to go screw around with other various partners and you never hear from him again. Yes, let's be like animals.

Some one please tell me what the "norm" is! There isn't a norm. Everyone has their opinions and beliefs, and to them their opinions and beliefs are the norm. So don't ever tell some one that they aren't the norm because you aren't the norm to them either.

Why do these people insist on beating and bashing gays? It states in the bible that you are supposed to love people. Who are you to judge what is wrong and right? I also ask that if you cannot keep a mature mind-frame (specifically Right-Wing Fantasy) in this debate, then you should leave the talking to the young/Adults (meaning anyone who is mature enough to keep their opinion under control and make relevant statments.)

Insane Troll - what the fuck?
If it's a recessive gene, a homosexual must have two of them. Then there's only the "gay" genes to choose from. Is that hard to understand?

No. That's wrong. Freud had it right on many issues.

I still think that it's meaningless to compare humans to other animals. As the other guy said: fish can live under water, we can't. Right?

And if we are so similar to each other; shouldn't humans be able to marry other animals? Isn't that a dumb idea?

it could also be a combination of genes, you know.

and animals can't consent.

it could also be a combination of genes, you know.

and animals can't consent.
or maybe it's different for gay men and gay women

Insane Troll - what the f---?
If it's a recessive gene, a homosexual must have two of them. Then there's only the "gay" genes to choose from. Is that hard to understand?

No. That's wrong. Freud had it right on many issues.

I still think that it's meaningless to compare humans to other animals. As the other guy said: fish can live under water, we can't. Right?

And if we are so similar to each other; shouldn't humans be able to marry other animals? Isn't that a dumb idea?

Oh, damn.

You're right.

I feel like such an idiot.

Insane Troll - what the f---?
If it's a recessive gene, a homosexual must have two of them. Then there's only the "gay" genes to choose from. Is that hard to understand?

No. That's wrong. Freud had it right on many issues.

I still think that it's meaningless to compare humans to other animals. As the other guy said: fish can live under water, we can't. Right?

And if we are so similar to each other; shouldn't humans be able to marry other animals? Isn't that a dumb idea?

As for the part about animals, I know I'm right.

There are countless experiments using animals that work exactly the same on humans.

The first thing that comes to mind is classical conditioning.

And animals can't give consent, their brains aren't as developed as ours, but the basic similarities remain.

Fact: 1 in 8 people are homosexual. 1 in 10 are gay. 1 in 20 are lesbian.
(This fact is for people in America, fundamentalist Christian stronghold, so I can only assume that the rest of the world has at least the same number of homosexuals or more)

From this I derive my support of homosexual marriage, right or wrong.

That being said, I should be able to marry my cousin without the government giving me crap (if she/he/heshe accepts) as that is the core ideal of Republican ideals: limited government involvement.

That being said, I'd kill myself if I even thought of becoming a neo-con nutjob. And I'd kill myself because you or your invisible god-friends don't own me, and if I want to damn myself to hell, it's my right and your benefit.

Insane Troll - what the f---?
If it's a recessive gene, a homosexual must have two of them. Then there's only the "gay" genes to choose from. Is that hard to understand?

No. That's wrong. Freud had it right on many issues.

I still think that it's meaningless to compare humans to other animals. As the other guy said: fish can live under water, we can't. Right?

And if we are so similar to each other; shouldn't humans be able to marry other animals? Isn't that a dumb idea?

As for the part about animals, I know I'm right.

There are countless experiments using animals that work exactly the same on humans.

The first thing that comes to mind is classical conditioning.

And animals can't give consent, their brains aren't as developed as ours, but the basic similarities remain.

The entire issue is based off of consent.

"For example, in a typology test, I am an Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking, Judger- only 1% of the population is INTJ. In other words, there are a lot more gay people out there than there are folks like me."

i scored an INTJ as well, and are you calling me ga

To say that we should not care about gay marriage-that is totally stupid! If you do not stand up for your own morals and prinicples, then who will? You have a voice, it is not only your right, but your very duty as a human being to speak up and express yourself.

I am not a radical, but it just pisses me off when people lik you say that we should sit there and not say anything about what is going on...that is the cause for the Holocaust and it is the constant threat of medicracy that we must fight.
I thought the cause of the holocaust was blind hatred for our fellow man. And I never noticed myself saying that "we should sit there and not say anything about what is going on..." I mean, I say a lot about what's going on...I think it's awful that people are still trying to keep gay couples from the same rights as straight couples, so yes, speak up!
Also, I said outright "there are more gays that INTJs" How is that equivalent with "INTJs are all gay like me" Well I mean for starters I'm not gay...I'm bisexual...I guess...though I dislike the term...I am, however, saying you're not "the norm" because the average person isn't INTJ. Most people are extroverted and most people are Sensory....as for T vs F and J vs P...they're about equal...But INTJs are totally abnormal. Like me, and like you. :D

Fact: 1 in 8 people are homosexual. 1 in 10 are gay. 1 in 20 are lesbian.
(This fact is for people in America, fundamentalist Christian stronghold, so I can only assume that the rest of the world has at least the same number of homosexuals or more)

From this I derive my support of homosexual marriage, right or wrong.

That being said, I should be able to marry my cousin without the government giving me crap (if she/he/heshe accepts) as that is the core ideal of Republican ideals: limited government involvement.

That being said, I'd kill myself if I even thought of becoming a neo-con nutjob. And I'd kill myself because you or your invisible god-friends don't own me, and if I want to damn myself to hell, it's my right and your benefit.

Interesting fact, according to Discover magazine, incest is mostly a social taboo, there's a higher chance for a woman over 40 to have a deformed child than a child coming out of an incestual relationship.

I can't proof that being gay is a choice - and you can't proof that it's not.


Well, then, what about the study that showed fruit flies who have had their brains tampered with (for lack of a better term) show homosexual behavior? Does that prove it's a chemical phenomenon? Or how about the fact stated over and over again in this forum that homosexuality is present in many animals?

As for Freud: overrated, out of date, and wrong on many accounts. I can respect that he was the first and didn't exactly know what he was discovering, but personally I prefer Jung (not that he isn't out of date on some accounts as well). But enough with the elitist namedropping.

Freud was a fantastic psychologist for his time.

But that was then, this is now, we know a lot more.

He was truely a pioneer, and I respect him for that, but we can't dwell on his teachings. We have to progress.

1) Read Freud yourself: he did indeed have a penis obsession. Where do you think "phallic symbolism" comes from? He was a pioneer, but one in a medical/scientific study. Ever hear of the phrase "stand on the heads fo geniuses?" THat's what you do; In this case, Frued is a pioneer that therozes (sp?) and such, and someone later takes these and tweaks them or changes them, and someone later does the same to HIS findings, and so on and so forth.

2) I still believe marrige should become a strictly religious event. No legal strings attatched. Then just give "civil union" a better name. End of problem

I'm conservative. Well, sue me.

We still can't compare humans to other animals, because we aren't the same. Sure, we have some things in common, but not all. That could lead to horrible mistakes.

Most young children are trying to explore life, and sexuality, and tries what we would call "homosexual acts". Not as serious as the ones that adults have, but light. Even I did that. It's a part of our development. I just can't belive that being homosexual is genetic - there are twins (one egg, of course), where just one of them is homosexual. And I think that we should try to cure homosexuality. I know that homosexuals don't want that, but I do. Or at least try to fix it so that no more homosexuals will be born (if we're born to be...). It's like the blind (or albinos, dwarfs, whatever). I saw a documentary with a blind mother. Her son had the chance to perfect sight, with one simple operation. But she wouldn't let him, because she thought that the blind culture was as good asa anything. She denied her son a normal life. We can't deny our future children that. It would be wrong.

And for the normal-thing. Yes, I'm still saying that it isn't normal. The norm is the most common. Whatever you think of it, that's what the dictionarys says, and I'll use it like that.

Sure. Let homosexuals marry, let me marry my brother, or father, or son. If we want to, and we're adults - why shouldn't we have that right?

We econd the statement of Rotanimret.

Our opinion to homosexual mariage is: NO, NO, NO.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

We econd the statement of Rotanimret.

Our opinion to homosexual mariage is: NO, NO, NO.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

Any particular reason for that?

You seem to act as if homosexuality is something that needs to be cured. Under a religious context, yes, it does. However, these people are not of your religious beliefs and therefore would disagree immensely.

But hey, at least you have you're own opinion, right? I mean, honestly, I do have respect for you in that; you haven't just been coping and pasting stuff or nodding with others.

Oh, and I don't believe I ever "explored" anything; I've always been straight :p

I just can't belive that being homosexual is genetic - there are twins (one egg, of course), where just one of them is homosexual. And I think that we should try to cure homosexuality.
Just because it isn't genetic does not mean that it's a matter of choice. Or, indeed, 'cure'able.

I know that homosexuals don't want that, but I do.
Well, then. The sooner everybody learns to accept that you and only you know what's best for them, the sooner everyone'll be a lot happier.

Oh come now, this is so 20th century. Homosexuality is just another hump you pathetic little Christians have to get over, like people being black or Jewish.

I'm not a christian, but thanks for assume yet another thing.

Homosexuality can mean the end to the humans. If it spreads too far (if it now may be genetical, or even if it depends on anything else - it can spread) and our species stop reproducing it can mean disaster. Isn't that right? It's like anything else. Even if we accept it, it can go really wrong if we don't try to find out where it comes from and how to stop it. I don't want all homosexuals dead or anything like that, but I see the huge problem in letting them raise children and live as they please. If homosexuality depends on how you're raised, it can be a huge error to let homosexuals raise their own children. Don't you agree that we really should try to find out what's "wrong"?

I accept, respect and have no problem with homosexuals, nor people with other "defects", but don't you see what this can mean to out being?

Strange how the massive, crippling problem facing the human race right now is OVERpopulation. That means that the human race is reproducing far too fast for the resources to keep up. Overpopulation will concievably lead to a horrible crash in living standards for everyone. You think if homosexuals are allowed to raise children, gays are going to jump from 10% of the population (at the most liberal estimate) to 100%? That's stupid.
Another thing is that even in the overrwhelmingly unlikely event that your fantasy came true and everyone became gay, we would still be able to reproduce. Technology is such now that, if it were really necissary, we could continue to make new people without anyone ever having to have sex. So, in conclusion, gays failing to have children won't kill the human race, but everyone else having too many just might.

Freud was a fantastic psychologist for his time.

But that was then, this is now, we know a lot more.

He was truely a pioneer, and I respect him for that, but we can't dwell on his teachings. We have to progress.

why are people even trying to base their knowledge of homosexuality and human psychology on the out-dated and disproven research of a 19th-century coke addict? Freud was a brilliant writer, and had the gift of making psychology visible and accessable to the masses, but his techniques were hopelessly flawed and most of his conclusions long since disproven. he has no place in a modern debate on homosexuality.

I'm not a christian, but thanks for assume yet another thing.

Homosexuality can mean the end to the humans. If it spreads too far (if it now may be genetical, or even if it depends on anything else - it can spread) and our species stop reproducing it can mean disaster. Isn't that right? It's like anything else. Even if we accept it, it can go really wrong if we don't try to find out where it comes from and how to stop it. I don't want all homosexuals dead or anything like that, but I see the huge problem in letting them raise children and live as they please. If homosexuality depends on how you're raised, it can be a huge error to let homosexuals raise their own children. Don't you agree that we really should try to find out what's "wrong"?

I accept, respect and have no problem with homosexuals, nor people with other "defects", but don't you see what this can mean to out being?

people, OPEN A BLOODY BIOLOGY BOOK.

homosexuality is NOT a maladaptive trait, it is not a defect, and in the animal kingdom it has been conclusively proven to be a positive adaptation in over a dozen cases. homosexual pairings are equally well suited to caring for young, and a homosexual partner can provide added assitence if both biological parents wish to participate in rearing. homosexual animals who do not reproduce themselves are often found helping to raise their siblings (who are, genetically, just as related to the homosexual as his/her own offspring would be), thus increasing the siblings' likelihood of success.

also, please remember that homosexuality is not linked to infertility, and homosexuals are just as capable of having offspring as heterosexuals. even if 100% of the human population were homosexual that would not mean we would stop reproducing, especially given modern medical techniques.

additionally, current research into primate physiology and sexual behavior suggests that humans are, biologically, predisposed to bisexuality. bisexuality is adaptive based on the social characteristics and structure of primate society, and is extremely adaptive in terms of care for young. our closest genetic relatives, the bonobo chimpanzee, shows 100% of the population being bisexual, and more lesbian sexual interactions occur than any other pairing, including heterosexual. and the only reason bonobo populations are shrinking is due to deforestation...their homosexually-active population actually reproduces more swiftly than other chimp species or related primates.

so please, please, please, silly homophobes: open a book. the evidence is there, has been for years, and only waits for you to show enough sense to look. homosexuality is not maladaptive. it's not going to cause the human race to be exitinct. it's not a disease. it's not a defect. in many cases it is actually a survival-improver, such as in the case of lesbian women (who have longer lifespans and less likelihood of getting diseases than straight women or men of any orientation).

educate yourselves instead of clinging to your ignorance. you embarass us all by perpetuating the same stupid falacies over and over.

I'm not a christian, but thanks for assume yet another thing.

Homosexuality can mean the end to the humans. If it spreads too far (if it now may be genetical, or even if it depends on anything else - it can spread) and our species stop reproducing it can mean disaster. Isn't that right? It's like anything else. Even if we accept it, it can go really wrong if we don't try to find out where it comes from and how to stop it. I don't want all homosexuals dead or anything like that, but I see the huge problem in letting them raise children and live as they please. If homosexuality depends on how you're raised, it can be a huge error to let homosexuals raise their own children. Don't you agree that we really should try to find out what's "wrong"?

I accept, respect and have no problem with homosexuals, nor people with other "defects", but don't you see what this can mean to out being?

This is the dumbest social Darwinist crap from a "non-Christian" that I have ever seen.

Blonde hair is a defect. Being male is a defect [It's true, think about the XX/XY chromose and the resemblance of the clitoris/penis]. Lactose tolerance is a defect. Sickle-cell anemia is a defect. Yet all have places in society.

Besides that, 6.5 billion and climbing isn't going to lose much to 15% of the population not having children. As is, the net population increase is 2.4 children a second. This is ludicrous and highly dangerous. If it wasn't for gay people and the only good type of conservative Christian [The ones that abstain from sexual interaction because it is "immoral"], we'd be either overrun with people and facing serious problems of crowding, higher housing costs, more crowded schools, less educated bigoted people, deforestation and food shortages, OR we would be facing some sort of pandemic.

And besides that, homosexuality is GENETIC, not do to upbringing/freewill.

Otherwise I would have become gay long ago :lol:

And on your issue of pedophilia, the child you marry will eventually grow up... and then what? Youll be looking for more children? That isn't LOVE, that's LUST.

Marriage is about LOVE. Homosexuals feel emotions of LOVE, probably even more so than straight people [another reason why I wish I was gay, or at least bi] because they understand their partner in their entirety.

When you show me a pedophile that feels LOVE for a child and not LUST, and that child LOVES the pedophile back, then I'd give my support 100%

Ergo, your point comparing homosexuals to pedophiles is crap.

NOT THAT I'M UPSET WITH YOU because of your ridiculous assertion. I too had trouble overcoming the differences between the two when I first came across the issue. But I soon came to realize this VERY big difference.

Also, there is a difference between two 15 year olds in love, (like my girlfriend and I... a or so ago...) in which case, I am entirely in support of marriage, and a 5 year old and a 15 year old (or 30 year old) (or 50 year old) in which the brain is no where near developed, and without the proper upbringing, is likely to consent with the bribe of a lollipop.

And on your issue of pedophilia, the child you marry will eventually grow up... and then what? Youll be looking for more children? That isn't LOVE, that's LUST.

Marriage is about LOVE. Homosexuals feel emotions of LOVE, probably even more so than straight people [another reason why I wish I was gay, or at least bi] because they understand their partner in their entirety.

When you show me a pedophile that feels LOVE for a child and not LUST, and that child LOVES the pedophile back, then I'd give my support 100%

Ergo, your point comparing homosexuals to pedophiles is crap.

NOT THAT I'M UPSET WITH YOU because of your ridiculous assertion. I too had trouble overcoming the differences between the two when I first came across the issue. But I soon came to realize this VERY big difference.

Also, there is a difference between two 15 year olds in love, (like my girlfriend and I... a or so ago...) in which case, I am entirely in support of marriage, and a 5 year old and a 15 year old (or 30 year old) (or 50 year old) in which the brain is no where near developed, and without the proper upbringing, is likely to consent with the bribe of a lollipop.

pedophilia is irrelevant because of the issue of consent. a minor is not able to give consent, so even if the child did claim to "love" their abuser that wouldn't change a damn thing. the pedophile can "love" all he wants, but it's still abuse because the child is, by definition, non-consenting. non-consentual sex is rape. period. no wiggle room.

this is the same reason why the examples of necrophilia and beastiality are moot; corpses and animals cannot consent, therefore having sex with them or trying to marry them is unacceptable. only adult human beings can consent, therefore only sex and marriage between them can be other than rape.

i understand this. the thread start did not. hopefully now he/she does.

i understand this. the thread start did not. hopefully now he/she does.

i won't hold my breath. usually if a person has reached the age where they would be interested in a site like NationStates they have already decided in which areas they will chose to maintain their ignorance. anybody who is still homophobic at this age is probably a lost cause, since they have chosen to ignore fact for so long that it has become an ingrained habit.

aw. don't hate the conservative/Christian scum. pity them. :P

ok one last post on this tired topic

WTF would anyone object to gay people pairing up and setting down?

keeping people in the closet and making them try to be straight isnt all that good an idea. would you really want to marry a woman who is secretly gay? what a disaster, especially for those who dont believe in divorce! you would be stuck forever with a woman who find sex with you rather disgusting.

even if they TRY to be straight, it doesnt mean that it will "take". a few years down the road they may well realize that their feelings havent changed after all. just what poor straight soul do you want to have to have his/her heart broken in that circumstance?

its way better to have gay people "allowed" to be gay. geez they would only marry other gay people eh? then they would settle down to a life of boring domesticity like the rest of us. where is the downside to this? i dont see one

In reply to the above.. imagine you were forced as a heterosexual human, to become gay. Thats exactly the same as forcing a gay human to act like a heterosexual. People should not force their own ideals on others, as long as nobody gets hurt in the process, everything is acceptable.

pedophilia is irrelevant because of the issue of consent. a minor is not able to give consent, so even if the child did claim to "love" their abuser that wouldn't change a damn thing. the pedophile can "love" all he wants, but it's still abuse because the child is, by definition, non-consenting. non-consentual sex is rape. period. no wiggle room.

That is off course, assuming that marriage equals sex. it doesn't.
Off course, minor's cannot consent to marriage either, but I just wanted to point out that you're now using the same "they cant marry cus their sex is wrong" argument homophobes are using against gay marriage.

First let me state my own stance is the government should marry homosexuals and religions be allowed to refuse based on their beliefs.

To be homosexual or heterosexual is dependant on the nervous impulses in your brain and how they react, making you feel attracted to that gender alone. Bisexuality is when is when you feel that attraction to both genders.

Sexual acts are not what makes one any of them. You taking it from a guy could equate to a girl with a strap on.

One can not simply make themselves stop feeling an attraction to one gender but have one with the other which they did not before find interesting in that kind of way. It does not work like that.

I do not think a "Civil Union" is acceptable unless marriage was changed to be called that. Its segregation based on sexual orientation and therefore not right. Marriage may be done by government or religions at present and therefore religion holds no monopoly on it. The church had dominated politics for hundreds if not thousands of years and so they made the rules. We have left that time frame of church domination (for the most part) and are on a path towards being secular or at least self-thinkers in the religious arena. Now, because the church dominated politics for so many years, what rights do they get? Why should they be the only ones allowed to use that word? Some religions (sects) do accept homosexual couples and would do marriages for them so again, how can you say because of religion, we will call it something else. This I do not understand.

One can counter "the act is one thing, the relationship is another" with how most other species have a limited mental capacity. Our society is much more complex then any other on the planet and therefore much more is taken into account then other animal species would take into account. Since what we take into account when picking out mates is so much more in quantity -- the topics we look at -- and since our society is more complex then other species one can not say a homosexual relationship is unnatural because of the very different social structure from species to species.

Population density may very well play a role in homosexuality as a small town will have very few homosexuals while a big city will have a larger number of them in ratio to the total population.


Just because you don't know that you're choosing, that doesn't mean that you aren't. Unconsciously, all things you do depend on something. Read some Freud or something. And if you know that you're choosing all the time, you can in some way affect this choices.
Yes, all things you do depends on something. The something in this case is the nervouse impulses. I hate beer. I never did like it. I've been trying it since I was 8 years old, my grandfather would let me have some. I still try it once in a while yet still have a strong dislike for the taste. No matter how much one wishes to like something or how indifferent one is, that will not change ones nervous impulses. You either like a gender in the way you wish to be with them in a intimate manner or you don't.


You can't affect all choices.
Agreed. Back in Junior High School I felt a slight attraction towards guys, not near the attraction towards girl but I put it behind me blocking it out best I could because of the name calling and such by my peers. Not to mention the fact that my parents have a prejudice against homosexuals and bisexuals -- I have yet to tell them --. I forced myself not to notice things, the way I act, the way I speak or certain attractions. My denial went on until some months ago when after reading an article published by a homosexual (I was frequently debating online in favor of homosexual marriage) I began to think. The result was my acknowledging I'm bisexual. Acknowledging it made me feel so much happier as now I'm complete in that sense. Now, trying as I did not to be bisexual it doesn't make sense that I made myself through choice feel this attraction. Being in love (not puppy) with a lady for a good amount of that time (several years) what reason would I have to choose to be this way?

That's why I think we should totally get rid of state involvement in marriages...and then make it quite clear that a church doesn't have to wed any couple if it chooses not to.
Why not get rid of church involvement in marriages? *wonders if any fury resulted from this sarcastic comment*

The government gives special bonuses to married people because they wanted people to get married and have children.
The government also gives a special penalty to married people because......why? I think this pretty much voids your argument about the practical reasons of it. Not that it matters really since the population of the USA is expected to reach 500 million by the end of the century with the world being at what, 26 billion? I don't think theres much worry about population growth. I mean, it did more than double this century. I think the claim dependents is more then enough of a bonus. Remove the benefit and penalty for being married but raise the benefit (even if just a little) for claiming dependents.

The tradition marriage is going down the toilet anyway. Divorce rates are high and people can get married at a drive through window.
If I'm not mistaken first marriages have a 50% failure rate with second marriages having a 68% failure rate and third marriages having a 83% failure rate. Of course by failure I mean it ends up in divorce but don't quote me on the percents. Not sure of the exact percents but its around there.


However they shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexuals
(such as to adopt children). The reasons for that are simple and reasonable.
Link me to an old thread with the reasons or start a new one and we shall see if the reasons are really as simple as you believe.


Or we can just do this: Take one homosexual man and one homosexual woman. The gene must be recessive, so they both must have only homosexual genes. If they can raise a straight child together, homosexuality can't depend on a gene. Right?
Unless of course its a gene that kicks in every so often depending on the density of the population in the given environment. Natures own population control mechanism. (borrowing anothers theory which seems best fit out of what I have heard in argument)


As for homosexuality being a choice: It's not. No one would choose to be discriminated against and harrassed the way homosexuals are. Gays are beaten and discriminated against all the time.
You forgot killed and tortured by goverments world wide, especially in muslim nations. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is not even recognized by the UDoHR. It is still only being discussed about on the human rights committee of the UN and is facing strong opposition.

I still think that it's meaningless to compare humans to other animals. As the other guy said: fish can live under water, we can't. Right?
Fish can live under water, lions can't. Right? So then we can't compare any animal to any other except those which are alike in the most basic areas, no? Now, aren't Bonobos (mammal) close enough to humans (mammal) to compare them?


And I think that we should try to cure homosexuality. I know that homosexuals don't want that, but I do.
You don't care what they want, why should they care what you want?

I saw a documentary with a blind mother. Her son had the chance to perfect sight, with one simple operation. But she wouldn't let him, because she thought that the blind culture was as good asa anything. She denied her son a normal life. We can't deny our future children that. It would be wrong.
Except no ones being denied a function but being given the chance to show their devotion to their significant other.

Sure. Let homosexuals marry, let me marry my brother, or father, or son. If we want to, and we're adults - why shouldn't we have that right?
There is actually a reason why incestuous relationships are illegal. Birth defects become exponentially more likely as a result of one.

Homosexuality can mean the end to the humans. If it spreads too far (if it now may be genetical, or even if it depends on anything else - it can spread) and our species stop reproducing it can mean disaster. Isn't that right?
No its not, many homosexuals have children of their own. They may swap partners (some have), artificial insemination or adoption in some cases. With as many homosexuals in the world today as there are the population of the planet is still expected to increase 400% by the end of the century. I think we're a long ways from it ending our species.

If homosexuality depends on how you're raised, it can be a huge error to let homosexuals raise their own children. Don't you agree that we really should try to find out what's "wrong"?
Actually, I disagree. This comes from real life experience of another (hearing her and others, seeing her). My younger sister has a (close) female friend who when she was born her father left them. Since she was still a baby, maybe a year old her mother has been with a female. She's lived with them all this time. The child grew up and has no homosexual intentions but is only interested in guys. She gets along great with them at home.

Marriage has no historical connection to government. Marriage is a term associated with Christianity.

I believe it is wrong for governments to interfere in the operations and belief structure of the Church (within reason - if they break the law, well that is another story). Same goes for the Chuch interfering in the operations and structure of governments (I believe in the separation of Church and State).

If the Chuch says "no gay marriage" then governments should respect that and not impose bureaocratic will upon religion.

If a government wishes to accept homosexual civil unions then that is their perogative. But to interfere in marriage is inexcusable.

In fact, I believe that the term marriage should only be recognised if a couple were actually married by a priest/minister...etc. A union would include those wed by a Justice of the Peace etc.

Basically...to summarise...the government should steer clear of Christian traditions. Governments need to stop politicising religion.

Marriage has no historical connection to government. Marriage is a term associated with Christianity.

I believe it is wrong for governments to interfere in the operations and belief structure of the Church (within reason - if they break the law, well that is another story). Same goes for the Chuch interfering in the operations and structure of governments (I believe in the separation of Church and State).

If the Chuch says "no gay marriage" then governments should respect that and not impose bureaocratic will upon religion.

If a government wishes to accept homosexual civil unions then that is their perogative. But to interfere in marriage is inexcusable.

In fact, I believe that the term marriage should only be recognised if a couple were actually married by a priest/minister...etc. A union would include those wed by a Justice of the Peace etc.

Basically...to summarise...the government should steer clear of Christian traditions. Governments need to stop politicising religion.

First, not all churches say "no gay marriage."
Second, someone mentioned previously (if I read correctly) that it wasn't a Christian idea. It being associated with Christianity most at present is no reason to deny them the right to marry. (I neglected to edit my post to reflect that)

Marriage has no historical connection to government. Marriage is a term associated with Christianity.

I believe it is wrong for governments to interfere in the operations and belief structure of the Church (within reason - if they break the law, well that is another story). Same goes for the Chuch interfering in the operations and structure of governments (I believe in the separation of Church and State).

If the Chuch says "no gay marriage" then governments should respect that and not impose bureaocratic will upon religion.

If a government wishes to accept homosexual civil unions then that is their perogative. But to interfere in marriage is inexcusable.

In fact, I believe that the term marriage should only be recognised if a couple were actually married by a priest/minister...etc. A union would include those wed by a Justice of the Peace etc.

Basically...to summarise...the government should steer clear of Christian traditions. Governments need to stop politicising religion.

First, not all churches say "no gay marriage."
Second, someone mentioned previously (if I read correctly) that it wasn't a Christian idea. It being associated with Christianity most at present is no reason to deny them the right to marry. (I neglected to edit my post to reflect that)

Marriage as it is perceived today has its origins in Christianity...many other religions held marriages of a sort (normally where the woman was subservient) yet these have not lasted into the modern era.

I understand that not all churches say "no gay marriage" and they are entitled to that right. Nobody is saying the Chuch cannot support gay marriage, but that governments should not legislate to force them to support gay marriage.

"the bonobo chimpanzee, shows 100% of the population being bisexual"
WE ARE NO MONKEYS. The bonobo do hankey pankey all the time. WE DON´T.
Homosexuality has NO BIOLOGICAL SENSE.
The reason for sex is to reproduce. Very simple.
Homosexuality is therefore a waste of nature.

Regarding the world population development we would recommend all to get the facts straight. In the 1970s the growth rate was much over 2%, from 1995-2000 it was only 1,35%. The UN had to lower its population estimates DRAMATICLY. The medium projection for the year 2050 was 2003lowered from 9.3 billion to 8,9 billion (400 million - compared to the estimate in the end of 1999).
In fact: due to the population development it may have to be lowered even more in the future.

Many nations are facing DECLINING POPULATION DEVELOPMENTS even tody or in the near future.
That are ALL EUROPEAN NATIONS, RUSSIA, JAPAN. Russia already lost 10 million people in the last 12 years. For those nations that´s going to be a tremendous problem. The same could be the case for Canada. 1,5 children per women is MUCH TO LITTLE. To keep the population on the same level 2,1 children per women would be required. NO european country, nor Russia or Japan is reaching that number. Even Ireland and France (which are doing best in this respect) are scoring slightly below 2 children per women. And even the US with 2,0 children per women lays slightly below the necessary number of 2,1 to keep the population stable. Without immigration even the US population would decline in the long-run.
The demographic development its going to be a great challenge. Today only 10% (629 million) people are over the age of 60. The expectation for 2050 ist that more than 20% (2 billion) are over 60. That would mean that there are world-wide more people over 60 than under 14.
More and more countries are realising that problem. 62% of all countries are worried about the demographic development.
The only countries were the population growth can be said to be too high are the muslim countries: from Pakistan to North Africa. For South Asia, South-east asia, East Asia and Latin America that can not be said since the numbers areg going down dramaticly.
And in southern parts of Africa the number of children is high but since more than 20% of the people are having Aids (in Botswana 37%) many countries there have to see even a declining populatin because of that disease.

For a growing number of nations the problem is not population growth but population decline.
Homosexuality does further this negative development since they are unable to reproduce. Families and children need support and need to be given tax incentives. Therefore support for married people should be given, since marriage is and remains the score where most children are born in. They should be given support and not homosexuals. Therefore: NO to homosexual marriage.

1) YOU ARE A GOD DAMN MORON. How many times have we said that homosexuals CAN reproduce thanks to modern science?

READ!!!!!

2) You know what? You're right. Homosexuality has no purpose. But hey, then again, neither does quite a few parts of human anatomy. Are you suggesting we get rid of those too?

What are you, some sick kind of borg moster?

3) And, is sex is there only as a means of reproduction, why don't we just shred off those unnecisary parts of the female and male anatomy. You know, the ones that exist only for pleasure. Hell, we don't need those!

Homosexuals can reproduce if neccessary. I am gay and I am not sterile :) If I had to make a baby with a woman to ensure the survival of mankind, I would overcome my revulsion and do "it" - after all its not that difficult mechanically... just psychologically...

Well then lets come to the reason why countries are losing their population.. hmm.. maybe its because having a children in today's "modern" world is unfeasible and too expensive? Maybe its because people need to work too much to make ends meet and keep their lifestyle? Maybe women have since the old times (or the present in Africa and muslim countries) received more rights and may now chose to not become pregnant because their role as "baby machine" has changed to something more important?

I find most of your statements very offending and outdated... lucky for me I dont live in the US, or else I'd have to deal with all the civil rights restrictions people are suffering there...

The question here is should homosexuals be allowed to marry? Not whether they can reproduce or not.

And I still say No to homosexual marriage. Not because I am against gays, but because I feel that governments have no right in trying to politicise religion.

Marrige isn't just religious

It's political.

Therefore, you're sticking religion's neck into politics, where it doesn't belong :)

@Goed,

Mariage: Legal contract between a man and a woman to take care of each other. In principal done for life-time (divorce possible in most countries). Mariage is the basic cell for a family and for children.
Therefore it is and has to be a relationship between a man and a woman.

Man-man or woman-woman isn´t possible.

Marrige isn't just religious

It's political.

Therefore, you're sticking religion's neck into politics, where it doesn't belong :)


How is marriage political exactly?

At the time when marriage got financial and other benefits, it became political. If it were merely the religious ceremony of a man and a woman being married together by a priest then it would be hardly much of a problem. But the preferential treatment of marriages between a man and a woman is a very political discrimination. Giving a right to someone does not neccessarily take a right away from someone else, unless you consider the monopoly man-woman marriages are a right...

Gay couples are just as good for children as man-woman couples. There are a *ton* of children without any parents at all. If they'd have the choice to have no parents or a gay couple, I bet my left nut that most of them would prefer having parents who love and care for them - just like any other child.

Cum on: go down from the clouds back down to the real world.
Two gays are not a family.
A family is a father, a mother and children.
Having a father and a mother who care for the child is the best thing for a child to have. That´s not the same thing than having two fathers and no mother or no father and two mother.

At the time when marriage got financial and other benefits, it became political. If it were merely the religious ceremony of a man and a woman being married together by a priest then it would be hardly much of a problem. But the preferential treatment of marriages between a man and a woman is a very political discrimination. Giving a right to someone does not neccessarily take a right away from someone else, unless you consider the monopoly man-woman marriages are a right...

Gay couples are just as good for children as man-woman couples. There are a *ton* of children without any parents at all. If they'd have the choice to have no parents or a gay couple, I bet my left nut that most of them would prefer having parents who love and care for them - just like any other child.

1. It depends on your country. Now in Australia gays will be treated the same as heterosexuals in terms of superannuation sharing although same-sex marriage is forbidden. I find that financial assistence can be given to both those couples married and those wed in a civil union. So really, marriage is not political. Only when governments interfere with Churches and vice versa does it get political.

2. That is an assumption, so it cannot be proven. When I consider gay parents, I am concerned about the way other children will act and even the parents of those children. It would be hard on children with gay parents if their friend's parents forbade them to play together because of the queers next door. Hey it does happen (even without children many queer couples are ignored by neighbours) unfortunately.

Wanting to have sex and sexual relationships with anything and anyone else than a person of the other gender isn't the biological way to go. It isn't normal.

try telling that to chimpanzees and bonobos.

and dogs, and dolphins and all other living animals.

One saying it's NOT biologicaly normal, is making an unfunded statement. I'm straight and I understand that gay people develop more profound and serious feelings than straight people. This is a justification for the stability it represents and sanity in their acts.

You have given no evidence, proof, or reason for your logic.

And you spelled "come" as "cum"

"Come" back when you actually add something.

And I've been talking purely from an American perspective on gay marrige. If it was purely religious, you wouldn't be able to be married in a courthouse, now, would you?

And I've been talking purely from an American perspective on gay marrige. If it was purely religious, you wouldn't be able to be married in a courthouse, now, would you?

I believe that marriage should be defined not only as between a man and a woman, but that they must be married by a man of religion. Even a wedding in a garden ceremony could be seen as a marriage - if a religious man performed the ceremony

Of course there can still be man and wife via civil unions (Justice of the Peace etc)

@Goed,

"And I've been talking purely from an American perspective on gay marrige. If it was purely religious, you wouldn't be able to be married in a courthouse, now, would you?"
According to polls 2/3 of americans are AGAINS GAY MARRIAGE. Obviously you are not at all representative for the american perspective.

Cum on: go down from the clouds back down to the real world.
Two gays are not a family.
A family is a father, a mother and children.
Having a father and a mother who care for the child is the best thing for a child to have. That´s not the same thing than having two fathers and no mother or no father and two mother.

What about devorcies and single parents ? Are those real families ?

Come on... that statement is valued in the XIX (19th) century.
The modern society demands stability and understanding. And there for, natural acts should not be censored.
I agree it would be best the Father+Mother model, but the fact that gay parenting offers stability and true love as well, I feel that it makes a good parenting solution for the millions of fosterhome kids.

Marrige isn't just religious

It's political.

Therefore, you're sticking religion's neck into politics, where it doesn't belong :)


How is marriage political exactly?

Not political. Sometimes religious...

But at all times, a social contract!

The experince with civil unions (of homosexuals, mainly gays) proves that they do not last long. So far the divorce rate has been above 70% (and that is just the result in the last few years since those institutions have been installed. The estimates for the future go up to 90%).
Most homosexuals are leading a promisque lifestyle with often changing partners. That is a fact and also the reason why homosexuals are more lickely to have Aids and other sexual-transmitted deseases.
Those lifestyles are not what a child needs.

Yeah, the child might grow up not being able to spell...

Anyway, has anybody a link to the studies of Bonobos etc.? I'm not disbelieveing, just very interested and would like to have a look and see for myself. Thanks.

A family is a father, a mother and children.So infertile people shouldn't be able to get married?

The experince with civil unions (of homosexuals, mainly gays) proves that they do not last long. So far the divorce rate has been above 70% (and that is just the result in the last few years since those institutions have been installed. The estimates for the future go up to 90%).
Most homosexuals are leading a promisque lifestyle with often changing partners. That is a fact and also the reason why homosexuals are more lickely to have Aids and other sexual-transmitted deseases.
Those lifestyles are not what a child needs.

Wow... so many data. So many statistics. What's your source of knowledge ??? I would like very much to know!!! I feel those values are totally wrong. TOTALLY!!! But even so, I leave here the benefit of doubt until proof is shown. And probably you are talking about mariages happening in Holand which is still the only country in the world that accepts gay mariage.

Quote: "Most homosexuals are leading a promisque lifestyle with often changing partners."

Not more often than Heterosexual people do, I'm sure. I know for a fact that homosexual people who get maried realise completly the sense of getting maried and when they get to that part of their relashionship they possesse true love (in most cases).

"The question here is should homosexuals be allowed to marry? Not whether they can reproduce or not."

In this issue, it's very important to discuss everything around it. As always.

Yes, homosexuals can reproduce. Either they can have sex or we can use medical ways. But the last one is an expensive choice. It's nothing that any country can afford. I think that all children should have the right to a father and a mother. It's one thing if one parent dies, or if the relationship has problems that can't be solved - but it's another thing to make a child, and from the beginning know that this child isn't going to have a father and a mother. It's wrong to do that. Consiously denying a child its right to both parents.

If I got to choose between having no parents at all and having gay parents, I would choose to have no.

I'm going to continue this. Shutting it down is not the answer.


----
Use my brain?
You're saying that "Children are not old enough to legally give their consent". Note the mark "legally". Well, it's illegal to marry someone of the same gender. You wan't to change this law - some would sure like to change the law of children not being able to give their consent. It's just a law like any else: if you can change the law of homosexual marriages, you can change this one aswell. Don't you think? Is it an untouchable law?

Well, now it isn't. Wanting to have sex and sexual relationships with anything and anyone else than a person of the other gender isn't the biological way to go. It isn't normal.

I can't proof that being gay is a choice - and you can't proof that it's not. I can, though, say that I can decide to be gay if I really want to. If you lie enough to yourself you will finally see your lies as the truth.

Then again, we can go to the homosexuality/paedophilism (even if it's old in you minds): if being homosexual isn't a choice, then being a paedophile isn't either. So why don't give the paedophiles the same rights as anybody else? Wht shouldn't they be able to get married to the one they love, just because he/she is a child?

Yes, yes, I know your answer.
Children can't give their consent. If so, read the top again.

---

"and even attempting mating with humans."
Then, shouldn't they be allowed to marry humans aswell? And I never spoke a word about killing all homosexuals. That isn't a solution.

---
Back to top


Well just for your information you can't choose whether or not your a pedophile, you can't choose whther your gay, you can't even choose whether you have pimples will be fat, skinny, short, tall etc. You actually can't choose much about yourself or the way you behave. So i think homosexualls should get married. Also how would you like it if you where denied the right to marry a girl because you were straight? and in this twisted new reality, ONLY guys on guys could reproduce.
And if you think you CAN choose to homosexuall try to have sex with a guy. You won't beable to do it because your primal part of the brain tells you its wrong. Homosexualls have less testostirone than in normal guys making them more female but looking like a guy (hence the feminine voice).
Stop flaunting your ignorance on this board and stop being so damn.....christian (shudders). Also its not proven (if your worried) that homosexualls have homosexual children. Its passed on through genetics so if they adopt the kid likly won't be homosexual (even though when he first starts liking girls it would be a bit wierd).

I'm going to continue this. Shutting it down is not the answer.


----
Use my brain?
You're saying that "Children are not old enough to legally give their consent". Note the mark "legally". Well, it's illegal to marry someone of the same gender. You wan't to change this law - some would sure like to change the law of children not being able to give their consent. It's just a law like any else: if you can change the law of homosexual marriages, you can change this one aswell. Don't you think? Is it an untouchable law?

Well, now it isn't. Wanting to have sex and sexual relationships with anything and anyone else than a person of the other gender isn't the biological way to go. It isn't normal.

I can't proof that being gay is a choice - and you can't proof that it's not. I can, though, say that I can decide to be gay if I really want to. If you lie enough to yourself you will finally see your lies as the truth.

Then again, we can go to the homosexuality/paedophilism (even if it's old in you minds): if being homosexual isn't a choice, then being a paedophile isn't either. So why don't give the paedophiles the same rights as anybody else? Wht shouldn't they be able to get married to the one they love, just because he/she is a child?

Yes, yes, I know your answer.
Children can't give their consent. If so, read the top again.

---

"and even attempting mating with humans."
Then, shouldn't they be allowed to marry humans aswell? And I never spoke a word about killing all homosexuals. That isn't a solution.

---
Back to top


Well just for your information you can't choose whether or not your a pedophile, you can't choose whther your gay, you can't even choose whether you have pimples will be fat, skinny, short, tall etc. You actually can't choose much about yourself or the way you behave. So i think homosexualls should get married. Also how would you like it if you where denied the right to marry a girl because you were straight? and in this twisted new reality, ONLY guys on guys could reproduce.
And if you think you CAN choose to homosexuall try to have sex with a guy. You won't beable to do it because your primal part of the brain tells you its wrong. Homosexualls have less testostirone than in normal guys making them more female but looking like a guy (hence the feminine voice).
Stop flaunting your ignorance on this board and stop being so damn.....christian (shudders). Also its not proven (if your worried) that homosexualls have homosexual children. Its passed on through genetics so if they adopt the kid likly won't be homosexual (even though when he first starts liking girls it would be a bit wierd).

A number of people have brought up the issue of homosexuality being a choice or not.

I take the view that people are born gay, straight, or bisexual (nobody is ever truly 100% one way though). However, it is a choice whether people act on their feelings as they get older.

Many homosexual men and women lead a heterosexual life, raise children and never reveal the truth. So it would be wrong to think that homosexuals cannot be family orientated.

Many homosexual men and women lead a heterosexual life, raise children and never reveal the truth. So it would be wrong to think that homosexuals cannot be family orientated.And you think teaching children to lie about who they really are is a positive thing?

How about if we say Christians are only allowed to raise familys if they don't act upon their Christian feelings?

1: Homo-sexuals don't have to have children

2. Mariage is for most of the people a way of showing the love for the person they love

3. Dolfins and other animals can have homosexual feelings too. So homosexuality is natural

4. Homosexuals are normal people too. Most of them aren't partying in leather pants.

5. A child of homosexual parents gets an opener mind then childs with normal parentes, because those chids get to see several mariages. This isn't a bad thing.

6. Why some people have problems with homosexual marriages? They aren't the one, who are getting to get married

Well, those are my statements I wanted to make

That homosexual humans or bisexual humans, often times deny themselves the freedom to live their life with what they have been given by nature (or god if you believe in this stuff), then it is most likely due to the fact that people like many here argue how to best limit the lifes of gay people, what civil rights to restrict for them, how to make their lives most miserable and so on. If every and all forms of adult+adult social interaction were accepted by all humans, without the hypocrisy of religion and many governments in the world, we'd not have the problems we have today and would not need such threads like this one here.


Homosexualls have less testostirone than in normal guys making them more female but looking like a guy (hence the feminine voice).

I am homosexual and I have not less testosterone than the average guy I would guess. My voice is normal as is my body development. I am a normal male who has crushes on other males. Too bad that its so difficult finding out if someone is gay or not :cry:

Firstly, everybody has been a child, and has the personal experience to know whether or not they would want children to be able to marry adults. From that, we could conclude that deciding whether gay marriage should exist should be left to those with gay experience. After all, these are the people who have proved it, if only to themselves.

That you don’t understand the difference between two consenting adults and one adult and a child just shows the level of doublethink needed to maintain your position. For one, we’re talking about gay individuals, not gay species — the human race isn’t going to die off because of gay marriage.

BoogieDown’s idea is something that I’ve floated before, but it ignores one thing — international treaties only recognize marriage, not ‘civil unions’. For it to work, the entire world would have to be in on it. This applies to any kind of alternate union name put forward. I like it conceptually, but it isn’t practical. That’s the same reason why ‘civil unions’ aren’t a viable alternative — in fact, the US will be cleaning up the mess from those until everyone involved in them is dead.

Certainly churches shouldn’t be forced to perform gay marriages, or interracial ones, for that matter. They should be free to show their true colours, and people can make better, more informed decisions about them.

Humans aren’t the same as animals, but we’re also not the same as each other — if we were, would this discussion be happening?

Marriage is a contract legally. Children and animals cannot sign contracts. For those who complain about government tampering with “a religious tradition,” the time to complain was when they started doing so, a long time back.

Moronic arguments like “gays are more promiscuous” do nothing but expose the author’s ignorance. It isn’t the promiscuous who are trying to get married. Buy a clue.

"With so much hate in the world, I'm not interested in people who say love is wrong"- Anne Heche

If it makes them happy, why not? Are you really THAT mean?

Marriage has no historical connection to government. Marriage is a term associated with Christianity.


tell that to every other religious and social group on the planet. marriage has been around much longer than christianity.

pedophilia is irrelevant because of the issue of consent. a minor is not able to give consent, so even if the child did claim to "love" their abuser that wouldn't change a damn thing. the pedophile can "love" all he wants, but it's still abuse because the child is, by definition, non-consenting. non-consentual sex is rape. period. no wiggle room.

That is off course, assuming that marriage equals sex. it doesn't.
Off course, minor's cannot consent to marriage either, but I just wanted to point out that you're now using the same "they cant marry cus their sex is wrong" argument homophobes are using against gay marriage.

i said consent, specifically, to assert that a minor cannot consent legally. this includes consenting to marry, whether or not sex occurs. sorry if that wasn't clear.

Marriage has no historical connection to government. Marriage is a term associated with Christianity.


tell that to every other religious and social group on the planet. marriage has been around much longer than christianity.

Please refer to what I previously said in a later post following on from the above:

Marriage as it is perceived today has its origins in Christianity...many other religions held marriages of a sort (normally where the woman was subservient) yet these have not lasted into the modern era.

I understand that not all churches say "no gay marriage" and they are entitled to that right. Nobody is saying the Chuch cannot support gay marriage, but that governments should not legislate to force them to support gay marriage.

Cum on: go down from the clouds back down to the real world.
Two gays are not a family.
A family is a father, a mother and children.
Having a father and a mother who care for the child is the best thing for a child to have. That´s not the same thing than having two fathers and no mother or no father and two mother.

So a husband who's wife dies should have his kids taken away? Because then it's a father and no mother...

These days there is no such thing as a 'normal family'.

Marriage has no historical connection to government. Marriage is a term associated with Christianity.


tell that to every other religious and social group on the planet. marriage has been around much longer than christianity.
seriously. where do Christians get off claiming that marriage is theirs? marriage ceremonies are thousands of years older than Christianity, and fully 1/3 of the marriages performed on this planet are in a religion and culture that was practicing marriage 3000 years before Jesus.

Many homosexual men and women lead a heterosexual life, raise children and never reveal the truth. So it would be wrong to think that homosexuals cannot be family orientated.And you think teaching children to lie about who they really are is a positive thing?

Somtimes the truth can be more damaging than a lie. And are you referring to the homosexual parent lying to their children or about gay children lying about their sexuality to their parents? I am confused by your choice of wording.

Marriage has no historical connection to government. Marriage is a term associated with Christianity.


tell that to every other religious and social group on the planet. marriage has been around much longer than christianity.
seriously. where do Christians get off claiming that marriage is theirs? marriage ceremonies are thousands of years older than Christianity, and fully 1/3 of the marriages performed on this planet are in a religion and culture that was practicing marriage 3000 years before Jesus.

Nobody is saying that marriage as a concept and an act was invented by Christians. The institution of marriage as we (in the western world) know it today has its origins in Christianity.

Marriage has no historical connection to government. Marriage is a term associated with Christianity.


tell that to every other religious and social group on the planet. marriage has been around much longer than christianity.
seriously. where do Christians get off claiming that marriage is theirs? marriage ceremonies are thousands of years older than Christianity, and fully 1/3 of the marriages performed on this planet are in a religion and culture that was practicing marriage 3000 years before Jesus.

Nobody is saying that marriage as a concept and an act was invented by Christians. The institution of marriage as we (in the western world) know it today has its origins in Christianity.

really? funny, that's not true for me, or my family. odd how education allows you to understand things in broader terms than the mainstream protestantism that so many Americans fall into out of pure habit...

Nobody is saying that marriage as a concept and an act was invented by Christians. The institution of marriage as we (in the western world) know it today has its origins in Christianity.

and the origins of marriage in christianity is in paganism. where they allowed same sex couples to unite and have the same status as opposite sex couples. your point?

I am homosexual and I have not less testosterone than the average guy I would guess. My voice is normal as is my body development. I am a normal male who has crushes on other males. Too bad that its so difficult finding out if someone is gay or not :cry:

:shock: Gays! :shock: (joke :wink: ) Yes that is a HUGE problem. How can you tell if another guy is gay? I have been racking my brain on this for some time now. It is easy to guess, however, as you point out not all homosexual men are feminine. This makes finding a partner away from the "scene" (especially as one gets older) a difficult task.

Nobody is saying that marriage as a concept and an act was invented by Christians. The institution of marriage as we (in the western world) know it today has its origins in Christianity.

Do not covet your neighbours wife? Isn't that... Old Testament? And wasn't that before- well, Jesus was born?

Come to think of it, Joseph and Mary were married.

What I want to know is- did Christian invent the concept of 'talking out of their arses', or was in practice before they blighted the world?

Nobody is saying that marriage as a concept and an act was invented by Christians. The institution of marriage as we (in the western world) know it today has its origins in Christianity.

and the origins of marriage in christianity is in paganism. where they allowed same sex couples to unite and have the same status as opposite sex couples. your point?

Marriage under pagan traditions (e.g. Roman marriage and Egyptian marriage) was quite different to the marriage we have under Christianity today. One example that I gave earlier was the rights of women. Today, both man and wife are seen as equals. Under pagan marriages thousands of years ago, marriage restricted the rights of women - subservient to their husband. Also, polygamy was not uncommon. Today, marriage is a holy union between one man and one woman only.

Marriage under pagan traditions (e.g. Roman marriage and Egyptian marriage) was quite different to the marriage we have under Christianity today. One example that I gave earlier was the rights of women. Today, both man and wife are seen as equals. Under pagan marriages thousands of years ago, marriage restricted the rights of women - subservient to their husband. Also, polygamy was not uncommon. Today, marriage is a holy union between one man and one woman only.

for the longest time in christian marriages, women were property.
in rome, upperclass women were at least allowed to initiate a divorce and keep property i.e. they were not property.
marriage isn't a holy anything if you don't want it to be.
hell, i'm straight and i don't want a church wedding. i woudl rather have a justice of the peace or what have you preside over it to make it legal.

i've noticed that this discussion is just rehashing all the old points over and over, so i'm going to do a blatant cut-and-paste from a previous thread in order to save myself a lot of repetition:


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. Another 30% or more feel it's not wrong enough to deny gay unions survivor benefits and other non-official marriage rights. And besides that, 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? Sexual morality is in the eye of the beholder, and I fail to see why the government should be defining love when it comes to consenting adults.

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. Hell, tell that to the mixed-race couples who were told that exact same thing 50 years ago. Tell that to the women who were informed their right to vote and earn equal pay were going to destroy the American family by subverting traditional roles. Or better yet, tell that to the "Defense of Marriage" types like Rush Limbaugh, who recently announced his third divorce.

Somtimes the truth can be more damaging than a lie. And are you referring to the homosexual parent lying to their children or about gay children lying about their sexuality to their parents? I am confused by your choice of wording.The homosexual parent lying to their children (and society as a whole).

Let's put it like this. A friend of mine came out to his father at the age of nineteen. His father put him in hospital with three broken ribs. Do you really think that an openly gay parent would have put him at more risk?

Nobody is saying that marriage as a concept and an act was invented by Christians. The institution of marriage as we (in the western world) know it today has its origins in Christianity.

and the origins of marriage in christianity is in paganism. where they allowed same sex couples to unite and have the same status as opposite sex couples. your point?

Marriage under pagan traditions (e.g. Roman marriage and Egyptian marriage) was quite different to the marriage we have under Christianity today. One example that I gave earlier was the rights of women. Today, both man and wife are seen as equals. Under pagan marriages thousands of years ago, marriage restricted the rights of women - subservient to their husband. Also, polygamy was not uncommon. Today, marriage is a holy union between one man and one woman only.

Because Christian relationships aren't subseervient. Which is why, until 20 years ago, it was 'Man and Wife'.

Christianity is based around the subservience of women. The very first human characters are based around why women are worse than men.

Somtimes the truth can be more damaging than a lie. And are you referring to the homosexual parent lying to their children or about gay children lying about their sexuality to their parents? I am confused by your choice of wording.The homosexual parent lying to their children (and society as a whole).

Let's put it like this. A friend of mine came out to his father at the age of nineteen. His father put him in hospital with three broken ribs. Do you really think that an openly gay parent would have put him at more risk?

No, but what has that go to do with the parent lying to their children and society?

Also, it saddens me to know that parents would do such nasty things to their own children. Just for being homosexual.

Nobody is saying that marriage as a concept and an act was invented by Christians. The institution of marriage as we (in the western world) know it today has its origins in Christianity.

and the origins of marriage in christianity is in paganism. where they allowed same sex couples to unite and have the same status as opposite sex couples. your point?

Marriage under pagan traditions (e.g. Roman marriage and Egyptian marriage) was quite different to the marriage we have under Christianity today. One example that I gave earlier was the rights of women. Today, both man and wife are seen as equals. Under pagan marriages thousands of years ago, marriage restricted the rights of women - subservient to their husband. Also, polygamy was not uncommon. Today, marriage is a holy union between one man and one woman only.

Because Christian relationships aren't subseervient. Which is why, until 20 years ago, it was 'Man and Wife'.

Christianity is based around the subservience of women. The very first human characters are based around why women are worse than men.

not to mention the fact that his characterization of pagan marriages is completely wrong. pagan beliefs place women equal or even above men in stature, thanks to the Goddess tradition and the female's perceived role in the fertility of the land. females were considered extremely powerful for their ability to bear children, and were granted far greater rights under most pagan traditions than they had (up until last century) in the Christian world.

perhaps we need to clarify what he means by "pagan," since that has become a euphamism for "anything that's not Judeo-Christian," and is horribly inspecific.

No, but what has that go to do with the parent lying to their children and society?


if the person is gay and pretending to be straight, then they are living a lie to their family and the rest of society. what's so difficult to understand?

No, but what has that go to do with the parent lying to their children and society?


if the person is gay and pretending to be straight, then they are living a lie to their family and the rest of society. what's so difficult to understand?

The difficulty is in why it is so bad to be a closet homosexual? What if that person does not wish to come out? What if that gay person wants to have a family?

No, but what has that go to do with the parent lying to their children and society?


if the person is gay and pretending to be straight, then they are living a lie to their family and the rest of society. what's so difficult to understand?

The difficulty is in why it is so bad to be a closet homosexual? What if that person does not wish to come out? What if that gay person wants to have a family?

why should being gay stop them from having a family?

No, but what has that go to do with the parent lying to their children and society?


if the person is gay and pretending to be straight, then they are living a lie to their family and the rest of society. what's so difficult to understand?

The difficulty is in why it is so bad to be a closet homosexual? What if that person does not wish to come out? What if that gay person wants to have a family?

the point is that they're still lying to themselves (in some cases) and their loved ones. gay people can have families. there are surrogate mothers and sperm banks, not to mention friends who will be willing to donate genetic material or a womb (i heard of one gay couple where the one partner's sister volunteered her eggs and services as a surrogate while the other partner supplied the sperm)
i can't think of why a gay man would want a wife, unless it's to protect an image or they're scared...

The difficulty is in why it is so bad to be a closet homosexual? What if that person does not wish to come out? What if that gay person wants to have a family?

It's not bad to be in the closet per se. But having been there, I really don't recommend staying in the closet too long. Doing so does hell on your self-esteem.

I'd have to say the best way to go if you're still not comfortable with your homosexuality is to choose who you tell, and who you don't. Not telling anyone can slowly kill you emotionnally. Just choose somebody, friend or family, that you can trust and talk it over. But if your father, boss, or whoever is homophobe, don't come out just for the sake of it until you're ready to take the bull by the horns.

Somtimes the truth can be more damaging than a lie. And are you referring to the homosexual parent lying to their children or about gay children lying about their sexuality to their parents? I am confused by your choice of wording.The homosexual parent lying to their children (and society as a whole).

Let's put it like this. A friend of mine came out to his father at the age of nineteen. His father put him in hospital with three broken ribs. Do you really think that an openly gay parent would have put him at more risk?

No, but what has that go to do with the parent lying to their children and society?

Also, it saddens me to know that parents would do such nasty things to their own children. Just for being homosexual.Because the 'solution' you propose merely reinforces the idea that being gay is something to be ashamed of. Hence it reinforces the attitudes that lead to incidents like this (and to kids getting beaten up at school just for being gay).

not to mention the fact that his characterization of pagan marriages is completely wrong. pagan beliefs place women equal or even above men in stature, thanks to the Goddess tradition and the female's perceived role in the fertility of the land. females were considered extremely powerful for their ability to bear children, and were granted far greater rights under most pagan traditions than they had (up until last century) in the Christian world.

While women were respected in the sense that they were the bearers of children and therefore responsible for the continuation of society, in Ancient societies like Rome, women in marriage played a very subservient role to men. Equality as we know the word today, was not a facet of most Ancient cultures (Spartan society being an interesting exception).

Roman wives could not make important decisions without their husband's agreement, they could not own property or personal wealth (the woman's dowry was amalgamated with her husband's assets upon marriage) and Roman wives were essentially house/shop keepers who worked for their husbands.

I would say that in Roman marriage, the men were the real winners. They had complete control over their wife's dowry and could treat them as they saw fit. In fact, a man could hit his wife and get away with it. Today, we all know what happens if a husband beats his wife.

Marriage has changed greatly. Today, many wedded couples have separate bank accounts, the wife often makes decisions on the family's behalf and in terms of duty...both husband and wife are expected to be faithful to one another. Double standards do not exist.

i can't think of why a gay man would want a wife, unless it's to protect an image or they're scared...

Well I want a wife because I cannot see myself growing old with another man. The thought revolts me, despite the fact that I am gay. I would like children and someone to share myself with until the day I die.

Is that really so wrong?

i can't think of why a gay man would want a wife, unless it's to protect an image or they're scared...

Well I want a wife because I cannot see myself growing old with another man. The thought revolts me, despite the fact that I am gay. I would like children and someone to share myself with until the day I die.

Is that really so wrong?

Hey, no worries, most gay guys go through the same feelings. The idea of growing old gay terrifies me sometimes. But I guess it's up to us to be the ones to set an example, and show that you can grow old in a gay relationship happy, fulfilled and mature. We have no rolemodels for this lifestyle. It's up to us to be our own heroes.

the 'solution' you propose merely reinforces the idea that being gay is something to be ashamed of. Hence it reinforces the attitudes that lead to incidents like this (and to kids getting beaten up at school just for being gay).

Being "out" and in-your-face with the "we're here and queer" attitude never did homosexuals any good. If a gay person wishes to remain in the closet for life, then that is their decision. Why should a person have to come out at all if they do not want to?

Well I want a wife because I cannot see myself growing old with another man. The thought revolts me, despite the fact that I am gay. I would like children and someone to share myself with until the day I die.

Is that really so wrong?

how are you gay if you can't see yourself with a man? that doesn't make sense.
i myself am bi-curious, while i could see myself having a fling with another woman, i would never want to grow old with another woman. but then i've never called myself a lesbian.

and as mentioned earlier, it is possible to be gay and have a family.

Being "out" and in-your-face with the "we're here and queer" attitude never did homosexuals any good.

i've never met someone who was out and going on like that. every gay person i met has been rather casual about it, usually i don't know they're gay unless they talk about a boy they met (if they're a guy) except for one of my friends who went through this whole period of saying he was gay then straight then bi, then straight, then gay... lately he's figured that he's gay, but he doesn't go around proclaiming it to everyone he knows, nor does he act any different about it than anyone else.

Well I want a wife because I cannot see myself growing old with another man. The thought revolts me, despite the fact that I am gay. I would like children and someone to share myself with until the day I die.

Is that really so wrong?

how are you gay if you can't see yourself with a man? that doesn't make sense.
i myself am bi-curious, while i could see myself having a fling with another woman, i would never want to grow old with another woman. but then i've never called myself a lesbian.

and as mentioned earlier, it is possible to be gay and have a family.

It is complicated. I want to experiment while I am young. I know I like other guys, but at the same time I do want a wife and children in the future. I know I am not bisexual, but I just don't want to grow old as a gay man. I still cannot explain my reasoning to myself properly. Sorry if I make no sense.

i dunno, to me the indication of where you lean most is who you would want to grow old with.

are you attracted to women? if not, it doesn't seem to be fair to try to put a woman who is looking for someone who will love her, both physically and emotionally when you're looking for a man. unless you can find a lesbian in a similar situation and explain beforehand...

Well I want a wife because I cannot see myself growing old with another man. The thought revolts me, despite the fact that I am gay. I would like children and someone to share myself with until the day I die.

Is that really so wrong?

It's not wrong. Contradictory yes, but we all know human beings can be of a very contradictory and paradoxal nature sometimes.

I'm a little confused by the thought you don't seem to be able to accept aging with another man. If he's the man you love, why could you not spend the rest of your life with him? :? Or is it that you only feel physically attracted to men, but are emotionnally attracted to women? Such a thing is not unheard of.

Or is it that you only feel physically attracted to men, but are emotionnally attracted to women? Such a thing is not unheard of.

Thank you. That summed it up better than I could.

Being "out" and in-your-face with the "we're here and queer" attitude never did homosexuals any good.

Gotta disagree with you there. I'm one perfect example of doing just that, and that had my self-esteem booming back up to normal levels, as opposed to the shame I had felt while still in the closet(By the way almost no one in my entourage reacted negatively). Of course, what works for me might not be what works for you: I'm just saying that you're wrong in thinking it's inevitably a bad thing to be out.


If a gay person wishes to remain in the closet for life, then that is their decision. Why should a person have to come out at all if they do not want to?

You don't have to if you don't want to. But it's my personnal experience that your "not wanting to come out" now doesn't mean you never will, just that you're not ready yet.

Note that you don't ever have to tell everyone around you, family friends and co-workers. But I bet sooner or later you'll feel the need to share it with someone you trust. When you do, pick someone you know will keep your secret and go for it. It'll ease your burden inimaginably. But don't rush yourself, there's no point coming out if you're not ready yet.

isn't he technically out? i mean, he's telling us he's gay.

isn't he technically out? i mean, he's telling us he's gay.

Telling people you'll never meet anonymously over an internet forum?

Depends on your definition of out, I guess. :-P Under mine, he's not exactly out, no.

Well, at any rate, if it's any consolation to you Thuthmose III I think it's perfectly possible to age happily with another man. In fact I'm looking forward to do so myself. I'm a 21 yo, newly graduated college student and I've been sharing my life with my boyfriend Jeff for almost two and a half years now. We're your pretty ordinary average boring lovey-dovey couple, except that we're both boys :-P

And to at least pretend we're still remotely on topic, we're starting to think about marriage in the next few years. We live in Canada(province of Québec specifically) and it's legal for us to marry should we choose to.

Divine thunder hasn't come down to smite us, our society hasn't fallen into anarchy and chaos, poeple aren't marrying their dogs, paedophiles aren't marrying children, Churches are not forced to perform marriages they don't approve of, family has we know it has not ceased to exist.

Yet :lol: :P :shock:

(That last comment was a free sarcasm for the use of all those advocating the slippery slope argument.)

(That last comment was a free sarcasm for the use of all those advocating the slippery slope argument.)

err, the slippery slope arguement is biblically based and both you and I know Canada is a godless commie haven so it won't work here. :P

Telling people you'll never meet anonymously over an internet forum?

Depends on your definition of out, I guess. :-P Under mine, he's not exactly out, no.

well, we're still people, and wouldn't it be a similar effect... apart from the whole hiding from friends and family.

not to mention the fact that his characterization of pagan marriages is completely wrong. pagan beliefs place women equal or even above men in stature, thanks to the Goddess tradition and the female's perceived role in the fertility of the land. females were considered extremely powerful for their ability to bear children, and were granted far greater rights under most pagan traditions than they had (up until last century) in the Christian world.

While women were respected in the sense that they were the bearers of children and therefore responsible for the continuation of society, in Ancient societies like Rome, women in marriage played a very subservient role to men. Equality as we know the word today, was not a facet of most Ancient cultures (Spartan society being an interesting exception).

Roman wives could not make important decisions without their husband's agreement, they could not own property or personal wealth (the woman's dowry was amalgamated with her husband's assets upon marriage) and Roman wives were essentially house/shop keepers who worked for their husbands.

I would say that in Roman marriage, the men were the real winners. They had complete control over their wife's dowry and could treat them as they saw fit. In fact, a man could hit his wife and get away with it. Today, we all know what happens if a husband beats his wife.

Marriage has changed greatly. Today, many wedded couples have separate bank accounts, the wife often makes decisions on the family's behalf and in terms of duty...both husband and wife are expected to be faithful to one another. Double standards do not exist.

well that clears it up. Romans had a religion that was very very different from pagan cultures in the rest of the Western world. Roman marriages certainly didn't favor women, but the pagan tribes further west certainly did. when the Roman empire reached England, for example, they exterminated thousand-years-old traditions of female rule and matrilinial authority. Roman marriages were also greatly changed by their interaction with Judaism and (eventually) Christianity, and the further the Romans departed from their historical roots in paganism the worse off the women got.

not to mention that the early Christian church refused to condone the pagan practice of marriage at all, and did not bestow its blessing until 1753, when Lord Harwicke's Act required a cleric's blessing for a marriage to be legal in England. until that time, the church ignored marriage, leaving it to common law.

not to mention that after the first Christian Church was founded they took a vote to decide if women had souls, and the women won by only a single vote. not a good start for women's rights and Christianity.

It gay marriage is allowed the next thing would be polygamy.
It would destroy our culture which has its historic base in the believe in families as the score cells of the society. Man, woman and children - the present and the future is organized there.
We support the traditional family.

Gay people should do what they want but they can not claim to be family or a marriage because they can´t do that. That´s against biology.

err, the slippery slope arguement is biblically based and both you and I know Canada is a godless commie haven so it won't work here. :P

Are you prejudiced against godless commies? :shock: Shame on you! :lol:

Well, I was semi serious about it. None of that stuff poeple against homosexual marriage say will happen if you legalize it has happened.

Is it because they're lying and trying to frighten other poeple who don't necessarily adopt their point of view, or is it simply because Canada's a better country and its citizens are superior in terms stability and equality?


...


Personnaly I think they're lying, but I could be wrong :lol:

It gay marriage is allowed the next thing would be polygamy.
It would destroy our culture which has its historic base in the believe in families as the score cells of the society. Man, woman and children - the present and the future is organized there.
We support the traditional family.

Gay people should do what they want but they can not claim to be family or a marriage because they can´t do that. That´s against biology.

Read my post above. I live in Canada. Here gays can marry. Polygamy in marriage still isn't. Families are still families. They're as traditionnal as they were before gays could marry. Nobody's yet been forced into a gay marriage against his will at the time I am writing this.

As for it being against biology... Go open a book about the sexuality of the Bonobo, or the dolphins, or the penguins... You might be surprised of what you learn.

It gay marriage is allowed the next thing would be polygamy.

yeah, and if citizens are allowed to own handguns then the next thing will be them owning atomic weapons! and if women are allowed to vote then the next thing will be letting dogs vote! and if children are allowed to drink caffinated soda then the next thing will be allowing them to drink whisky!

dude, slippery slope is crap, as has been shown several times in the last 2 pages. learn to read, please.

well, we're still people, and wouldn't it be a similar effect... apart from the whole hiding from friends and family.

Well, I guess in a way you're right. After all, the first time I told anyone was a friend I was chatting with on IM that lived so far away I knew I was safe. It was sort of the first step to coming to term with my sexuality.

But on the other hand there's the meaning I'm used to attach to the terms "coming out" which involves telling at least a few persons among family or friends. But this might not be the best thread to start saying how my definition of a word is the best and only valid one, eh? :roll:

Whatever I just don't want the goverment to but into my religon and tell the catholic church what to do.

And I don't want the Catholic Church telling ME what to do... So your statement works both ways...
Religion have butted into politics for far too long. Enough is enough!

As I also said many times before: Granting someone a right does not neccessarily take a right away from someone else. Allow gays to marry and you grant gays a right. This does not take away the right of families to be families or of women and men to marry too. The elitist monopoly the church wants to keep on heterosexual marriages is discriminatory and way outdated.

We are not bonobo mokeys.
Bonobo monkeys are going around fucking all the time. I know that.

Canada is obviously having big problems. 1,5 kids per woman would mean that without immigration the canadian population would go down more than 25%. Congratulation: the name Canada translated into my language means: nobody there. Since Canada really isn´t overpopulated you have got a big problem there.

By the way: Some of your immigrants may come from muslim countries. They not only oppose gay marriage, in their tradtional legal system homosexuality is one of the worst sins (also one of the reasons why the current pictures out of Iraq are very outrageous given the cultural backround behind the people) and people commiting it are stoned to death.
But in those cultures polygamy is common. So would you deny those people the right of polygamy and impose the christian-jewish believe of monogamy on them?????
You can´t have it both ways: on the one hand rejecting the tradition of mariage as a monogamous relationship between one man and a woman and on the other hand rejecting polygamy.
Your are taking away your best arguments against polygamy by accepting gay marriages.

Whatever I just don't want the goverment to but into my religon and tell the catholic church what to do.

And I don't want the Catholic Church telling ME what to do... So your statement works both ways...
Religion have butted into politics for far too long. Enough is enough!

is anybody suggesting that we force the Catholic Church to marry gays? i don't think so. nobody is asking any religious group to disavow its beliefs. we simply are asking that our STATE, which is NOT a religious organization, provide civil marriages for all consenting adult citizens who wish them.

We are not bonobo mokeys.
Bonobo monkeys are going around f--- all the time. I know that.

Canada is obviously having big problems. 1,5 kids per woman would mean that without immigration the canadian population would go down more than 25%. Congratulation: the name Canada translated into my language means: nobody there. Since Canada really isn´t overpopulated you have got a big problem there.

By the way: Some of your immigrants may come from muslim countries. They not only oppose gay marriage, in their tradtional legal system homosexuality is one of the worst sins (also one of the reasons why the current pictures out of Iraq are very outrageous given the cultural backround behind the people) and people commiting it are stoned to death.
But in those cultures polygamy is common. So would you deny those people the right of polygamy and impose the christian-jewish believe of monogamy on them?????
You can´t have it both ways: on the one hand rejecting the tradition of mariage as a monogamous relationship between one man and a woman and on the other hand rejecting polygamy.
Your are taking away your best arguments against polygamy by accepting gay marriages.

first of all, descreasing population is a good thing. where did so many people get the idea that we need to increase our population growth?! this planet is over-crowded already, and getting worse by the minute, so if some countries are smart enough to lower their growth rate then super for them. education level and descreasing family size are correlated...think about that.

as for the polygamy thing, why should we want to argue against it? what consenting adults chose to do is their business, and i have no problem with it. as long as all parties marry of their own free will that's fine with me.

@Bottle,

your comment underlines me in my believe that the slippery-slope-argument is right since you yourself admitt it.
As to population development. It is not about decreasing population growth. I´ve written about this issue in detail three pages ago. It is about stopping a population decline which is already happening in many countries and which is happening very soon in others. Russia lost 10 million people in the last 12 years.
All european countries, Russia, Japan are going to see a population decrease in the next three decades given the fact that the number of children is too low to even keep the population on the same level. The number required would be 2,1 per woman. No country of the northern hemisphere reaches that number. Many are dramaticly below it:
Canada 1,5, Germany 1,3, Czech Republic 1,17, Spain, Portugal, Italy around 1,2. Better are France 1,9, Ireland (almost 2), USA (2,0).
But even they are below the 2,1 line.
The global population growth already declined dramaticly from more than 2% in 7s to 1,35% in 1995-2000, which was lower than expected. The UN reduced its medium population estimate for 2050 from 9,3 billion to 8,9 billion. Only the arab and muslim world faces are a great population grwoth due to cultural reasons. All other regions of the world don´t. In fact: many countries are facing the opposite problem: population decline. And also the demographic development for which 62% of countries are concerned about. Canada is among them.

a decreasing birth rate is linked more to modernization than anything.
women choose to have kids after their carreers have started, therefore rather than having kids at 20, it's 30. some women choose not to have kids at all.
the whole western world has the same "problem" birth rates tend to fluctuate anyways.

as for the muslim immigrants, i work for elections canada, and i've notived many recent immigrants voting liberal and ndp, both parties would make gay marriage legal all over the country, rather than just three provinces as it is now (i think...)

err, the slippery slope arguement is biblically based and both you and I know Canada is a godless commie haven so it won't work here. :P

Are you prejudiced against godless commies? :shock: Shame on you! :lol:

Well, I was semi serious about it. None of that stuff poeple against homosexual marriage say will happen if you legalize it has happened.

Is it because they're lying and trying to frighten other poeple who don't necessarily adopt their point of view, or is it simply because Canada's a better country and its citizens are superior in terms stability and equality?


...


Personnaly I think they're lying, but I could be wrong :lol:

The slippery slope is based on the premise that being gay is "immoral" and unnatural, which is another way of saying it's supposedly against Christian beliefs in that it is unnatural. Hence the term "sodomy" and "sodomite", etc. which craftily puts homosexuality in the same category as bestiality, pederasty, polygamy, "ungodliness" etc. See verses relating to the destruction of Sodom, Romans 1 and a few others... too lazy to look it up.

I don't know about others but when I want to learn about something like reproductive ecology, which homosexuality is a function of, to look to the bible is about as sensible as looking to it for insight into most things falling into the realm of natural sciences.

Psychologists do not group in homosexuality with any of these behaviors because they are not analogous however, they used to and considered it to be an extremely patholigical personality disorder. It wasn't until Christian dogma was essentially kicked out of psychology when the field moved away from morals based science (religious law) to objective, amoral science did homosexuals get permission to 'leave the closet'. Essentially what legitimizes homosexual activity is the same rationale that legitimizes heterosexuality but this doesn't swing the door wide open on everything else any more than it already is.

The slippery slope is a lurid way to get those filthy non-believers to at least believe in some Christian values, like 'fag' hatred coz all those thees and thous and flowery prose in the bible really don't get the visceral reaction quite so much as saying the gays are coming to eat your babies. :P

We are not bonobo mokeys.
Bonobo monkeys are going around f--- all the time. I know that.

Canada is obviously having big problems. 1,5 kids per woman would mean that without immigration the canadian population would go down more than 25%. Congratulation: the name Canada translated into my language means: nobody there. Since Canada really isn´t overpopulated you have got a big problem there.

By the way: Some of your immigrants may come from muslim countries. They not only oppose gay marriage, in their tradtional legal system homosexuality is one of the worst sins (also one of the reasons why the current pictures out of Iraq are very outrageous given the cultural backround behind the people) and people commiting it are stoned to death.
But in those cultures polygamy is common. So would you deny those people the right of polygamy and impose the christian-jewish believe of monogamy on them?????
You can´t have it both ways: on the one hand rejecting the tradition of mariage as a monogamous relationship between one man and a woman and on the other hand rejecting polygamy.
Your are taking away your best arguments against polygamy by accepting gay marriages.

About the population problem: what are the figures for the USA? What are the figures for every other western industrialized country? Low birth rates are common in industrialized countries. And I don't see a problem, since we welcome immigrants to make up for it. And we both know there's no shortage of immigrants around the world. Africa and China comes to mind.

Besides, what's your point? That gays should stop being gay, marry a woman, and procreate like crazy to make up for those lazy heteros not bothering to have children?

Whoever said I gave a damn about polygamy anyway? What you seem to forget is that polygamy isn't illegal in Canada. This country doesn't get into poeple's bedrooms as long as there are only consenting adults there. Now as far as marriage is concerned, if anyone came to me and layed out a feasible and reasonable way to make it possible for more than two poeple to marry, I'd say that I wouldn't mind. It hasn't happened yet, maybe because nobody thinks it's worth it. It's not because I'm not into that kind of thing that it's not right. Frankly, I don't have a strong opinion on polygamy, and the only obstacle preventing marriage for more than two persons is that it'd be hell in paperwork.

I'm afraid you wrongly assumed that I gave a damn about polygamous marriage. I don't. If they're all adults and consenting, they can live however they see fit. Freedom of choice and all that. And if they can convince me that getting 10 persons married is useful and realistic, I won't object.

@Bottle,

your comment underlines me in my believe that the slippery-slope-argument is right since you yourself admitt it.

um, huh? did you read my post at all?

@Bottle,

your comment underlines me in my believe that the slippery-slope-argument is right since you yourself admitt it.


What?! Where did she admit it was right? She wiped the floor with it!

The answer to all this is simply to cast off the chains of religion.

Religious teachings have been perverted and altered so much that the origional meaning is mostly irrelevent. Rulers from since the human race began have used religion as a form of control, nothing more. (evidence? look how many different forms of each religion there are. Each of them have their own rules for their own situation)

If people were to finally stop getting hung-up on the religious B.S and lived in peace the world would be a better place. I'm not an athiest nor am I particuarly religious but I'm sure there is no god that would want his/her/it's people to kill each other over trivial matters such as whom they prefer to have sex with.

Homosexuality can not be compared to peadophilia as homosexuals do not harm those they have sex with. I say this but, of coures, there are a minority who will comit crimes but the same minorities exist in every facet of every human culture on Earth. Some people will do bad things, most will be fine. Do not judge a group of people by the few that cause problems.

I think gay marriage should be allowed purely on the basis of love. That's what it is; love. If two people want to spend their lives together in a loving relationship then nothing should stop them from doing so.

All this about homosexuality being against nature is, like most things, a mix of fact and fiction.

FACT:
Two people of the same gender can not naturally procreate (two egg or two sperm can not make a feotus)

FICTION:
Being gay with someone is against nature (wrong: some animals have gay tendencies)




I, honestly, do not see the problem peopl have with gays. However, I do believe that most of the homophobic people hate the stereotypical gay male & female.

Stereotypes are hardly ever correct

as for the muslim immigrants, i work for elections canada, and i've notived many recent immigrants voting liberal and ndp, both parties would make gay marriage legal all over the country, rather than just three provinces as it is now (i think...)

Gee, you'd almost think they were trying to get away from 'something'.

Oh, you canadians. Or something.

Aelov: You're a living paradox. Are you telling me that I can't choose to be fat or skinny? That's just silly. Anyone can stop eating and die as a thin person. By choice. And the thing with the feminine voices? Ground control to mayor Aelov!

"Firstly, everybody has been a child, and has the personal experience to know whether or not they would want children to be able to marry adults. From that, we could conclude that deciding whether gay marriage should exist should be left to those with gay experience. After all, these are the people who have proved it, if only to themselves."
Well then: shall we do this with everything? Only criminals should have a voice when debating punishments for their acts?

The "cannot consent legally"-thing is dumb. When discussing a change of laws, you can't ever use a law as an argument, because that law may aswell be changed. Sure, they - according to adults - don't have enough intelligence, experience and wht so ever (sure, I can bribe my niece with a lollipop), but they can still give consent, have an opinion. So stop with that silly thing.

This is starting to annoy me. I belive that most in favour for homosexuality is to bound to being politically correct.

And for the animals: Sure, there might be homosexual animals out there, but there are the ones that are strictly heterosexual aswell. Shall I use that against homosexual marriages? I think not.

And for the animals: Sure, there might be homosexual animals out there, but there are the ones that are strictly heterosexual aswell. Shall I use that against homosexual marriages? I think not.


I'd like to see proof of those species that are "strictly" heterosexual.

The "cannot consent legally"-thing is dumb. When discussing a change of laws, you can't ever use a law as an argument, because that law may aswell be changed. Sure, they - according to adults - don't have enough intelligence, experience and wht so ever (sure, I can bribe my niece with a lollipop), but they can still give consent, have an opinion. So stop with that silly thing.


actually, human children do not have the neurological ability to use higher reasoning functions the way adults do. the forebrain regions that we use for ethical judgment and impulse control are simply not developed in their entirity until after puberty has begun, so a child is physically not capable of consenting.


This is starting to annoy me. I belive that most in favour for homosexuality is to bound to being politically correct.


and i believe that "most opposed to homosexuality" is bound to a lack of education and basic biological understanding, with a healthy helping of hate, cowardice, and confusion thrown in.


And for the animals: Sure, there might be homosexual animals out there, but there are the ones that are strictly heterosexual aswell. Shall I use that against homosexual marriages? I think not.

no, you shouldn't try to use that, because it would be irrelevant. we aren't arguing that homosexual marriage should be allowed because there are gay animals, we're simply pointing out that you can't call homosexuality unnatural because it occurs in nature. nobody is claiming heterosexuality is unnatural, so for you to cite animal examples would be a waste of time, and would have nothing to do with the discussion.

And for the animals: Sure, there might be homosexual animals out there, but there are the ones that are strictly heterosexual aswell. Shall I use that against homosexual marriages? I think not.

It's exactly what they're doing when they say being gay is "unnatural". It's implying that all animals are strictly heterosexuals and so being gay is a sin or whatver that only humans commit. So no, you shouldn't use it against gay marriage, because it has no validity whatsoever.

We're only pointing out that others animals have gay sex and partnerships to disprove that assumption that all within nature is heterosexual and that's the only way to go. We're not trying to make a point of our own, we're just taking yours into the thrash can.

Of course, there are species where sexual habits and behaviours differ greatly. Some might even be exclusively hetero like you say. But that's obviously not the case of the human race, so stop being so uptight about it and accept that some humans are gay and move on.

Hehe I hate it when the server timeouts on me and my posts get entered multiple times because the site doesnt load as I submit my posting.. grr :)

Hehe I hate it when the server timeouts on me and my posts get entered multiple times because the site doesnt load as I submit my posting.. grr :)

"Firstly, everybody has been a child, and has the personal experience to know whether or not they would want children to be able to marry adults. From that, we could conclude that deciding whether gay marriage should exist should be left to those with gay experience. After all, these are the people who have proved it, if only to themselves."
Well then: shall we do this with everything? Only criminals should have a voice when debating punishments for their acts?

The "cannot consent legally"-thing is dumb. When discussing a change of laws, you can't ever use a law as an argument, because that law may aswell be changed. Sure, they - according to adults - don't have enough intelligence, experience and wht so ever (sure, I can bribe my niece with a lollipop), but they can still give consent, have an opinion. So stop with that silly thing.

This is starting to annoy me. I belive that most in favour for homosexuality is to bound to being politically correct.

And for the animals: Sure, there might be homosexual animals out there, but there are the ones that are strictly heterosexual aswell. Shall I use that against homosexual marriages? I think not.

We second the statement of our distinguish colleague.
The pedophile issue is an important arguments. Most pedophiles are homosexual, especially gay, showing the danger this sexual orientation has by locking for boys in the true meaning of the word: young innocent children: 16 years, 14 years, 12 years, 10 years or even younger.
That´s disgusting.
Furthernmore we second his statement regarding the DICTATORSHIP OF POLITICAL CORECTNESS.
I don´t accept anybody to tell me what I shall or shall not think and believe in and what I shall or shall not say. That´s my decision and I stand firm for the FREEDOM OF SPEECH.


I belive that most in favour for homosexuality is to bound to being politically correct..

We second that and add: they are either political correct or homosexual themselves. Therefore they are not objective to decide about this issue.

We second that and add: they are either political correct or homosexual themselves. Therefore they are not objective to decide about this issue.

or perhaps it's a matter of fairness. there was a time when members of my gender were not allowed to vote, work or own property and were actually treated as property. there was a time when black people were oppressed, a time when people could only marry within their own race.
i dont' see how oppressing people based on their sexual orientation is any different than oppressing people based on their gender or race. i don't see how that makes me excessively pc, i can see how that makes me someone who would like equality to be for everyone, not just rich, white, straight males.

We second that and add: they are either political correct or homosexual themselves. Therefore they are not objective to decide about this issue.

Are you trying to say that everyone who is in favour of homosexual marriage is not objective and therefor not allowed to decide on the matter?
For that matter, who is objective? Those cute little moral christians?

We second the statement of our distinguish colleague.
The pedophile issue is an important arguments. Most pedophiles are homosexual, especially gay, showing the danger this sexual orientation has by locking for boys in the true meaning of the word: young innocent children: 16 years, 14 years, 12 years, 10 years or even younger.


also, most pedophiles are straight men. just because they screw around with little boys does not make them gay. rape is about power, not sex.

The continued senseless utterings of Kybernetia are most entertaining for us...

The pedophile issue is an important arguments. Most pedophiles are homosexual, especially gay, showing the danger this sexual orientation has by locking for boys in the true meaning of the word: young innocent children: 16 years, 14 years, 12 years, 10 years or even younger.


You so have no idea what you're talking about. Let me tell you this : the rate of paedophiles between heteros and homosexuals is the same. 0.16% of the gay population is paedohile. 0.16% of the straight population is paedophile.

Do the math: there are 9 times as many heterosexuals as there are homosexuals. That means there are 9 times as many straight paedophiles as there are gay paedophiles.

Should you have any numbers that contradict mine, I demand a link to your sources. Otherwise, I'll dismiss you as a stupid prejudiced moron who talks out of his ass and has no credibility. I'm fed up with the likes of you equating homosexuality and pedophilia.

The continued senseless utterings of Kybernetia are most entertaining for us...

I don't know how long I can stand being entertained so.

The answer to all this is simply to cast off the chains of religion.

Religious teachings have been perverted and altered so much that the origional meaning is mostly irrelevent. Rulers from since the human race began have used religion as a form of control, nothing more. (evidence? look how many different forms of each religion there are. Each of them have their own rules for their own situation)

If people were to finally stop getting hung-up on the religious B.S and lived in peace the world would be a better place. I'm not an athiest nor am I particuarly religious but I'm sure there is no god that would want his/her/it's people to kill each other over trivial matters such as whom they prefer to have sex with.

YES I am so glad to hear someone say this, you have no idea. Thank you.

I totaly in favour of homosexual marriage. As far as the choice argument goes: WTF??!! People KILL THEMSELVES because they are gay, why would they just say "I fancy women instead today!" instead and live?
Also there are numerous examples of homosexual animals especialy giraffes who are often gay and in some parts of Africa there are more homo ones than hetro.

I totaly in favour of homosexual marriage. As far as the choice argument goes: WTF??!! People KILL THEMSELVES because they are gay, why would they just say "I fancy women instead today!" instead and live? :roll:
Also there are numerous examples of homosexual animals especialy giraffes who are often gay and in some parts of Africa there are more homo ones than hetro.

The pedophile issue is an important arguments. Most pedophiles are homosexual, especially gay, showing the danger this sexual orientation has by locking for boys in the true meaning of the word: young innocent children: 16 years, 14 years, 12 years, 10 years or even younger.


You so have no idea what you're talking about. Let me tell you this : the rate of paedophiles between heteros and homosexuals is the same. 0.16% of the gay population is paedohile. 0.16% of the straight population is paedophile.

Do the math: there are 9 times as many heterosexuals as there are homosexuals. That means there are 9 times as many straight paedophiles as there are gay paedophiles.

Should you have any numbers that contradict mine, I demand a link to your sources. Otherwise, I'll dismiss you as a stupid prejudiced moron who talks out of his ass and has no credibility. I'm fed up with the likes of you equating homosexuality and pedophilia.

thank you for correcting that twit, so that i didn't have to do it. homosexuals are NOT more likely to commit sex crimes or pedophilia; in fact, 99% of sex crimes are perpetrated by straight men against women and children.

thank you for correcting that twit, so that i didn't have to do it. homosexuals are NOT more likely to commit sex crimes or pedophilia; in fact, 99% of sex crimes are perpetrated by straight men against women and children.

The pleasure was all mine.

Sometimes I wonder if those saying such things are lying or just dense. I suppose it's a little of both.

thank you for correcting that twit, so that i didn't have to do it. homosexuals are NOT more likely to commit sex crimes or pedophilia; in fact, 99% of sex crimes are perpetrated by straight men against women and children.

The pleasure was all mine.

Sometimes I wonder if those saying such things are lying or just dense. I suppose it's a little of both.

most of them are just repeating what some priest or religious official told them, or parroting the same ignorance their parents say. the shear volume of disproving evidence makes it obvious that not only are they not looking for the truth, but they are outright ignoring it. that's their choice, and they get to believe as they please...just as it is my choice to laugh hysterically at them for it :)/

in belgium gay ppl can mary

i don't have anything against it
if they are happy, i'm happy for them
they are just people just like us
only they prefer their gender above the other
i don't get it why so many ppl have a problem is someone else maries with the person he wants to (and the other wants to offcourse, and is mature enough to make it's own descision)

the only ppl i hear that have objection are them or either religieus or are just extremists (left, right doesn't matter)

What you say doesn´t make sense. People who commit sex crimes on people of the same sex are homoxexual or bisexual. Otherwise they wouldn´t commit these crimes to please their wicked fantasies.
You have not presented any argument nor evidence for your statements. We therefore have to see them as baseless and factless nonsense.

What you say doesn´t make sense. People who commit sex crimes on people of the same sex are homoxexual or bisexual. Otherwise they wouldn´t commit these crimes to please their wicked fantasies.
You have not presented any argument nor evidence for your statements. We therefore have to see them as baseless and factless nonsense.

actually, rape has little to do with sexuality. for example, sexual violence in prison is almost exclusively homosexual, but prisoners identify as heterosexual (backed up by sexual stress experiments). males will rape other males even if neither is homosexual in many different settings. rape is about violence, dominance, and cruelty, not about sex or attraction; repeated studies show that attractiveness of the victim is not a factor in 99% of rape cases. rather, it is availability and the perp's MO that determine the crime.

also, the attraction to children is a disorder on its own, and for a man to like male children is not a case of homosexuality but of pedophilia. pedophiles who pursue male children most often identify as heterosexual, as a matter of fact, and this is supported both by experimental testing and by their own lives...they are often married and have children of their own.

i have presented plenty of evidence, unlike yourself. please provide some justification for your fear and anger, or admit that you have nothing but your own emotions to guide your posting.

You however spoke of pedophilia. Which is SEX WITH CHILDREN. Not neccessarily homosexual!!!

You however spoke of pedophilia. Which is SEX WITH CHILDREN. Not neccessarily homosexual!!!

Well, at any rate, if it's any consolation to you Thuthmose III I think it's perfectly possible to age happily with another man. In fact I'm looking forward to do so myself. I'm a 21 yo, newly graduated college student and I've been sharing my life with my boyfriend Jeff for almost two and a half years now. We're your pretty ordinary average boring lovey-dovey couple, except that we're both boys :-P

And to at least pretend we're still remotely on topic, we're starting to think about marriage in the next few years. We live in Canada(province of Québec specifically) and it's legal for us to marry should we choose to.

Divine thunder hasn't come down to smite us, our society hasn't fallen into anarchy and chaos, poeple aren't marrying their dogs, paedophiles aren't marrying children, Churches are not forced to perform marriages they don't approve of, family has we know it has not ceased to exist.

Well congratulations (and my sympathies on having to live in Canada :wink: joke) and hope you will both be happy.

But for some people, gay marriage is not possible (banned in Australia now by law) and I for one am not prepared to fight the rest of my life against society. I am going to live what some people might call a "normal life" i.e. wife and children. I owe it to myself and to others who would be devastated by the truth. I am not ashamed of ther truth, but sometimes the truth can be more damaging than a lie.

...and no, this doesn't constitute coming out LOL!

Well congratulations (and my sympathies on having to live in Canada :wink: joke) and hope you will both be happy.

But for some people, gay marriage is not possible (banned in Australia now by law) and I for one am not prepared to fight the rest of my life against society. I am going to live what some people might call a "normal life" i.e. wife and children. I owe it to myself and to others who would be devastated by the truth. I am not ashamed of ther truth, but sometimes the truth can be more damaging than a lie.

...and no, this doesn't constitute coming out LOL!

that is very sad, you will never be happy and you will break the heart of the woman who loves you enough to marry you and who will end up wondering for the rest of her life why she was not good enough to satisfy you.

you do not owe anyone a debt of your own misery

Well congratulations (and my sympathies on having to live in Canada :wink: joke) and hope you will both be happy.

But for some people, gay marriage is not possible (banned in Australia now by law) and I for one am not prepared to fight the rest of my life against society. I am going to live what some people might call a "normal life" i.e. wife and children. I owe it to myself and to others who would be devastated by the truth. I am not ashamed of ther truth, but sometimes the truth can be more damaging than a lie.

...and no, this doesn't constitute coming out LOL!

that is very sad, you will never be happy and you will break the heart of the woman who loves you enough to marry you and who will end up wondering for the rest of her life why she was not good enough to satisfy you.

you do not owe anyone a debt of your own misery

Of course a person can be happy. That debate is a matter of opinion.

On one hand we have people who say "gays are evil and homosexuality is wrong" but on the other hand gay people are told to be honest and come out.

Come out to what? To a society which fears and hates gays? I don't think so. And I would never ever break "her" heart. Not ever.

But despite my sexuality...I still say No to homosexual marriage. Civil unions, yes. But not marriage.

*sad look*

thuth, if you are really gay you will never have a good sex life with your wife
she will blame herself
she will wonder her whole life what was wrong with her

her whole life

spent with a man who doesnt really have passion for her

wont she deserve more than that?

*sad look*

thuth, if you are really gay you will never have a good sex life with your wife
she will blame herself
she will wonder her whole life what was wrong with her

her whole life

spent with a man who doesnt really have passion for her

wont she deserve more than that?

Never have good sex with a wife? Well I know of a number of gays who have been described by girls as good sex partners - although they didn't know at the time. Some have even had children and are quite happy.

But why the sad look for? Just because somebody is gay, they shouldn't have to act on those feelings.

I do think that some of the people that have posted against gay marriage on this thread should tackle the issue of child abuse by their priests before preaching to the rest of us. It really galls for you to attempt to take the moral high ground over the rest of us considering the massive church cover-up of this scandal.

.

But why the sad look for? Just because somebody is gay, they shouldn't have to act on those feelings.

sad because while of course no one needs act on their gay feelings, they shouldnt make decisions that hurt other people. perhaps you didnt mean that you wouldnt tell your future fiance but that you just wouldnt tell the rest of your family

.

But why the sad look for? Just because somebody is gay, they shouldn't have to act on those feelings.

sad because while of course no one needs act on their gay feelings, they shouldnt make decisions that hurt other people. perhaps you didnt mean that you wouldnt tell your future fiance but that you just wouldnt tell the rest of your family

.

But why the sad look for? Just because somebody is gay, they shouldn't have to act on those feelings.

sad because while of course no one needs act on their gay feelings, they shouldnt make decisions that hurt other people. perhaps you didnt mean that you wouldnt tell your future fiance but that you just wouldnt tell the rest of your family

I just want to live a straight life. Simple as that. Can't change the opposite, but I can make heterosexuality a choice.

.

But why the sad look for? Just because somebody is gay, they shouldn't have to act on those feelings.

sad because while of course no one needs act on their gay feelings, they shouldnt make decisions that hurt other people. perhaps you didnt mean that you wouldnt tell your future fiance but that you just wouldnt tell the rest of your family
I agree...I was involved with a guy for a decent amount of time before he came out to me and I was terribly upset. The worst part, though, is I knew the whole time. Your wife will know if you don't feel for her what a husband should. I have nothing against a gay person who chooses not to tell anyone about it, but you don't have the right to lie to a woman you claim to love. I mean, at the least tell her you're gay from the start...though if she stayed with you it would only be because she thought she could "fix" you. At least at that point you aren't treating the person who is supposed to be the most important in your life like a stranger you care nothing about.

I have nothing against a gay person who chooses not to tell anyone about it, but you don't have the right to lie to a woman you claim to love. I mean, at the least tell her you're gay from the start...though if she stayed with you it would only be because she thought she could "fix" you. At least at that point you aren't treating the person who is supposed to be the most important in your life like a stranger you care nothing about.

It isn't that simple.

I have nothing against a gay person who chooses not to tell anyone about it, but you don't have the right to lie to a woman you claim to love. I mean, at the least tell her you're gay from the start...though if she stayed with you it would only be because she thought she could "fix" you. At least at that point you aren't treating the person who is supposed to be the most important in your life like a stranger you care nothing about.

It isn't that simple.
I'm telling you it is. I am that girl that you long to deceive, and I'm offended and seriously upset that you would want to do that to someone else. I'm now friends with the gay guy that I dated, but only because he didn't let it get too far. What if you're hanging out at your house with one of your guy friends...and one thing leads to another...and then your wife comes home early. Do you tell her then that you are gay? Do you tell her that you've always been gay? Or do you just say "no, he came on to me, it'll never happen again!"
It's not fair, it's not your right, and it is morally wrong to deceive someone who cares enough to marry you and carry and raise your children.

Marriage - a legal contract with hundreds of perks, reserved at this time for heterosexuals (historically predominant since the dawn of civilized man seeking to have socio-political and economic control over civilized woman)
Gay marriage - the quest for the legal recognition of homosexual relationships, and the good and bad that those relationships will endure.

I'm telling you it is. I am that girl that you long to deceive, and I'm offended and seriously upset that you would want to do that to someone else. I'm now friends with the gay guy that I dated, but only because he didn't let it get too far. What if you're hanging out at your house with one of your guy friends...and one thing leads to another...and then your wife comes home early. Do you tell her then that you are gay? Do you tell her that you've always been gay? Or do you just say "no, he came on to me, it'll never happen again!"
It's not fair, it's not your right, and it is morally wrong to deceive someone who cares enough to marry you and carry and raise your children.

1. I would never cheat. Not ever. I truly mean that.

2. I stay clear of gay people in general. Sometimes it is unavoidable though.

3. Ok so it is morally wrong to be gay, but also morally wrong to stay in the closet.

Thuthmose- I hope this doesen't sound like I'm interfering in your private life, but at the moment you really don't sound like you should be in a relationship with ANYONE.