NationStates Jolt Archive

In many arguments people ask why not? My return answer is another question Why If You have a reason you should post that too, not just why not so I will retort to the question why not gay marriage, Why? To support a minority group (what about a majority groupand harm a majority group?), to stop discrimination (to discriminate against Christains proving their ideal are stuipd?), because I am gay and want to get married (I don't care that is not true marriage, and please give me a answer that is.), Because they deserve the same rights. (My point they have the same rights as we do.), Why is it any of you’re business (because it will affect my children and grand children and so on.). All people for gays should come Up with New Reasons because we already have answers for the others so you will make no progress! Well that’s my rant you may begin flaming at will. (note: I Wrote The answers down to help people come up with new reasons just thought I would show them some kindness directly from god casue it wasn’t from me.)

wo i haven't been flamed yet!!

you think that by posting a paragraph that is more complicated than a quadratic formula solved with only the number 9999999999999999999999 three times is going to get people's attention?

Yeah, I can't really follow that.

you think that by posting a paragraph that is more complicated than a quadratic formula solved with only the number 9999999999999999999999 three times is going to get people's attention?


OOC: ooohh, oooh, i know the quadratic formula, I took algebra!
IC: I oppose gay marriage.

you think that by posting a paragraph that is more complicated than a quadratic formula solved with only the number 9999999999999999999999 three times is going to get people's attention?
Yep! plus i just thought the name would get attention

No, its not.

No one has serious replied because clearly you won't see anyway. look at your own answers- they answer questions with other, irrelevant questions (to discriminate against straight people- wtf?) or are simply your own opinions.

I doubt many people will even bother.

No, its not.

No one has replied because clearly you won't see anyway. look at your own answers- they answer questions with other, irrelevant questions (to discriminate against straight people- wtf?) or are simply your own opinions.

I doubt many people will even bother.
Perhaps but still i think people need to start coming up with answers other than why not so that i didn't just say why and get no real response.

"Why is it any of you’re business (because it will affect my children and grand children and so on.)"
How exactly? If one of your children or grandchildren is gay maybe?

All people for gays should come Up with New Reasons because we already have answers for the others so you will make no progress!

Maybe the reason the pro-gay marriage people aren't coming up with new reasons, is because these so-called 'answers' are retardedly stupid.

gay peopel are gay

"Why is it any of you’re business (because it will affect my children and grand children and so on.)"
How exactly? If one of your children or grandchildren is gay maybe?
nope i don't even have either yet but i assure you it would i would have excessivly shelter i would have to be on gaurd for all sorts of problems it would intall like "daddy my best freinds mom picked him up last week and his other mom picked him up this week how did he get to momys" (That is just in kindergarten on and on the list goe's to long to list) so i don't think i want to put any other parent thru it.

Maybe the reason the pro-gay marriage people aren't coming up with new reasons, is because these so-called 'answers' are retardedly stupid.
Like?

In many arguments people ask why not? My return answer is another question Why If You have a reason you should post that too, not just why not so I will retort to the question why not gay marriage, Why? To support a minority group (what about a majority groupand harm a majority group?), to stop discrimination (to discriminate against Christains proving their ideal are stuipd?), because I am gay and want to get married (I don't care that is not true marriage, and please give me a answer that is.), Because they deserve the same rights. (My point they have the same rights as we do.), Why is it any of you’re business (because it will affect my children and grand children and so on.). All people for gays should come Up with New Reasons because we already have answers for the others so you will make no progress! Well that’s my rant you may begin flaming at will. (note: I Wrote The answers down to help people come up with new reasons just thought I would show them some kindness directly from god casue it wasn’t from me.)

It would harm the majority simply because they don't believe in it. Really, what kind of harm is that? Most racists sure don't agree with equal rights to the races so...

Also to not agree with a subjective belief is not discrimination.

Ofcourse they deserve the same rights. So, based on the constitution, the US can only carry on calling it "marriage" if it's equal for all couples. If not they must abandon it. So, to conform to law, they must either abandon "marriage" or 'change' the definition.

Your children will be effect how? If they're not gay I can't see how it would logically effect them except maybe by how it effects you which I already addressed.

I am addressing these "explainations" of yours because they make no sense. You're grasping at straws.

Like?

Like all the ones you just listed. Or at least, I assume it was supposed to be a list; the layout of that post was so messed up I couldn't really tell.

Like all the ones you just listed. Or at least, I assume it was supposed to be a list; the layout of that post was so messed up I couldn't really tell.
(My most loved question) Why?

nope i don't even have either yet but i assure you it would i would have excessivly shelter i would have to be on gaurd for all sorts of problems it would intall like "daddy my best freinds mom picked him up last week and his other mom picked him up this week how did he get to momys" (That is just in kindergarten on and on the list goe's to long to list) so i don't think i want to put any other parent thru it.

Let's throw out the constitution because you don't want to explain things that you do not like to your kids. Yeah.

I wont have that trouble with my kids because I have nothing against it. You do.

I have a real simple solution for those opposed to gay marriages....don't. Don't marry a gay person.

See how easy that is? I personally am opposed to stupid marriages, therefore I did not marry a moron. I certainly wouldn't expect anybody else to uphold the same preferences for themselves...or care.

Let's throw out the constitution because you don't want to explain things that you do not like to your kids. Yeah.

I wont have that trouble with my kids because I have nothing against it. You do.
and I am supposed to ajusted my belifes for a Minority? becasue? first of i would but it would be extremely counfusing for a five year old.

Regardless of what many may think, why and why not are both legitimate question and should be weighed against each other. It’s similar to weighting pros and cons on some issues. But everybody has their bias and wants to weigh some areas more than others. But here’s my opinion on the matter.

With high divorce rates nobody takes marriage seriously anymore. I honestly think that we should just get rid of it. You don’t need it to profess your love for anybody. It’s just a big celebration to let everybody know who you’re new certified allocated mating partner is. As well as several legal benefits that go along with it. You can still have a mating celebration without referring to it as marriage. You can even find somebody to live with your entire live without ever considering having a mating celebration. But the legal issues are another story. I hear all these stories of legal benefits and I say to myself WTF, that can’t be real, or that’s just total BS. Marriage, why even have it anyways. I think we should find the pros and cons of marriage in general before we even go with the gay marriage debate. You know, start with something more general and then work out to the specifics.

I have a real simple solution for those opposed to gay marriages....don't. Don't marry a gay person.

See how easy that is? I personally am opposed to stupid marriages, therefore I did not marry a moron. I certainly wouldn't expect anybody else to uphold the same preferences for themselves...or care.
someday I will be wise enough to answer every question with exactly the right answer, but till then i will have to work on it

The only people who are wrong are people who don't like George W. Bush! Seriously, bro!

and I am supposed to ajusted my belifes for a Minority? becasue? first of i would but it would be extremely counfusing for a five year old.

No and the minority wont abandon their beliefs for you. Let them get married and you can still believe whatever you want about them. If you don't want them married then do it the right way and change the constitution because to pass a law against gay marriage, yet still have the government recognize "traditional marriage" renders the constitution pointless.

Well, here's why gay marriage makes sense. Married people enjoy special benefits legally and economically that gay people would otherwise never be able to get, just because the accident of their birth.

For example, married people get tax benefits. They get medical benefits by being married to someone who has medical insurance. How about adoption? I personally would rather see a child be adopted by a caring gay couple than be raised in a government institution or be shuffled from family to family for a lifetime.

I think it's unfair to deny people who are never going to get married in the traditional sense the legal rights that are given to those who do. Culture is one thing, but when one group gets legal rights that another does not, things have to change.
Or, heterosexual couples can keep marriage to themselves, but give up the legal benefits it provides.

Those are really the onlt two alternatives

"In many arguments people ask why not? My return answer is another question Why If You have a reason you should post that too, not just why not so I will retort to the question why not gay marriage, Why?"
Let me start with this: you're punctuation needs some work. That's just a quibble, though. More to the point: neither the argument "why?" or "why not?" offers any sort of reason behind it, so let's just move on.

"To support a minority group (what about a majority groupand harm a majority group?),"
Arguments are usually backed up with some sort of factual information. There is no reason to suggest that gay marriage will in any way harm the majority. It certainly theatens no physical/financial harm, as it will not in any way affect the physical or economic conditions of the average (straight) American. As for the moral integrity of "Christian" America:

"to stop discrimination (to discriminate against Christains proving their ideal are stuipd?)"
Gay marriage in no way proves that Christian ideals are stupid, nor does it prove them wrong. The secular state maintains the right to create laws for the land free from the ideals of the churches. No one is asking your church to recognize said marriages. This is strictly a legal issue. I completely fail to see how it discriminates against Christians whatsoever. Furthermore, read the New Testament. Christ says little about sexual sins, and in the most famous incident thereof he says "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Now I'm not saying the Christ would be okay with gay marriage, but I definitely think he would be much more preoccupied fighting the greed and corruption of American culture, especially since most of what he did was fight the greed and corruption of ancient Jewish society. Short story: your church can continue to only marry men and women. The government won't stop them from doing that, and won't make them marry gay couples. So go practice your faith in peace.

"because I am gay and want to get married (I don't care that is not true marriage, and please give me a answer that is.),"
I'll grant you that one. It's lousy reasoning. It's also a straw man--I've yet to hear any gay person try to defend the position via that argument.

"Because they deserve the same rights. (My point they have the same rights as we do.),"
One of the rights that heterosexuals in this country enjoy is the legal recognition (and economic benefits) of marriage, so clearly in this instance gays do not have the same rights.

"Why is it any of you’re business (because it will affect my children and grand children and so on.)."
The question of why it's your (yes YOUR, not YOU'RE) business is inconsequential. That said, you fail to substantiate your claim of it affecting your lineage. In what way would it do so? If it were to do so, it would most likely be in the form of someone from your family being gay and getting married, and I doubt that were that the case they would be in opposition to gay marriage.

"All people for gays should come Up with New Reasons because we already have answers for the others so you will make no progress! Well that’s my rant you may begin flaming at will. "
No flames, just calm logic. Here's a good reason: because the United States is a democratic republic, and the majority of Americans (according to polls in the NY Times and other major papers) support the idea of "civil unions," although they are hesitant to equate that with marriage. The way democracy works is that the majority decide the outcome of the laws. If you don't like that approach, I invite you to find a dictatorship elsewhere.

"(note: I Wrote The answers down to help people come up with new reasons just thought I would show them some kindness directly from god casue it wasn’t from me.) "
The answers were of very little help, since you fail to make cogent arguments. And your lack of kindness is not quite Christian, is it. "If I have faith in all its fullness to move mountains, but have not love I am nothing at all." Remember that? He wasn't talking about romantic love, but love of God and fellow man. All that said, I wish to make a couple of points:
1.) The essence of Christ's message was love, not hatred, even of people that you feel are doing the wrong thing. Remember: "love thine enemies."
2.) The burden of justification for an argument falls on the one making the argument. You cannot just make blanket statements based on nothing at all and expect anyone to be moved by your remarks.
3.) I'm not actually sure how I feel about gay marriage. I'm not trying to argue for it necessarily, but I do feel that you are flaming, and more to the point that you are giving all of Christianity a bad name by spreading hatred. Now try to wrap your head around this: homosexuality is forbidden in the same book of the bible in which the kosher laws are found, and both engaging in homosexual sex and breaking the kosher laws make you ritually unclean, so if you are going to use Leviticus as a means of justifying your beliefs, you better stop eating ham and shellfish.
God help us all.

I'd also like to mention that it can be just as "confusing" to explain a heterosexual relationship to a child as a homosexual one. You can explain them in much the same way though.

Ofcourse, it would be hard to explain if you do not understand yourself.

Why?

"what about a majority groupand harm a majority group?"

Gay marriage does not harm anyone.

"to discriminate against Christains proving their ideal are stuipd?"

It is not discriminating against christians by preventing them from forcing their ideals on others, by forcing them to adhere to a christian world view.

This is a bit like saying it's discriminating against radical islamic terrorists and proving their ideals are stupid, by not allowing them to blow up Americans.

"I don't care that is not true marriage, and please give me a answer that is."

If it's legalised, it will be a true marriage. Christians don't own the concept of marriage, so a christian definition of what constitutes a true marriage is not the only definition. People were marrying each other long before christianity came along.

"My point they have the same rights as we do"

If they do not have the right to marry the person they are in love with, then they do not have the same rights as we do.

"because it will affect my children and grand children and so on."

If they happen to be gay. If they aren't gay, then it won't have any effect on their lives at all.


The pro-gay marriage people don't need to come up with better reasons. The anti-gay marriage people need to come up with better answers. Or quit whining.

The only people who are wrong are people who don't like George W. Bush! Seriously, bro!


Oh Christ....don't tell me you honestly believe that bull? My God, everyone knows he's THE WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY. But that's beyond the point....

This is about another discussion, so keep Bastard Bush out of it.

Gays shouldn't have the right to marry.

I'm against any couples getting tax benefits simply because they are together. IMHO, that's descriminating against singles.

Child support is a different matter.

I'm against any couples getting tax benefits simply because they are together. IMHO, that's descriminating against singles.

Child support is a different matter.

Actually, for most gay couples, it wouldn't even be a tax benefit. Without children to support or large numbers of other deductions, filing jointy would actually result in most gay couples being put into a tax bracket in which they would pay more, not less, taxes. Thus, when people argue that they don't want tax breaks being given to gay couples, they are actually arguing *for* gay marriage.

Gays shouldn't have the right to marry.

Wow, you really furthered the debate with that outstanding piece of reasoning. :rolleyes:

Go look up websters defintion then tell me what it says.

The definition in the dictionary does not matter, because dictionaries describe the world, they do not determine what the world is.

Next point?

Is their anyone here who can honestly state they are gay, becasue if they can i would like to Know. (That way i know who isn't spewing political propogand.)

I'm gay.

The thing is, if I am gay, does that make me one who would " spew political propoganda " ? I do so ever love the ambiguity of your statement.

:rolleyes:

I'm gay.

The thing is, if I am gay, does that make me one who would " spew political propoganda " ? I do so ever love the ambiguity of your statement.

:rolleyes:
no it's just other people listen to their party gays are the only people who realy are for it, other people just try and get elected on it.

...
3.) I'm not actually sure how I feel about gay marriage. I'm not trying to argue for it necessarily, but I do feel that you are flaming, and more to the point that you are giving all of Christianity a bad name by spreading hatred. Now try to wrap your head around this: homosexuality is forbidden in the same book of the bible in which the kosher laws are found, and both engaging in homosexual sex and breaking the kosher laws make you ritually unclean, so if you are going to use Leviticus as a means of justifying your beliefs, you better stop eating ham and shellfish.
God help us all.
Ah, yes, but the Jesus proclaims all things clean to eat in the new Testament... not so with homosexual relationships...

I think that the government should not be involved in "marriage". It should not grant special status to those who are married - granting them special rights and responsibilities. Yet, if it is going to "recognize" heterosexual marriages, it should allow and recognize homosexual marriage. A heterosexual adult is allowed to get married to the person he or she loves and desires to marry (a person of the opposite sex). (A man may wed a woman and a woman my wed a man.) A homosexual, in most areas, is not allowed to get married to the person he or she loves and desires to marry (a person of the same sex). A man may not wed a man and a woman may not wed a woman. The policy of not allowing homosexual marriage is simply not fair.

Ah, yes, but the Jesus proclaims all things clean to eat in the new Testament... not so with homosexual relationships...
Glad someone else knows.

I think that the government should not be involved in "marriage".
This is true sep of church and state voachs for it becasue marriage is a religous instusion.

In many arguments people ask why not? My return answer is another question Why If You have a reason you should post that too, not just why not so I will retort to the question why not gay marriage, Why? To support a minority group (what about a majority groupand harm a majority group?), to stop discrimination (to discriminate against Christains proving their ideal are stuipd?), because I am gay and want to get married (I don't care that is not true marriage, and please give me a answer that is.), Because they deserve the same rights. (My point they have the same rights as we do.), Why is it any of you’re business (because it will affect my children and grand children and so on.). All people for gays should come Up with New Reasons because we already have answers for the others so you will make no progress! Well that’s my rant you may begin flaming at will. (note: I Wrote The answers down to help people come up with new reasons just thought I would show them some kindness directly from god casue it wasn’t from me.)

You haven't really founded the reasons well. You can't just give a little reason, consider the issue dealt with, and deny anyone that disagrees the basis of their argumentation...

This is true sep of church and state voachs for it becasue marriage is a religous instusion.
That's not entirely true. The church began involving itself in marriage in the early middle ages in an effort to gain more power over everyday life. Before, it was just a ceremony in the town or village center that proclaimed that so and so were married now.

You know, reading this thread, one could under-stand a person may suffer several emotions. Though perhaps it was odd in what I felt.

Its all so bloody hysterically funny reading all this. :rolleyes:

In fact, if this thread is still here the next day, I will return and dish out one of my big point by point posts. Sadly at this moment I require sleep. That is provided this thread has not been deleted or moth-balled.

You know, reading this thread, one could under-stand a person may suffer several emotions. Though perhaps it was odd in what I felt.

Its all so bloody hysterically funny reading all this. :rolleyes:

In fact, if this thread is still here the next day, I will return and dish out one of my big point by point posts. Sadly at this moment I require sleep. That is provided this thread has not been deleted or moth-balled.
We will be awaiting you're return.

Ofcourse they deserve the same rights. So, based on the constitution, the US can only carry on calling it "marriage" if it's equal for all couples. If not they must abandon it. So, to conform to law, they must either abandon "marriage" or 'change' the definition.


Marriage IS equal for all--anyone can do it so long as they are a man paired with a woman. If you are gay and you find someone of the opposite sex to marry then you can get married, same as a ny straight person. That isn't discrimination. Homosexuals just choose to look at it as such.

Really, what is marriage to a homosexual? There are two different definitions. One is marriage in the church which cannot matter to a homosexual or they would not be homosexual. (Don't start with genetics--it has been disproven as often as proven, and unlike proof disproof only takes once.) The other definition is a social contract allowing tax breaks. While marriage in a church involves love this involves only money, so what is the difference to a homosexual if they get the tax breaks from being paired financially with their lover or if they get the tax breaks from someone else, like a gay couple each marrying a member of a lesbian couple?

That's not entirely true. The church began involving itself in marriage in the early middle ages in an effort to gain more power over everyday life. Before, it was just a ceremony in the town or village center that proclaimed that so and so were married now.

That is not entirely true either. Marriage is in scripture. Yes, ceremonies would be held in places other than the church. I don't know when the ceremony in the church became big, but marriage itself was one of three institutions explicitly ordained by God in the scriptures. (The other two are the church and, ironically enough, the government.) All the scripture *requires* for marriage is that one man and one woman declare before two other witnesses that they will have sex only with each other throughout their lives.

I see this whole subject as whether or not each person has any set of morals that they believe in. Where does it all end? What about the person who thinks its OK to marry 3 or 4 people at one time. Some people also believe that drugs should be legalize. The bottom line is that we all need to be kind to one another and not judge or hate because of our differences.

I see this whole subject as whether or not each person has any set of morals that they believe in. Where does it all end? What about the person who thinks its OK to marry 3 or 4 people at one time. Some people also believe that drugs should be legalize. The bottom line is that we all need to be kind to one another and not judge or hate because of our differences.
Never, ever, ever, preach that it doesn't work I know.

This is true sep of church and state voachs for it becasue marriage is a religous instusion.

Incorrect. Marriage began as a legal institution which was then adopted by religious bodies at a later point. The first instances of marriage are found not in a religious code, but a legal code, Hammurabi's to be in fact. Other ancient societys, Egyptian, also had marriage as a civil, not a religious contract. (Egyptians also had gay marriages, incidentally, and grew stronger as a society as a result of it)

I think it's unfair to deny people who are never going to get married in the traditional sense the legal rights that are given to those who do. Culture is one thing, but when one group gets legal rights that another does not, things have to change.
Or, heterosexual couples can keep marriage to themselves, but give up the legal benefits it provides.

Those are really the onlt two alternatives

From bottom to top:

Truthfully I am marrying in a church because I love the woman who the Lord has brought into my life and could not care less about the tax benefits. People should not want to get married for money so I actually do agree with this point.

But as for the other point: handicapped, veterans, senior citizens, just to name a few...

Incorrect. Marriage began as a legal institution which was then adopted by religious bodies at a later point. The first instances of marriage are found not in a religious code, but a legal code, Hammurabi's to be in fact. Other ancient societys, Egyptian, also had marriage as a civil, not a religious contract. (Egyptians also had gay marriages, incidentally, and grew stronger as a society as a result of it)

I guess this comes down to a question of what documetns are the oldest. I believe the original marriage law to be set implicitly when God made Adam and Eve. Obviously someone who does not place their faith in scripture woul dnot agree with that. At the very least neither of us can provide any proof that either is right or wrong.

In many arguments people ask why not? My return answer is another question Why If You have a reason you should post that too, not just why not so I will retort to the question why not gay marriage, Why? To support a minority group (what about a majority groupand harm a majority group?), to stop discrimination (to discriminate against Christains proving their ideal are stuipd?), because I am gay and want to get married (I don't care that is not true marriage, and please give me a answer that is.), Because they deserve the same rights. (My point they have the same rights as we do.), Why is it any of you’re business (because it will affect my children and grand children and so on.). All people for gays should come Up with New Reasons because we already have answers for the others so you will make no progress! Well that’s my rant you may begin flaming at will. (note: I Wrote The answers down to help people come up with new reasons just thought I would show them some kindness directly from god casue it wasn’t from me.)


Dear Lord, how old are you? Thirteen?

Take some typing lessons and find out how to construct a real argument, and then come back and try arguing properly with us. Until then, stop insulting our intelligence with this kind of drivel. I don't care what your political beliefs are - this kind of argument is pathetic.

Ancient Eygpt was just the ancient worlds version of a communist state. Not the best example to cite.

I was mostly indifferent about gay marriages before I saw a gay "pride" parade up close. If homosexuality were just a theory in a book, I would round up all of the copies and burn them; however, since there are actual people involved, I will tolerate, but not embrace it.

1.) The essence of Christ's message was love, not hatred, even of people that you feel are doing the wrong thing. Remember: "love thine enemies."

There seems to be a fine and indefinite line between showing hatred and simply speaking the truth. Some of us Christians do indeed tend toward the hatred side, but I do not see that here yet. Too many of us, on the other hand, are afraid to speak the truth because someone might see it as hatred. Love thy enemy does not really apply here because no human is the enemy of a Christian. The powers that manipulate humans (satan) are the enemy of Christians and the people themselves are more like innocent puppets. Love the sinner hate the sin would be more appropriate here.

Of course a different person who is reading this with a different tone in mind may very well see it as hatred...

This is a poltical civil rights issue. Religion really has no place in this argument. It's just been used by those who cannot come up with any intelligent reasons to deny equal right to smaller groups of people.

Over time the minority is eventually granted equal rights with the "new minority." That would be the Anglo-Saxon white bubba. And it scares him to death. Feels good to have power. Feels bad to think of loosing it.

Children, before the age of 5, don't care about all these issues. They are curious, but adults teach them to be judgemental.

I personally believe that marriage should be between two people who love eachother, regardless of their sexual orientation. In all of this, people seem to have forgotten that the main point of marriage (at least to me) is to celebrate the union of two people who are in love and wish to make this formally known.

I think that the benefits that married couples get purely because they are married should be extended to gay couples. One way of doing this would be to 'accept' gay marriage. I'm not saying that Churches or any other religious instiution has to open their doors and happily marry same-sex couples, as if it against their beliefs then fair enough - all we should ask for is acceptance that different people lead different lifestyles and thus should not be treated any differently.

For those who say that homosexuality is unnatural, going back to Adam and Eve 'Not 'Adam and Steve'', I beg to differ. Human emotions, both positive and negative, are certainly not unnatural. If the person with whom you associate those feelings with is the same gender than yourself, than that is that. It is very difficult for a person to change their orientation.

Therefore, I believe (IMHO) that 'marriage', however you define it, should be available to all, and thus the benefits therein.
kes

PS: I know this is a bit sad really, but you see this pic? :fluffle: Are these two the same gender, different genders, or did you not notice?

This is a poltical civil rights issue. Religion really has not place in this argument.

I will recognize that religion is not important to some people in this issue if you will accept that some would die for their faith even in this issue. I believe in marriage as a holy ordained institution that humans screwed up like we screw everything else about this creation up. Given that, I would go the way of Christ in a heartbeat if I believed it would protect something so important to me as Christian marriage.

As for the tax breaks, I think they should be removed and maybe just make a small blanket lowering of taxes. I hate that people get married for money anyway.

(To add to my post above and to this post, scripture also does say there is a time for hate. It does not say directed at people though.)

Really, what is marriage to a homosexual? There are two different definitions. One is marriage in the church which cannot matter to a homosexual or they would not be homosexual. (Don't start with genetics--it has been disproven as often as proven, and unlike proof disproof only takes once.) The other definition is a social contract allowing tax breaks. While marriage in a church involves love this involves only money, so what is the difference to a homosexual if they get the tax breaks from being paired financially with their lover or if they get the tax breaks from someone else, like a gay couple each marrying a member of a lesbian couple?
"Genetics" have not been disproven. They are, as any research will show you, a factor. They are obviously not the only factor, but then, I am genetically myopic but can see very well using my glasses. Genetics is hardly ever the end of any issue. However, when looking at biology, the connection becomes even stronger.

But who cares, really - I'm taking more issue with your "it's just tax breaks" argument. It's NOT just tax breaks. There are nearly 1400 issues regulated by law into marriage, and tax breaks are just SOME of them. Visitation rights, medical decision rights, automatic inheritance rights are far, FAR more important to the vast majority of gays, as is recognition of their relationship as equal before the law, if not in the eyes of religious zealots.

If you're going to argue a controversial topic, please at least look into the counter-argument before you make your case.

Author note: bolded numbers in quoted text added by me, to deliniate the individual arguments so that I may address them specifically at the end.

In many arguments people ask why not? 1 My return answer is another question Why If You have a reason you should post that too, not just why not so I will retort to the question why not gay marriage, Why? To support a minority group 2 (what about a majority groupand harm a majority group?), to stop discrimination 3 (to discriminate against Christains proving their ideal are stuipd?), because I am gay and want to get married 4 (I don't care that is not true marriage, and please give me a answer that is.), Because they deserve the same rights. 5 (My point they have the same rights as we do.), Why is it any of you’re business 6 (because it will affect my children and grand children and so on.). All people for gays should come Up with New Reasons because we already have answers for the others so you will make no progress! Well that’s my rant you may begin flaming at will. (note: I Wrote The answers down to help people come up with new reasons just thought I would show them some kindness directly from god casue it wasn’t from me.)

Well, first, if THIS is your idea of "kindness from God" then you can keep it...and your God. Because your God and mine obviously are not the same.

Show me ANYWHERE in the Gospels (which are the words of JESUS) or, for that matter, in the NEW TESTAMENT (which is all that CHRISTIANS should be concerned with) where homosexuality is even MENTIONED. And why are there, throughout the ENTIRE BIBLE over 300 references and admonitions against straight sex, but only six against homosexual sex...hmmm? Gee, maybe y'all heteros need more supervision...
And WHY...please tell me WHY...you so-called "Christians" selectively choose items frim the Old Testament to enforce, while conveniently ignoring other Old Testament Scripture that would cause YOU inconvenience to follow...or would negatively impact YOU to follow...and enfore only that which does NOT negatively impact YOU to enforce? Jesus came with the New Covenant, because we had proven, as humans, unable to live up to the proscriptions of the Old Testament...and they were given to the Israelites to sustain them until the Coming of the Messiah, The Lord Jesus Christ.
ANYONE who accepts the Lord Jesus, as his Savior...according to your own Bible, is saved. It does NOT say, heterosexuals who accept the Lord Jesus...or whites who accept the Lord Jesus. What part of WHOSOEVER do you guys not understand?
What part of JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED do you not understand?
What part of HIM WITHOUT SIN MAY CAST THE FIRST STONE do you not understand?
What part of 1 John 3:15 do you not understand?
Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer, and ye know no murderer hath eternal life abiding within him.

What part of "Congress shall make no law regarding THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RELIGION" do you not understand? Why should our CIVIL LAW favor your particular religion over any and all others, even if you ARE the majority? This is NOT a democracy, nor was it EVER intended to be. This is a Representative Republic, governed by THE RULE OF LAW. This was done to ensure that the majority did not run roughshod over the rights of minorities. Exactly what the Founding Fathers feared most about democracy.

Take, for example, the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Obviously, POPULAR speech, by definition, NEEDS no protection. Therefore it stands to reason that this is just one of many of our laws designed to protect an unpopular minority from being trampled by a delf-righteous majority.

And our Constitution has historically and traditionally has (and was intended to) placed limitation on what GOVERNMENT can do and cannot do, with regards to individuals' freedoms and liberties. It was NOT designed or intended to be used to limit the freedoms and liberties of INDIVIDUALS...OR EVEN STATES!! The last time the Constitution was used to TAKE AWAY rights and freedoms from people was Prohibition. We all know how THAT turned out! Interestingly enough, it was the same "Christians" who were behind THAT one. And for largely the same reasons. Because they seek to control and limit OTHER PEOPLE!!

What part of "dig the plank out of your own eye, before worrying about the speck in your neighbor's eye" do you not understand?

Now again, gay marriage...
I ask YOU to show me exactly HOW this, in any way, cheapens your marriage...ANY hetero marriage, or how it directly harms YOU. I challenge you to show me how. Because you can't. No one is saying that YOU should be forced, in your own mind, to recognize a same-sex marriage as sanctified...no one is saying that ANY church should be forced to perform such ceremonies if they choose not to. The Catholics ROUTINELY refuse to marry interfaith couples unless, of course, the couple in question has gone through "pre-cana classes" (spelling??) and has signed a form declaring the children of said marriage will be raised Catholic...and they have gotten a "special dispensation" from the Archbishop of their diocese. And the Catholic Church has never been sued to be forced into performing any hetero marriage where these conditions were not met.
No one is saying YOU, in your own mind...have to recognize a same-sex couple as married...or that your church has to. What we ARE saying is that WE HAVE JUST AS MUCH STAKE IN OUR CIVIL GOVERNMENT AS YOU DO, AND SHOULD HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES YOU TAKE FOR GRANTED!

And don't give me bullspit that a gay man can still marry a woman. What part of HE DOESN'T WANT TO MARRY A WOMAN HE IS NOT ATTRACTED TO AND DOES NOT LOVE do you not understand? He merely wishes to make a lifelong commitment to a partner (who happens to be the same gender) that HE loves...IS attracted to...and cares about! What is so difficult to understand here?

The only people who can cheapen any marriage are the two people involved in the marriage. And with an over 50% divorce rate in this country, and even more than that of cases of marital infidelity, please spare me your stupid arguments about "protecting the sanctity of marriage." Y'all heteros have already made a joke of the institution of marriage.

Now, I have made my basic points, and I shall go item by item in your arguments and address each one. Which is why bold numbers have been added to your original text by me...

1. My entire posting up to this point has dealt with this item.
2. What about harm to a majority group?? I ask you to cite any specific example as to how this harms you or your self-proclaimed "majority group." The only harm I can see is that it might offend your sensibilities. Tough. There is no Constitutional guarantee against having your sensibilities offended. Next question.
3. How does allowing gay marriage discriminate against Christians? It only says that you are NOT ALLOWED to force YOUR MORAL view onto others, and that you are NOT ALLOWED to use the police power of the state to enforce YOUR arbitrary morals. It effect, it takes away from you the ability to control OTHER PEOPLE...and other people's choices...and that is what REALLY drives you insane, whether or not you want to admit this. At least be honest with yourself, if not with me. You know I'm right here.
4. IN YOUR OPINION it is not "true marriage." Well, you know...YOUR OPINION is one of many. Why should YOURS carry any more weight than anyone else's? what can be a "truer marriage" than two people who love one another making a lifelong committment to each other, regardless of gender? what truer expression of love is there? Would you prefer that gay men, for example, get married to women they do not love and do not care for...just so that YOUR sensibilities are not offended? And I know gay and lesbian couples who have done this exact thing...the gay men would each marry one of the lesbians in the lesbian couple, and execute an agreement between the four of them. Are your sensibilities REALLY this easily offended? If so, I feel REAL sorry for you! With all the crap going on in the world right now, THIS is the single most important issue to you? Preventing Jim from marrying Ed...or Joan from marrying Betty? WHY??
5. How do they have the same rights as you do? They DO NOT have the right to marry THE PERSON THEY TRULY LOVE AND CARE ABOUT. They cannot make medical decisions for that person. They cannot visit that person in the hospital, unless they lie about being a brother or sister, and get away with it. They cannot exercise the automatic tax free "inheritance" of rights of survival that YOU, as a hetero can. Many gay couples have jointly owned a house...then one of the couple dies...and the other is forced to sell the house to pay the taxes, as if it were a normal inheritance...whereas if YOU die...your wife automatically gets the house, tax free. And she gets survivors benefits from Social Security...unquestioned coverage on your health insurance policy, etc, etc.
Here's another interesting point: You DID know Mary Cheney (daughter of V.P. Dick "go eff yourself" Cheney) is lesbian, right? Well, supposing that Jenna Bush gets married to a man. HER husband gets Secret Service protection, because that is recognized as a spouse. Thus this makes sure that enemies do not harm the spouse as a means to coerce Jenna into doing something that may enable terrorists to harm this country. Yet, Mary Cheney's lesbian lover is not accorded this security, leaving a weak link in our chain of national security.
Also, by the same example...Jenna's husband would never be compelled to testify against Jenna in a court of law. Not so Mary's lesbian lover.
The list of rights denied to gay couples goes on and on...I just highlighted a few here.
6. Again, I ask you to show me HOW it affects your children and grandchildren and so on. HOW does it negatively impact them? you say it does...but provide no example of HOW. I suspect that is because the only thing you can come up with is that it offends YOUR sensibilities. See the end of my answer to question number 2.

Now...let's see you answer to this stuff! I'm tired of you people on the other side always framing the debate, and always being on the offensive, and forcing US to be on the defensive. for once, I want YOU on the defensive...and for YOU to cite specific examples of how YOU are negatively impacted by a gay marriage. Again, I suspect that, if you answer at all, the only thing you can come up with is that it offends your sensibilities. (And this includes lame responses like..."The Bible says it's wrong" or "It's against God") what you are REALLY saying, when you offer up these lame defenses is..."It offends my sensibilities."

I'm betting you haven't the guts or the ammo to reply to this.

And you'll notice I have been fairly nice throughout, and refrain from ad-hominem attacks.

So go for it. See how YOU do when your opponent is framing the debate, instead of YOU framing the debate, and just spewing out a bunch of stuff for US to answer to, while providing nothing substantive to back up your own position!

I personally believe that marriage should be between two people who love eachother, regardless of their sexual orientation. In all of this, people seem to have forgotten that the main point of marriage (at least to me) is to celebrate the union of two people who are in love and wish to make this formally known.

I think that the benefits that married couples get purely because they are married should be extended to gay couples. One way of doing this would be to 'accept' gay marriage. I'm not saying that Churches or any other religious instiution has to open their doors and happily marry same-sex couples, as if it against their beliefs then fair enough - all we should ask for is acceptance that different people lead different lifestyles and thus should not be treated any differently.

For those who say that homosexuality is unnatural, going back to Adam and Eve 'Not 'Adam and Steve'', I beg to differ. Human emotions, both positive and negative, are certainly not unnatural. If the person with whom you associate those feelings with is the same gender than yourself, than that is that. It is very difficult for a person to change their orientation.

Therefore, I believe (IMHO) that 'marriage', however you define it, should be available to all, and thus the benefits therein.
kes

PS: I know this is a bit sad really, but you see this pic? :fluffle: Are these two the same gender, different genders, or did you not notice?


I promise I agree with more than I disagree with in this post and will point out the things I agree with.

How would you feel if I were to marry my cousin. I would say sister if I had one. I love her and she really loves me. What about my mother or my grandmother? I do agree that it is supposed to be about love, but love is VERY vague. There needs to be something more than that.

I appreciate that you are saying churches do not need to perform marriages they don't believe in. My pastor does not and when I am through sem I will not. Some people make lots of noise about that. We are not going to be surprised if a time comes when we can be imprisoned for our refusal to carry out the ceremony, but we do not fear that time. It is nice to hear someone accepting that.

And in getting my B.S. I majored in Psychology. There is quite a lot unnatural about human emotions anymore. You cannot find raw human emotion easily now. I have my own theory about where homosexual feelings come from but it was a paper I wrote for school and way too long to post here. You are right that it is very difficult to change orientation, but a large part of that is because people are so focused on making homosexuality "right" that they don't consider why they might be that way.

I agree that marriage should be available to all. It is. Any lesbian can find herself a man and get married if she wants. So can her lover. Then they would both be married.

You are right about the picture too. My first response was aww...that is cute...

Hmmm, where to start? I do have a personal stake in this, as I am bisexual, and I want to be able to marry the person I want to spend my life with, be they male or female. I am not Christian, so arguments based on the Bible's passages have no meaning to me. If and when I do get married, unless my partner truly wishes it to be otherwise, it will be with a civil ceremony, not a religious one. No matter if I marry a man or woman.

If your church does not wish to marry same-sex couples, fine. It's within your rights to not marry them. However, it is NOT within your rights to dictate to other churches, and other religions what they can and cannot do. It is also not within the church's rights to dictate to the government what is right and what is not. Things that may be considered sins by your faith are not sins in every faith. Christianity should not be able to force it's moral view onto the rest of us, we have the same rights as you do to believe as we wish, and follow the faith that we choose. Christianity is not the only religion, so it's teachings should not be used to justify denying rights to a group of people.

"Genetics" have not been disproven. They are, as any research will show you, a factor. They are obviously not the only factor, but then, I am genetically myopic but can see very well using my glasses. Genetics is hardly ever the end of any issue. However, when looking at biology, the connection becomes even stronger.

But who cares, really - I'm taking more issue with your "it's just tax breaks" argument. It's NOT just tax breaks. There are nearly 1400 issues regulated by law into marriage, and tax breaks are just SOME of them. Visitation rights, medical decision rights, automatic inheritance rights are far, FAR more important to the vast majority of gays, as is recognition of their relationship as equal before the law, if not in the eyes of religious zealots.

If you're going to argue a controversial topic, please at least look into the counter-argument before you make your case.

I did not say genetics was not a factor at all. (Though that is my personal belief, but I know no one can support that fully yet.)

I thought the whole point of this WAS to hear the other side, eh? That is why I am here and why I read all the posts. In any case, in at least 90% of my argument you can substitute all of that stuff in place of tax breaks anyway. Perhaps when I say tax breaks I should just say social contract. That would fit most (I know--not quite all) of the places where I have used that.

It's not a matter of whether religion is as important to some people or not. Religion is not the issue. Law is the issue. This country may be primarily Christian. Or it may not...

Many Christians believed (some still do) that inter-racial marriage was a sin, that woman shouldn't vote, etc. The list could go on. It hasn't been that long.

What harm does any loving relationship do to harm your Christian marriage?

As for the questions children ask...if they aren't already asking, they must be very sheltered. The relationships exist, whether they are sanctioned legally or not.

My favorite statistic in these kinds of debates is that Massachusetts (you know, the most progressive state with regards to homosexual marriage) has actually the lowest divorce rate in the entire US.

So much for the "decay of marriage".

There is discrimination when it comes to government policy toward marriage. Homosexuals do not have the same rights as heterosexuals. Heterosexuals are allowed to get married to the men or women whom they love. Homosexuals are not allowed to do this.

I read that there are many references to religion and the Bible. Many people argue that since God supposedly does not condone homosexual marriage, it should not be allowed. First of all, there are many different interpretations of the Bible. Some "Bible believers" have reasoned around God's supposed disapproval of homosexual marriage. Secondly, Atheists exist. To some people, God does not exist and the Bible is a book of fiction to them. Thirdly, if we are to base government policy, concerning marriage, on the Bible, we should be thorough and apply these rules too:

No state may sanction marriage between people of different races. (Numbers 25:6-8; 36:3-9; Deuteronomy 7:3; 1 Kings 11:2; Ezra 9:2; Nehemiah 13:25-27)

No state may sanction marriage between a Christian and non-Christian. (2 Corinthians 6:14-17; 2 John 1:9-11)

No state may sanction marriage between a man and a woman who was married previously but has since divorced (Matthew 5:32), and the respective parties of any such existing marriages shall be charged with adultery. (Matthew 19:9)

No state may sanction marriage involving a widow, except to require her to marry her brother-in-law. (Deuteronomy 25:5-10) All other widows are to refrain from intimacy and pleasure for the remainder of their natural lives. (1 Timothy 5:5-15)

No state may sanction marriage between a man and any woman unwilling to promise in her wedding vows to obey and submit to her husband. (1 Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 5:22-24; Colossians 3:18; 1 Timothy 2:11-12; Titus 2:3,5; 1 Peter 3:1)

No state may sanction marriage involving a woman in which the wedding ceremony is to occur during her menstrual cycle unless the prospective spouses agree to refrain from intimate relations until the woman's period has terminated. (Leviticus 18:19; 20:18; Ezekiel 18:5-6)

No state may sanction marriage between a minister and any woman other than a virgin. (Leviticus 21:13-14)

No state may sanction marriage involving any rapist other than to require him to wed his victim before their required mutual execution, unless the victim cried out during the assault, in which case only the man shall be given the death penalty. (Deuteronomy 22:23-29)

No state may sanction marriage involving a man who has had sexual thoughts about a woman other than the one he intends to marry. (Matthew 5:2)

No state may sanction marriage between a man and an aggressive or contentious woman. (Proverbs 21:9, 21:19, 25:24; 27:15)

Ok, rather than reply to any or all of the many places this was used, since it seems to be an issue here I want to ask anyone:

How do you define love?

I do have a rather complete definition of it for myself, but I would like to know how all of you define it so in the interest of not influencing your answer I am not going to list mine yet.

Marriage IS equal for all--anyone can do it so long as they are a man paired with a woman. If you are gay and you find someone of the opposite sex to marry then you can get married, same as a ny straight person. That isn't discrimination. Homosexuals just choose to look at it as such.

Really, what is marriage to a homosexual? There are two different definitions. One is marriage in the church which cannot matter to a homosexual or they would not be homosexual. (Don't start with genetics--it has been disproven as often as proven, and unlike proof disproof only takes once.) The other definition is a social contract allowing tax breaks. While marriage in a church involves love this involves only money, so what is the difference to a homosexual if they get the tax breaks from being paired financially with their lover or if they get the tax breaks from someone else, like a gay couple each marrying a member of a lesbian couple?
there is FAR MORE important shit than tax breaks granted to married couples by the state. and isnt like marriage means shit to heterosexual couples anyway, go look up the divroce rate and average marriage length and come back

In any case, in at least 90% of my argument you can substitute all of that stuff in place of tax breaks anyway. Perhaps when I say tax breaks I should just say social contract. That would fit most (I know--not quite all) of the places where I have used that.
You are not making any sense. You said "marriage in a church involves love and the other just involves money". Visitation rights, medical decision rights, next-of-kin position, none of those have to do with money - they all have to do with love and with being recognized as the most important person in the other's life.

Marriage IS equal for all--anyone can do it so long as they are a man paired with a woman. If you are gay and you find someone of the opposite sex to marry then you can get married, same as a ny straight person. That isn't discrimination. Homosexuals just choose to look at it as such.

Really, what is marriage to a homosexual? There are two different definitions. One is marriage in the church which cannot matter to a homosexual or they would not be homosexual. (Don't start with genetics--it has been disproven as often as proven, and unlike proof disproof only takes once.)

Couldn't pass this inane statement up...

Disproof only takes once? WTF?

Well, let's see...I'm going to quote, for a minute, Arthur Conan Doyle. Sherlock Holmes once observed that "it has been shown to be mathematically impossible for bumblebees to fly. However, it does not seem bumblebees are aware of this."

Disproof only takes once, huh? So, if it disproves something YOU WANT disproved...you do not bother to examine the methodology used in disproving it...because it produced the outcome you wanted. This is not empirical science, gang.

I promise I agree with more than I disagree with in this post and will point out the things I agree with.

How would you feel if I were to marry my cousin. I would say sister if I had one. I love her and she really loves me. What about my mother or my grandmother? I do agree that it is supposed to be about love, but love is VERY vague. There needs to be something more than that.

I appreciate that you are saying churches do not need to perform marriages they don't believe in. My pastor does not and when I am through sem I will not. Some people make lots of noise about that. We are not going to be surprised if a time comes when we can be imprisoned for our refusal to carry out the ceremony, but we do not fear that time. It is nice to hear someone accepting that.

And in getting my B.S. I majored in Psychology. There is quite a lot unnatural about human emotions anymore. You cannot find raw human emotion easily now. I have my own theory about where homosexual feelings come from but it was a paper I wrote for school and way too long to post here. You are right that it is very difficult to change orientation, but a large part of that is because people are so focused on making homosexuality "right" that they don't consider why they might be that way.

I agree that marriage should be available to all. It is. Any lesbian can find herself a man and get married if she wants. So can her lover. Then they would both be married.

You are right about the picture too. My first response was aww...that is cute...

1) ni no way can we force churches to hold a ridiculous ceremony to marry people, and besides that, that ceremony means nothing, its a front, you arnt married until you get a licence from the state. period, end of story.

2) and "letting" homosexual people pick a person of the opposite sex and marry them doesnt fix shit, they still arnt given the right they want to EACH OTHER as provided to married couples: visitation rights, assumption of whatever in case of partners death, rights to make medical decisions, and thats not even a fraction of them
even suggesting this shows your obvious ignorance to the situation

Well, let's see...I'm going to quote, for a minute, Arthur Conan Doyle. Sherlock Holmes once observed that "it has been shown to be mathematically impossible for bumblebees to fly. However, it does not seem bumblebees are aware of this."


I am familiar with this statement about bumble bees and it is one of the reasons I believe there must be a God believe it or not.

On the toher hand, the disproof must be very sound as well. Can you provide the mathematics/science that demonstrates a bumblebee cannot fly? I am not trying to be smart or arrogant, I am just betting there must be some error, unless it was fiction to start with as Sherlock was.

You are not making any sense. You said "marriage in a church involves love and the other just involves money". Visitation rights, medical decision rights, next-of-kin position, none of those have to do with money - they all have to do with love and with being recognized as the most important person in the other's life.

I have seen all of those related to money within my family...but I don't want to go into that. Those are not pleasent memories.

I did not say you could not have love at all. I did, however, at some point ask to hear someone's definition of love.

A large number of rules and parables in the latter parts of the bible were written to force the christian follows to be less like civilizations like the romans. whether this is a good thing or not is besides the piont. The romans no longer exist, and christians are no longer an oppressed peoples. they are now doing as the romans did before them and forcing their ideals upon everyone, it dosnt matter if their right or not, its matter that they should force someone else to believe they are right.

To say that any change involving gay marriage or equal rights could harm society in any way cannot be anything other than wrong, one of the greatest military powers in the ancient world was ruled largely by women, and enforced in law gay relationships in their vast army, unfortunatly ive forgotten their names, i always do, ill edit this post to put their names in when i find out again. in previous times no-one cared if you were gay so long as it didnt get in the way of your work and you had an heir, and then from the begining of christianity and the rebelion against anything the romans did (like napoleons rejection of everyhitng english to the piont of driving on the other side of the road and wearing those stupid hats facing into the wind) attitudes toward any form of liberalism have slowly tightened, its a good thing that we are finally letting go of this ridiculous indoctrination, but dont expect the work of uhndreds of years to be undone in 1.

and as my first edit: so what you believe god exists to hold up bumblebees, this isnt a good thing.

I am familiar with this statement about bumble bees and it is one of the reasons I believe there must be a God believe it or not.

On the toher hand, the disproof must be very sound as well. Can you provide the mathematics/science that demonstrates a bumblebee cannot fly? I am not trying to be smart or arrogant, I am just betting there must be some error, unless it was fiction to start with as Sherlock was.
so because of the erroneous reasonign that bumble bees shouldnt be able to fly means there must be a god? what inane blithering.

and supposedly there weight to wingsize ratio is somewhere around crap so that they shouldnt be able to fly, but its the way they move the wings that allow their flgiht

2) and "letting" homosexual people pick a person of the opposite sex and marry them doesnt fix shit, they still arnt given the right they want to EACH OTHER as provided to married couples: visitation rights, assumption of whatever in case of partners death, rights to make medical decisions, and thats not even a fraction of them
even suggesting this shows your obvious ignorance to the situation

I am not entirely sheltered. In fact over half of my female friends are bisexual (not exaggerating in the least), and there are other ways to ge tthe rights you listed already. They found them and I hear it wasn't difficult either.

I guess this comes down to a question of what documetns are the oldest. I believe the original marriage law to be set implicitly when God made Adam and Eve. Obviously someone who does not place their faith in scripture woul dnot agree with that. At the very least neither of us can provide any proof that either is right or wrong.

Ah, it took four pages, but we finally get the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" argument! I love this one.

Let's look at the story of Adam and Eve for a moment, shall we?

We have Adam and Eve. The Bible tells of three sons, Seth, Cain, and Abel. Cain killed Abel. We do not know if Abel reproduced before being killed by Cain. So let us assume, for this argument, that he did....or at least COULD.

The Bible mentions no female offsping of Adam and Eve. There are thus two possibilities...
1. There WAS no female offspring
2. Since women were not considered important in the Old Testament, they may not have felt it necessary to mention or name the female offsping of Adam and Eve.

Let's examine both possibilities.

In either case, there are four potential male breeders...Adam, Seth, Cain, and Abel.

In scenario #1, no female offspring. So, which one, then...among Seth, Cain, or Abel...boffed his own mother, COMMITTING INCEST...to continue the human race?

In scenario #2, female offsping unnamed, of Adam and Eve...Did Adam boff one of his own DAUGHTERS...to continue the human race, thus COMMITTING INCEST? OR...which one, Seth, Cain, or Abel...COMMITTED INCEST to continue the human race by boffing their own sister or their own mother?

Because no other possibilities exist, if one takes the story of Adam and Eve literally, and as Gospel truth.

So tell me, theologians out there...can you answer for my scenarios? Did I miss something here? I see no other possibility.

so because of the erroneous reasonign that bumble bees shouldnt be able to fly means there must be a god? what inane blithering.

and supposedly there weight to wingsize ratio is somewhere around crap so that they shouldnt be able to fly, but its the way they move the wings that allow their flgiht

Ok, I am sorry I should have explained better. When I was little I heard about the bumble bees and it helped convince me of God until i didn't need convincing anymore. Then as I grew I found other evidence of God in my life and at the same time realized that there could be and in fact must be a problem with the statement that they cannot fly.

I am not entirely sheltered. In fact over half of my female friends are bisexual (not exaggerating in the least), and there are other ways to ge tthe rights you listed already. They found them and I hear it wasn't difficult either.
*ZOOOM*

hey wtf was that? oh it mut've been the POINT. you missed the point man, sorry, must've decided to not stop at your station.

There seems to be a fine and indefinite line between showing hatred and simply speaking the truth. Some of us Christians do indeed tend toward the hatred side, but I do not see that here yet. Too many of us, on the other hand, are afraid to speak the truth because someone might see it as hatred. Love thy enemy does not really apply here because no human is the enemy of a Christian. The powers that manipulate humans (satan) are the enemy of Christians and the people themselves are more like innocent puppets. Love the sinner hate the sin would be more appropriate here.



Well if this is how "Christians"" show their "love" for sinners like me, then I, for one, am SURE AS HELL GLAD THEY DON'T HATE ME!!! 'Nuff said!

I'm not gay, nor do I support religion, religion's wrong because they are formed and supported by people who have an inferriority complex so they come up with stupid laws. Besides, haven't any of you looked at how Christianity, Judaiism, and Islam are all based on the last, Judaiism formed from the religion of Zoroastrianism. Whether or not any of them are right, I won't ever know, I'm going to Hell in any case. But Gay marriage is only fair, is there some law that says someone must be segragated if other people demand their rights? Gay people have their rights, Marriage wasn't always associated with christianity or other religions. Men, whether gay or not, in the past still had a woman to reproduce, as we live in a society where that is considered wrong, it brings up the question, "Why is the state denying my rights based on the Christian beliefs?" Morality is based off of religion now, there's no denying it, there are laws that are nearly taken word for word from the bible. You can't have more then one wife, not that its bad, but prior to christianity and judaiism, a man could have as many wives as he wanted. Also the old "No sex until marriage." Not just a Catholic belief, but one sex-ed teachers are babbling about, even though they think that the egg is fertilized in the utteris, if you answer philopian tubes, you are correct. Sure, no sex until marriage is a good idea, but what if a person has a different idea then you about it, you can't just leave them then, it was most likely made either by a man who knew women would eventually gain their rights and he had a problem in bed, or by a man who was too sensitive. "Why do you babble about such an irrelevant and trivial issue?" It has relevence, you see, in these days, until the days before the civil war, if you defiled a man's daughter, he would blow a hole through your chest, or your head. These days people are more open-minded, but still not completely, we still have people who are hooked on the discriminations of their traditions and family that they will oppose any new ideas. You see, people are throwing hissy fits over idiotic and non-sensical things, they become hypocrits because they are unwilling to change. They say the united states is free, that there is equality for all, but there truly isn't, if we even leave one group of people out just because they do something we don't approve of, even though it doesn't hurt us. Really this is just a bunch of old men bickering like children over a pointless issue.

In scenario #1, no female offspring. So, which one, then...among Seth, Cain, or Abel...boffed his own mother, COMMITTING INCEST...to continue the human race?

In scenario #2, female offsping unnamed, of Adam and Eve...Did Adam boff one of his own DAUGHTERS...to continue the human race, thus COMMITTING INCEST? OR...which one, Seth, Cain, or Abel...COMMITTED INCEST to continue the human race by boffing their own sister or their own mother?


My personal belief and i am not saying this one is truth, just my belief:

#1 would have involved female offspring from Eve anyway. They just generally were not listed.

#2 Seth and possibly some younger brothers who would not likely have been listed as normally the oldest son was the one listed committed incest with their sisters. I do believe that and I do believe at that time it was ok because it was the only way to obey the command of be fruitful and multiply.

Somebody help me out here--I do remember scripture speaking against a man being with his mother, but des it actually say anything about brothers and sisters? I know it sounds weird to some of us, but in truth I cannot remember anything against it. I definnitely could be wrong though.

Well if this is how "Christians"" show their "love" for sinners like me, then I, for one, am SURE AS HELL GLAD THEY DON'T HATE ME!!! 'Nuff said!

I have not seen anyone direct anything negative at you really. This is all striking me as somewhat intelligent discussion (with a few people, neither you nor I who are more interested in throwing insults). Of course like I said before it depends how you are reading this. Anything can be insulting to someone depending on how you are reading it. If you could hear me speak I would be using a calm and even questioning voice because I do want to hear your point of view as well. I am expressing mine quite a bit, but that is largely to encourage more people to express theirs so I understand it more.

It's not condsidered aerodynamic enough, and something about it's weight ratio compared with other flying insects.

Anyway, in this 'debate', I think it's overwhelmingly clear who is right: the people who construct sound, intelligent arguments. And that would just happen to be.... the pro-gay marriage side.

As a few people have said, I can't think of any reason why it'd be wrong, other than offending the sensibilities of fools and bigots.

Let's move on, people.
And you Bush supporters can think of another minority to bitch about, but until then (when your asses will be slapped down by sound, intelligent arguments AGAIN), adios.

There is discrimination when it comes to government policy toward marriage. Homosexuals do not have the same rights as heterosexuals. Heterosexuals are allowed to get married to the men or women whom they love. Homosexuals are not allowed to do this.

I read that there are many references to religion and the Bible. Many people argue that since God supposedly does not condone homosexual marriage, it should not be allowed. First of all, there are many different interpretations of the Bible. Some "Bible believers" have reasoned around God's supposed disapproval of homosexual marriage. Secondly, Atheists exist. To some people, God does not exist and the Bible is a book of fiction to them. Thirdly, if we are to base government policy, concerning marriage, on the Bible, we should be thorough and apply these rules too:



No state may sanction marriage between a man and a woman who was married previously but has since divorced (Matthew 5:32), and the respective parties of any such existing marriages shall be charged with adultery. (Matthew 19:9)

Can't pass THIS one up...
So, basically, then..."Saint" Ronald and Nancy Reagan were nothing more than adulterers co-habitating in the White House!! Eat THAT conservo-creep scums!!

It can be scary to be loved by a Christian. And may the Creator, whoever she is, protect us from large groups of them.

Ya'll have a good day! I gotta go to work.

I propose a issue for this problem!

Wow. Since I have no idea what the **** you just "said," I'm going to assume that you just have the same sad sad reasons why gay marriage is wrong.

Oh My God! Gay marriage! Heaven forbid! This could be something that really affects me. Listen, if you don't want a gay marriage, DON'T GET ONE. It's really that simple.

Oh, wait, but now you're going to say that gay marriage will insight the downfall to our society, and how it's soooooo morally corrupting to see two men holding hands and/or kissing. Haven't you thought about how "morally corrupting" all of the heterosexual imagery there is around? By the way, in some European countries, men holding hands is incredibly common, even when both men are heterosexual, and Europe isn't nearly as corrupted by that as they are by the massive imports of the US smut/commercials/products. Think about that.

Now, you said something about Christians being discriminated by gay marriages? What are you smoking?! Do you honestly think that if gay people are allowed to get married, they will ridicule and humiliate the Christian way of life?

Gay Man 1: Oh, I'm so happy that we can get married now!
Gay Man 2: Me too! Let's go get married!
Gay Man 1: OK! But first, let's go beat up some Christian people and laugh at them because now that gay marriage is legal, there is 0% discrimination against gays and 100% discrimination against Christians!

^^^^^ Does this scenario seem possible in the near future if Gay Marriage is legalized? I didn't think so.

Well, now that I'm done bashing your complete lack of logic and reasoning, I think that we should move on to the fact that your post resembles a retarded rheesus monkey bashing its arms on a keyboard until it vaguely looks English more than an actually formulated argument against gay marriages. Really, stop butchering the English language and learn to use proper grammar and punctuation. It really makes people understand your argument better.

Also, how did you manage to mispell "Future" in your username? Was it a lack of effort on your part? Were you typing with one hand because you were fapping with the other? Or are you really a retarded rheesus monkey bashing your fists onto a keyboard somewhere in the US?

I need to go to my fiancee's Grandma's house now and I probably won't be back here for a while as it is very difficult for me to get online so bye bye everyone. I enjoyed hearing everyone else's arguments even if you couldn't tell by the way I was talking. I will never see the answers but I would still like people to consider the definition of love...

so because of the erroneous reasonign that bumble bees shouldnt be able to fly means there must be a god? what inane blithering.

and supposedly there weight to wingsize ratio is somewhere around crap so that they shouldnt be able to fly, but its the way they move the wings that allow their flgiht

My point in bringing this Sherlock Holmes quote up was to point out that disproof can be achieved thru faulty and erroneous methodology.

you seem to want to examine the methodology that arrived at the mathematical impossibility of bumblebees being able to fly...but you do NOT want to examine the methodology of any disproof that "disproves" something you WANTED disproved.

So, thank you for proving my point, guys!

You fell right into the trap!

Oh, wait, but now you're going to say that gay marriage will insight the downfall to our society, and how it's soooooo morally corrupting to see two men holding hands and/or kissing. Haven't you thought about how "morally corrupting" all of the heterosexual imagery there is around? By the way, in some European countries, men holding hands is incredibly common, even when both men are heterosexual, and Europe isn't nearly as corrupted by that as they are by the massive imports of the US smut/commercials/products. Think about that.

well if it was up to me i would outlaw PDA anyone, no kissing in public, except in designated "romance" zones in which case its legal

Now, you said something about Christians being discriminated by gay marriages? What are you smoking?! Do you honestly think that if gay people are allowed to get married, they will ridicule and humiliate the Christian way of life?

Gay Man 1: Oh, I'm so happy that we can get married now!
Gay Man 2: Me too! Let's go get married!
Gay Man 1: OK! But first, let's go beat up some Christian people and laugh at them because now that gay marriage is legal, there is 0% discrimination against gays and 100% discrimination against Christians!

^^^^^ Does this scenario seem possible in the near future if Gay Marriage is legalized? I didn't think so.
the christians believe they are oppressed and are the minority in this country and the atheist majority are overruling them and discriminating against them. every single rule that involves following the constitution and getting any christianity out of government leads to the downfall of society and "oppression" of the christian "minority"

ZOOM.

http://physicsweb.org/article/news/5/10/9

I remember that in this thread, someone asked where in the New Testament it says that gay marriage is wrong.

It doesn't: the worst it says is that gays are going to hell.

So I guess that, by the same reasoning that Christians use against gay marriage, anyone who has ever committed a sin shouldn't marry.

Nowhere does it say, in the old testament or the new, that people who have committed sins can't marry, except in the case of a rape.

Seperation of church and State is unfortunately only mentioned in governement documentation. The most it truly covers is that no one will be persecuted for their beliefs. As a matter of fact, most of the 13 original colonies/states, actually had their own official religion, with taxes given to it by each person. This was when America was officially formed! Not only that, but the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Decl. of Independence, and any other important early American Documents were all based with religious perspectives. Back then, almost everyone who had a true say in how America was to be formed and the like either assumed it to be that Christianity will always be in control, or wished it to be Christianity in control. Religion was the largest priority of anyone at the creation of America. Whether or not people fled to the new world to escape religious persecution doesn't matter, because they either just paid the official religion tax and continued with their independent beliefs, or moved further west to find a place where they could get equal or superior relgious reights than others. So, at this point Christianity was pretty much the only safely expressed religion upon the founding of America, and like I said, everyone in that time never considered that future generations won't want the government centered with Christianity beliefs in mind. So The only mention of Seperation of church and state was an attempt to keep the other less expressed religions and their believers to keep from rebelling, and to keep them from being killed by Christians of that time and age.

However, I do believe Seperation of Church and State is 100% necassary! Government is SUPPOSED to be a tool, not a rule. The tool is meant to give everyone rules that keeps them from hurting/killing each other, and to protect the interests of all it's inhabitants from foreign countries and the like. That's it, simple idea! That means the government has NO RIGHT to decide on Moral-based problems, like marriage to begin with! However, since marriage is under control of the government, and they have the ability to keep it(and will keep it), we have to deal with this ridiculous issue! Frankly, it'd be easier to make Seperation of Church and State either official or condemened than to decide on individual issues at a time! Fuffing slow gov't, oh well...

Now, the issue is, who's allowed marriage? I say everyone with anyone, with any number of them. If the government is going to control who has a right to be with who under law, then it must be considered soley on legal issues, not moral ones. Since the legal issue is, what type of benefits and options are available for marriage are the only truly important issue that the governemnt should be allowed to handle, that's what should be considered. However, I'll skip that too keep on topic with the discussion.

Government can be seen only in two ways in this issue, the Right Way (Sep of Church+State), or as a Theocracy (One Religion to rule them all). Now if you agree that our government is meant to be a tool of the people, and not vice versa, good for you, you get kudo points. Like I said previously, being the tool of people, a tool has one job, this job happens to be to protect it's wielders (in this case, American citizens) from themselves, each other, and others (foreign attacks, etc.). Think of the government as a shield, are shields meant to set up tents, discuss Edgar Aleen Poe's works, or enhance your ability to learn? NO! Not at all! It's meant solely to keep injury and death away! That's the same job the government has!, based on the first way.

The second way is the Theocracy. Think of Theocracy as a sword. The sword is meant to maim, kill, or threaten away anything that one disagrees with. In theocracy, one Religious group decides on the fate of the country/state/etc. If this were to be the case in America, Equal rights would be as important as Global warming (which does not exist!!!). I don't know about you, but equal rights sounds fair to me, sounds correct, sounds idealistic even. I couldn't see a GENUINE Christian society willing let alone wanting to kill, destroy, harm, and pillage any rights anyone else has. Sadly, a great many Christians barely even know anything about Jesus, let alone the rest of their religion. Either way, I can see that any of the "religiously-correct" Christians would see how right I am about the evils of Theocracy.

Fortunately, we live GENERALLY in the right way government is meant to be used as. However, generally needs to become specifically, it needs to hold its one true purpose, protection. Morality is something every individual has to decide upon themselves, but protection of the overall population should always hold priority in everyone's minds. If three individuals, all males or all females, wished to be married under a relgious church, they can, as long as they find a church that will except them. Their are Christian Churches that allow such marriages because they believe that either homosexualality isn't sinful, or that God will forgive them for their sins since they stay committed to the religion otherwise. If one Christian church were to not allow another from their own practices, they become a bullying religious sect, a wannabe Theocracy. Just like each overall religion is allowed their beliefs, each church is allowed their own interpretation of their religion. So these people deserve the right to marry whoever, and however they want if they can find the legal means to do so.
HOWEVER, If a priest were to marry two men together, and the rest of the church disallowed it, they can remove him from his position and void the marriage under that church. If a church wishes to disallow a minority from their church they have a right because their institution is used to organize their morality, no matter how different it is to another. As long as it doesn't interfere with the government's job, a church has any right to do as it pleases. People that are removed from these type of churhces for one reason or another, all they have to do is go to one that fits their beliefs. If it means they have to move to a new area to get their, so be it. If they don't, it just shows the conviciton of their beliefs, therefore they can live as they please without a religious cause.
Everyone has equal oppurtunity for their beliefs and ideas, it's just a matter of getting the government to focus on their job (protection), so we can focus on ours(whatever our priorities may be). We each have the right to disagree with another person, or even hate them. What we don't have the right to do is harm them because we do.

"When the people fear the government, it's called tyranny. But when the government fears the people, it's called FREEDOM." quoted from the great Thomas Jefferson.

I saw a bumper sticker condemning gay marriage this weekend. I can't say I was impressed. People are entitled to their opinion, but it doesn't make them right.

The way I saw it, 50 years ago, the same person might have thought it was acceptable to have a bumper sticker like that about interracial marriage. You know, it's unnatural, why should the rest of us have to recognise something so wrong, what about the kids....

Imagine next time you're listening to someone talking about the gay marriage issue that they're talking about a black man wanting to marry a white woman, and the two of them are in love, and want what anybody else wants. Maybe it will show you how bigoted it is. Interracial marriages didn't and don't threaten anyone. How do gay marriages do this?

I think the point is that everyone thinks of gay marriage and instantly flashes to a picture of freaky ass-sex. Frankly, I don't want to know. As far as I understood it, another person's sex life is none of my damned business, and mine is none of theirs. That's not the point of the marriage debate. It's about marriage and devotion between two people, not their sex lives and whether you approve or not. Make no mistake, that's what it is about with the church too. The church has nothing to say about gay marriage. It might say that it's evil and wrong for them to have sex, but that's not what the debate is about. There is not ONE word against gay marriage in it. Look for it. I dare anyone to find me a part of the bible against gay marriage.

no it's just other people listen to their party gays are the only people who realy are for it, other people just try and get elected on it.

Oh, so I see - you're an idiot - gotcha. Funny how I am not gay, not running for any sort of office, and yet am still for gay marriage simply because I am pro-Constitution. Yeah, funny that.

Oh, so I see - you're an idiot - gotcha. Funny how I am not gay, not running for any sort of office, and yet am still for gay marriage simply because I am pro-Constitution. Yeah, funny that.

yeah, i'm in a long-term hetero relationship that is likely headed toward marriage, i'm not running for office, and yet somehow i still manage to support the rights and freedoms of my fellow citizens. that idiot's statement is like claiming that only black people support minority rights, or only women support equal gender rights. pure crap.

I'm single, straight, and just now headed into college. And I'm for gay rights.

Funny how things work. Or rather, don't work.

I'm straight, but I know a gay couple who are married. They're both really nice, normal people. They go to work, they eat their dinner when they come home, watch some TV, talk about the day and the bills and that funny sound the car is making lately, and then go to bed. They're both smart and funny, and they are clearly devoted to each other. They'd die for one another, I'm sure of it. They are people I really admire, because they're decent to everyone they meet. They've been particularly good and decent to me, just because I'm family now.

The point is, aside from them both being women, they're about like any straight couple I've ever met. I don't pry into their sex life, because I don't care and don't want to know. It's none of my business. If it were "Dave" and his wife, I wouldn't want to know about it then, either. It's just the way I am. I don't discuss my sex life with them, they don't discuss theirs with me.

I just don't understand, though, how anyone can tell me that the caring relationship they have isn't the most natural thing in the world. If you showed me either of them with a man, however, it would be weird and unnatural. That's because I'd know that they weren't happy, and it wouldn't be what they wanted.

Just my take on it.

if i was to spend the rest of my life in a homosexual relationship, living together, spending every day together, knowing and loving each other more than any other person on the planet, i'd be devestated when my partner died. i would be even more devestated to find that i have no rights to organise the sort of funeral which i know better than anyone my partner would have wished for. i would not have the right to visit my partner in hospital if she was dying of cancer, should her family decide they didn't want me to. i could not be there to hold my partner of twenty, thirty, fifty years as she died, unless her family said it's ok. yet i am the person who has devoted their life to loving and being with this person and she to me. i know what she would want more than anyone else. if my partner was of the opposite sex, none of this would be a problem. we chose the life we live yet the state will not let us live the way we want to. we didn't do anything to anyone, yet can't be left alone to live and die as we want. and we have no choice or way of protecting our life.

I have strong views on the religious side of all this, quite frankly i believe (after studying extensively for many years) that the huge majority of the bible is outdated, bigotted codswallop. it has important messages about treating others as you would have them treat you, but most of it's just rubbish. if you want to believe in it that's your choice and that choice is protected. my choice is some kind of civil union to protect people who are not covered by marriage so the scenario above never has to happen.

nope i don't even have either yet but i assure you it would i would have excessivly shelter i would have to be on gaurd for all sorts of problems it would intall like "daddy my best freinds mom picked him up last week and his other mom picked him up this week how did he get to momys" (That is just in kindergarten on and on the list goe's to long to list) so i don't think i want to put any other parent thru it.


Hold the phone here people! Dark Fututre's got a point with this one. What would happen if a child, perhaps your child, perhaps mine, would see another child with two parents of the same sex and asked their parent about it? That would mean that their parent would hae to talk to them. OH NO! That would mean that parent would actually have to know something about the subject to tell them. And what if they said the wrong thing and their kid got the wrong idea? I mean, kids have impressionable minds. If they ever saw a same sex couple and started to think it was normal and okay, just think of the consequences! They might get the idea that they have the right to love whoever they wanted. What would we do then? I mean, if my kid actually thought that it was ok to be gay, what would i do? What if he told my friends he didn't mind seeing same sex couples?! What would me friends think of me then? Or even worse what if my kid was gay? That would mean, becasue homosexuality has everything to do with genetics and nothing with life experiences, that i might have some gay genes in me! Then what would my friends think?! Would i have to kill myself immediately? Yes Dark Fututre, the answer is yes. We hav no need for your corrupt genes in the gene pool, or even worse, your ignorant ideas in our society.

The idea of gay marriage is so sick. That´s all what I have to say.

I´m convinced that this is never going to happend in civilized countries.

I wholeheartedly oppose this disestablishment of the sacred institution of marriage.

I wholeheartedly oppose this disestablishment of the sacred institution of marriage.

Amen! We should bring back stoning to death wives who displeased their husbands. The world has just gone to hell in a hand-basket since we abandoned that sacred facet of matrimony.

Darn Enlightenment. Work of the devil, I tell ya.

The idea of gay marriage is so sick. That´s all what I have to say.

I´m convinced that this is never going to happend in civilized countries.
really?
Cause it's gonna happen in the US (assuming the government doesn't collapse in the next couple of years). Period.

And by "it" I mean giving gay couples rights equal to those of straight couples

really?
Cause it's gonna happen in the US (assuming the government doesn't collapse in the next couple of years). Period.
And by "it" I mean giving gay couples rights equal to those of straight couples


How civilized is the US anyway???
I strongly disagree with you: It is not going to happen that queers get the same rights than hetero sexual couples. And that is just. Equality doesn´t mean to threat everything the same way. The principal of equality before the law requirese do treat the same thing the same way AND TO TREAT DIFFERENT THINGS DIFFERENTLY. And unnatural and biological spoken -sensless sexuality- is not the same thing than a marriage, which requires the long-term relationship of one man and one woman, who form a family and may have children as well.

And it is not going to happen in the US hopefully. After all: both democrats and republicans are against gay marriage. They only differ whether to write that in the constituition or not. But that is only a technical difference.

The idea of gay marriage is so sick. That´s all what I have to say.

I´m convinced that this is never going to happend in civilized countries.


Mmhmm, so Canada, France, Germany, Spain, the United Kindgoms, Scandenavia and Switzerland which all endorse either state-accepted civil unions or gay marriage are all uncivilised? LOL the religious right crack me up everytime. That was almost as funny as when those religious crackpots tried to defend the death penalty using that eye for an eye bit from the OT when anyone who had read Parable of The Mount or "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and was a Christian would realise that CHRIST (yeah that one you worship) was opposed to the death penalty.

Also as for gay marriage being "sick" I find great pleasure in the fact that people like you were sprouting that sort of bigoted nonsense 50 years ago when the issue was inter-racial. Your type is doomed, just take a look at the stats: the younger generation in the US mostly see nothing wrong with gay marriage and when they get older the US will be run by those people.

Also for anyone wanting a good site on the topic go to: www.andrewsullivan.com

He has put forward the conservative point for gay marriage: http://www.andrewsullivan.com/homosexuality.php?artnum=19890828

And even the Roman Catholic Church one: http://www.andrewsullivan.com/homosexuality.php?artnum=19960318

Q. Why not ban gay marriage?

A. Because it's not fair, and it harms nobody. What more do you need?

"Sensless sexuality"?

What the heck does that mean?

I've had sex until I was sensless.

The idea of gay marriage is so sick. That´s all what I have to say.

I´m convinced that this is never going to happend in civilized countries.

Oh man... I guess Canada's going the way of the howling barbarians, because we allow gay marriage in a couple of our provinces. I THOUGHT we were civilized, but I guess not. Tell me, would we get our status as a civilized nation back if we just rounded up all the homos and stuck them on ice flows? Hmmmm.

Oh man... I guess Canada's going the way of the howling barbarians, because we allow gay marriage in a couple of our provinces. I THOUGHT we were civilized, but I guess not. Tell me, would we get our status as a civilized nation back if we just rounded up all the homos and stuck them on ice flows? Hmmmm.

Just had to stick in my favorite Canadian joke.


From a transcript of a radio conversation released by the Chief of Naval Operations on 10 Oct 1995, between a US Navy vessel and Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland:

Americans: "Please divert your course 15 degrees to the north to avoid a collision."

Canadians: "Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the south to avoid a collision."

Americans: "This is the captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course."

Canadians: "No, I say again, divert YOUR course."

Americans: "This is the aircraft carrier USS Missouri. We are a large warship of the US Navy. DIVERT YOUR COURSE *NOW*."

Canadians: "We are a lighthouse. Your call."

The idea of gay marriage is so sick. That´s all what I have to say.

I´m convinced that this is never going to happend in civilized countries.


So Denmark is not civilised, is what you are saying?

Mmhmm, so Canada, France, Germany, Spain, the United Kindgoms, Scandenavia and Switzerland which all endorse either state-accepted civil unions or gay marriage are all uncivilised?




You get to things mixed up: Gay marriage or civil unions. That are different things.
Civil union is not the same thing than a marriage and it doesn´t give the same rights.
No civilized country allows gay marriage. That´s also the case for the countries you mentioned. By the way: Scandinavia is not a country, there are several countries, with different laws and regulations regarding this issue.

By the way: I´m not religious, I´m not American and you political flamich which follows that part are senseless and irrelevant to me.
We are discussing this issue here not other issues.

Homophobes

How civilized is the US anyway???
I strongly disagree with you: It is not going to happen that queers get the same rights than hetero sexual couples. And that is just. Equality doesn´t mean to threat everything the same way. The principal of equality before the law requirese do treat the same thing the same way AND TO TREAT DIFFERENT THINGS DIFFERENTLY. And unnatural and biological spoken -sensless sexuality- is not the same thing than a marriage, which requires the long-term relationship of one man and one woman, who form a family and may have children as well.

Only because YOU defined it that way, as requiring a man and a woman. Why NOT two women...or two men?

Children?

Ok, so should all sterile and post menopausal hetero women not be allowed to marry?

WTF??

The reason gay marriage and homosexuality is seen as wrong is all down to the church. If you're a Christian and you believe in what the bible says then fair enough, you at least have a reason for not agreeing to it as it goes against your faith. But if you're not Christian (or of any other religion that disagrees with gay marriage/homosexuality), then I can't see how it would affect you at all. There have always been gay people, as being attracted to the same sex is all down to having a different hormone balance... It's not something that just appeared as society changed. It's always been there, it's just not become apparent until more recently now that the church isn't as powerful anymore and society is more secular. People today act as if it's all wrong, when it's not. Why shouldn't gay people have the same right as anyone else? I agree with what other people have said - this is all harking back to the 1950s when black people were treated differently. I say to those who agree to gay marriage - don't worry, in a few decades it will be seen as 'the norm' and everyone will be happy and "uncivilized" as someone put it.

"Sensless sexuality"?

What the heck does that mean?

I've had sex until I was sensless.

I've had some senseless sex before. It usually involved a lot of drinking and some astoundingly bad errors in judgement.

What's wrong with being a homophobe?

(I use the word in its hijacked, non-literal sense, as we can all see it actually means "Someone who fears men")

So Denmark is not civilised, is what you are saying?


Are you from Denmark???
Well: does Denmark allows euthanasia as well????

Currently Denmark has a right-wing government. I look in a favourable light to that as well as the attitude of this political formation towards immigration.

However: I see gay marriage and euthanasia as wrong and as an attack on civilisation. It damages the ethical and civil standard of a nation.
Therefore it would be wise to stop it before future damage accurs - due to euthanasia (which is very dangerous given the future developments which we can already predict now) and gay marriage (as well dangerous since it encourages homosexuality).

Oh man... I guess Canada's going the way of the howling barbarians, because we allow gay marriage in a couple of our provinces. I THOUGHT we were civilized, but I guess not. Tell me, would we get our status as a civilized nation back if we just rounded up all the homos and stuck them on ice flows? Hmmmm.

Nope.
You get your status as a civilised nation back when you order up the rounding up and summary execution of all gays. Oh, except of course the ones you give over to the vivisectionists.
gotta have SOMEWHERE to harvest organs from to keep all them breeders alive!!
Hey..I know, you guys can have your status as a civilised nation back when you turn all the gays into Soylent Green, and help solve world hunger!!
(sarcasm off, and my apologies for borrowing ideas from Johnathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal")

I've had some senseless sex before. It usually involved a lot of drinking and some astoundingly bad errors in judgement.

Hey...as long as it's with somebody of the opposite gender, it's sacred.

[QUOTE=Kybernetia]You get to things mixed up: Gay marriage or civil unions. That are different things.
Civil union is not the same thing than a marriage and it doesn´t give the same rights.
No civilized country allows gay marriage. That´s also the case for the countries you mentioned. By the way: Scandinavia is not a country, there are several countries, with different laws and regulations regarding this issue.

[QUOTE]

Common-law partners in Canada have the same rights - and responsibilities - as married couples. How do you define gay marriage? Does it have to be done in a church? Well who really cares when YES, you DO have the same rights as other couples. In fact, Canada has even had to change our immigration definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. They can now sponsor their spouses too. So yes, MY civilised country does allow gay marriage. :P

Are you from Denmark???
Well: does Denmark allows euthanasia as well????

Currently Denmark has a right-wing government. I look in a favourable light to that as well as the attitude of this political formation towards immigration.

However: I see gay marriage and euthanasia as wrong and as an attack on civilisation. It damages the ethical and civil standard of a nation.
Therefore it would be wise to stop it before future damage accurs - due to euthanasia (which is very dangerous given the future developments which we can already predict now) and gay marriage (as well dangerous since it encourages homosexuality).

Wait, you're telling me that two people in a committed relationship who wish to declare that relationship before both God and country is a direct attack on civilization, yet it's okay for Brittany to be married for less time than it takes to digest a good meal, Bennifer can turn the "sacred institution" of marriage into a public relations bonanza for the sake of their floundering careers and nearly every new reality TV show is based on the theme "Who Wants To Sacrifice Anything Approximating Self Respect To Get Married To a Total Stranger On National Television While We Manipulate You For Nielson Ratings?"

I think, on the list of threats to civilization, gay marriage is way down at the bottom, near "fashionable flip-flops" and "The Martha Stewart Impossible Etiquette Vacuum."

Hey...as long as it's with somebody of the opposite gender, it's sacred.

Apparently.

Although, like I said, there was a lot of alcohol involved, so I can't conclusively say...

Dark Future, all of your ideas are completely off base or just peconcieved notions peddled by the homophobes. First and foremost, homosexuals are a minority that is discriminated against on almost a daily basis, take the Matthew Shepard incident for example. They are denied the right to marry the person of their choice, to look them pointedly in the face and then tell them that their love isn't valid merely because it doesn't conform to your idea of love is not only narrow-minded but also hateful. Lastly, allowing gays to be equal will not negatively affect children, it will in the long run benefit future generations. By setting an example for kids by letting them know that everyone is equal no matter their sexual orientation, color, race, creed, or sex will teach them to be able to live in harmony with each other.

Are you from Denmark???
Well: does Denmark allows euthanasia as well????

Currently Denmark has a right-wing government. I look in a favourable light to that as well as the attitude of this political formation towards immigration.

However: I see gay marriage and euthanasia as wrong and as an attack on civilisation. It damages the ethical and civil standard of a nation.
Therefore it would be wise to stop it before future damage accurs - due to euthanasia (which is very dangerous given the future developments which we can already predict now) and gay marriage (as well dangerous since it encourages homosexuality).


MY GOD!!!!! I had no idea that gay marriage encourages homosexuality! I guess that's why lately I've been having dirty thoughts about every female I see... including my kids, because people with your narrow thinking also like to link homosexuality with peodophilia. Get a grip.

Only because YOU defined it that way, as requiring a man and a woman. Why NOT two women...or two men?

Children?

Ok, so should all sterile and post menopausal hetero women not be allowed to marry?

WTF??


It is not my personal definition only: it is the definition in our culture for several thousand years. It is our culture and they are good reasons for that.
And almost all nations have this definition: either in unwritten or written law, as a common pratice or even in their constituitions.
Regarding children: they can only biological be born in a relationship between man and woman. That´s also the reason why the relationship between man and woman deserves special protection.
Whether they decide to have children or not or can´t have children for whatever reason is irrelevant. That´s their choice.
The heterosexual relationship with long-time binding deserves the protection due to its neccessity for the society. It is the score and stabilizing element to it in many forms.

Gays are not. If they are not existing the world wouldn´t be missing anything. But without heterosexuals and heterosexual relationships there wouldn´t be humans after all.
That shows clearly the difference and the different importance of a heterosexual and homosexual relationship. Since that is the case the latter can´t claim the privileges of the other.

Anmdrose: "Marriage IS equal for all--anyone can do it so long as they are a man paired with a woman. If you are gay and you find someone of the opposite sex to marry then you can get married, same as a ny straight person. That isn't discrimination. Homosexuals just choose to look at it as such.

Really, what is marriage to a homosexual? There are two different definitions. One is marriage in the church which cannot matter to a homosexual or they would not be homosexual. (Don't start with genetics--it has been disproven as often as proven, and unlike proof disproof only takes once.) The other definition is a social contract allowing tax breaks. While marriage in a church involves love this involves only money, so what is the difference to a homosexual if they get the tax breaks from being paired financially with their lover or if they get the tax breaks from someone else, like a gay couple each marrying a member of a lesbian couple?"

On that last sentence, well...why do most homosexuals not marry a woman to get the financial benifits? Because they want to marry the one they love and not anyone else. Because to those people, though they get the fianancial benifits, it obviously cheapens the act. Not to mention other benifits such as getting to vists your spouse in the hospital. Most would want to see the one they love in the hospital when they're hurt or sick and know if they're all right. And then there's medical decisions, child custody etc.

Marriage is not equal in the sense that the government cannot legally recognize it as it is not for ALL individuals.

Chruch marriage can matter to a homosexual because some churches do marry them. And many homosexuals would love a marriage under god.

But this isn't about why one gets married. It's about the constitution and equal rights. The constitution is pointless unless people actually recognize it. Equality. The government cannot recognize this ceremony if they in fact declare it only between a man and a woman. There would be no point unless you want to give man-woman relationships special title and that's unconstitutional. Religious traditions can still exist but that's not the governments business. It's personal. The point of equality is that everyone get to live how they want, yet everyone who doesn't like it is not forced to like it; the government does not conflict with the bible or any personal beliefs exactly- it simply allows everyone to be free to believe and live how they want. The constitution gives everyone freedom, to a point, including Christians.

Ryba: Ancient Eygpt was just the ancient worlds version of a communist state. Not the best example to cite.

And your point is? Why would a communist gov, or anything close, not be valid? Simply because they don't work yet?

Now to other arguments which I'm too lazy to put every single person to made them:

Homosexual love. Is it the kind of love that you would get marroed about? I understand people can have theories and such but how can you ultimately decide that two people love each other in any way? In a hetero couple, you usually just believe when they say it. So how can decide, say, if two men love each other in the marriage way or not? (I say marriage way because I can't figure out any other way to say it- I'm say marriage love because I can't think of another way to say it- not saying only married people can have that love). You can't become that person. I'm sure you can come up with many theories as to why 'homosexuals think they love each other' but can you come up with a way of proving that a homosexual couple cannot love each other that way?

You are not married until you get the paper from your state etc. Actually, that's just for the legal stuff. Marriage is a personal union otherwise.

Let's see. Love to me. To me...it's something I can't describe. And I'm talking the love I feel for my wife. I can feel the difference from the way I love family. Although I can't define any love, I can feel, and I feel different kinds of love for different people.

It may be easy to get those rights, like visitation and so forth, but the point is being able to get those rights the same way as other people do.

Now, I know there' more stuff but I don't have time to read it. My wife and I planned to spend tonsss of time together now. So gotta go byeeeee!

I always kinda considered divorce to be more of a threat to long term marriages.

The heterosexual relationship with long-time binding deserves the protection due to its neccessity for the society. It is the score and stabilizing element to it in many forms.

Gays are not. If they are not existing the world wouldn´t be missing anything. But without heterosexuals and heterosexual relationships there wouldn´t be humans after all.

Why do you think heterosexual relationships need protection? From what? Is gay marriage going to make hetero marriage obsolete? And how is marriage stabilizing to a society? If you follow that logic, then our nations with 50% divorce rates must be getting pretty instable, where as those countries with arranged and inescapable marriage can only be pilars of stability.

As for the world not missing anything..... my my my....the list of famous artists, musicians, politicians etc that were and are gay could fill this forum to overflowing. I definately think the world would have missed them.

Not to belittle the christians here, but whoever is citing the Bible obviously doesn't realize it was written by humans and not god. So in the spirit of fairness I will now cite my words as infallible as you do with your beloved fairy tale, "Gay marriage will be sanctioned and it will be good."
There you have it. Now shut up.

[QUOTE=Kybernetia]You get to things mixed up:
: Gay marriage or civil unions. That are different things.
Civil union is not the same thing than a marriage and it doesn´t give the same rights.
No civilized country allows gay marriage. That´s also the case for the countries you mentioned. By the way: Scandinavia is not a country, there are several countries, with different laws and regulations regarding this issue.

[QUOTE]
Common-law partners in Canada have the same rights - and responsibilities - as married couples. How do you define gay marriage? Does it have to be done in a church? Well who really cares when YES, you DO have the same rights as other couples. In fact, Canada has even had to change our immigration definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. They can now sponsor their spouses too. So yes, MY civilised country does allow gay marriage. :P


I´m not aware about canadian law. I can however tell you that in the case of France, Spain, Germany and the UK the civil union laws DON´T give the same rights than marriage. I´m unaware about other countries with civil unions.
Regarding Canada: if´ve heard that this laws only apply for a few states, so Canada as a whole may not be lost yet.

I especially think that it opens another door for massive immigration on false pretext on pretended relationships which are just faked for immigration purpuses. Well: anyway: Canada is such a big country with almost no people - Canada stands after all for "Kaner da" - Nobody there.

That is not the case for other countries. And after all: other countries still believe more in the moral of our culture.

Why do you think heterosexual relationships need protection? From what? Is gay marriage going to make hetero marriage obsolete? And how is marriage stabilizing to a society? If you follow that logic, then our nations with 50% divorce rates must be getting pretty instable, where as those countries with arranged and inescapable marriage can only be pilars of stability.


I see many destabilizing tendencacies in western countries as a matter of fact. The question is: do we want to push those tendencies or to try to stabilize the situation.
If gay relationships are getting the same benefits than there would be less money for those benefits for marriage and for spending for children. You can´t spent the money twice. You have to decide: if you give support to everybody than nobody is supported. You have to decide for priorities: and for me that is clearly to support marriage and families and not to support homosexuality.

Good night to everybody - wherever you are - from Europe.

I´m not aware about canadian law. I can however tell you that in the case of France, Spain, Germany and the UK the civil union laws DON´T give the same rights than marriage. I´m unaware about other countries with civil unions.
Regarding Canada: if´ve heard that this laws only apply for a few states, so Canada as a whole may not be lost yet.

I especially think that it opens another door for massive immigration on false pretext on pretended relationships which are just faked for immigration purpuses. Well: anyway: Canada is such a big country with almost no people - Canada stands after all for "Kaner da" - Nobody there.

That is not the case for other countries. And after all: other countries still believe more in the moral of our culture.

You don't seem very aware of Canada period, if you think we have states. And Kaner da? Are you completely making things up now? Canada comes from Kanata - the Iroquois word for village. Also, be happy you're not trying to immigrate to Canada, because it is a lot harder than you think.... unless you happen to be rich and white. As for there hardly being any people here... that would really suprise the 31,825,416 of us actually living here.
You just keep spitting 'em out, I'll keep cutting you down.

I see many destabilizing tendencacies in western countries as a matter of fact. The question is: do we want to push those tendencies or to try to stabilize the situation.
If gay relationships are getting the same benefits than there would be less money for those benefits for marriage and for spending for children. You can´t spent the money twice. You have to decide: if you give support to everybody than nobody is supported. You have to decide for priorities: and for me that is clearly to support marriage and families and not to support homosexuality.

Good night to everybody - wherever you are - from Europe.

Now I know someone already addressed the money issue, but I'll give it a shot too:). When you are talking about the benefits of being married, I'd really like you to go into detail. You see, if I had decided NOT to get married, or not to declare my husband and I to be common law (two years before we married), we would not be taxed together, meaning that each of use would save about $5000 a year. Whether you are married or not in Canada, if you have children you are given a (paltry) Child Benefit tax, which would extend to gays with children, married or not. There is very little we can do as a married or common-law couple (the only requirement for that being you have to live together for a year, or have children together, adopted or biological) that we couldn't do as a not-declared couple. We chose marriage because we love eachother and it makes our families happy. Hopefully that would be the same with same-sex couples. I honestly don't see the financial benefit, and I doubt there are many people that go into it for the money. Other than Anna Nicole Smith. Well. Anyway.

Aheam

Look, I'm going to extend my challenge once more: Give me a reason that has not yet been refuted. That's right, I'm throwing down the gauntlet: I want YOU to personally kick my ass in this debate.

REASONS THAT DON'T WORK:

ANYTHING that mentions God: Nobody cares about your religion. NOBODY. So don't push it on others. The US never HAS, and never WILL be a religious nation.
Morals: This line of reasoning says that being homosexual is immoral. Which shows YOU to be a hateful piece of dogshit.
Tradition: Tradition isn't the end all and say all. In some countries, mutilation of the female sex organs is tradition. Is that all cool?
Slippery Slope (aka, "blah and blah will marry!): There's a word called "consent." Learn it. Love it. Use it. Then shut up.
Churches will be forced: No, dumbass, they won't be. It's called a "courthouse"
Other religions don't want it: Other religions were marrying gay people. I know demonations of christians were. Episcopaleons and Presbeterians, I believe.


So go on, prove me wrong.

silence

In many arguments people ask why not? My return answer is another question Why If You have a reason you should post that too, not just why not so I will retort to the question why not gay marriage, Why? To support a minority group (what about a majority groupand harm a majority group?), to stop discrimination (to discriminate against Christains proving their ideal are stuipd?), because I am gay and want to get married (I don't care that is not true marriage, and please give me a answer that is.), Because they deserve the same rights. (My point they have the same rights as we do.), Why is it any of you’re business (because it will affect my children and grand children and so on.). All people for gays should come Up with New Reasons because we already have answers for the others so you will make no progress! Well that’s my rant you may begin flaming at will. (note: I Wrote The answers down to help people come up with new reasons just thought I would show them some kindness directly from god casue it wasn’t from me.)

You haven't provided legitimate answers as to why gay men and women should be denied equality under the law. All you've done is provide exucuses for continuing the prejudice against gays in general.

If you really want to start a flame war, at the very least, TRY to post something that actually makes sense.

Thanks anyway, but I'll pass.

Hail Eris!

If gay relationships are getting the same benefits than there would be less money for those benefits for marriage and for spending for children. You can´t spent the money twice. You have to decide: if you give support to everybody than nobody is supported. You have to decide for priorities: and for me that is clearly to support marriage and families and not to support homosexuality.


I don't know what kind of benefits you get for marriage in Europe, but the ones in the US don't really cost anybody any money, except the couple themselves who have to pay to get married and all that. In fact, allowing gay couples to get married will *save* money. There won't be as many people having to hire lawyers for several different pieces of paperwork. The courts won't then be tied up in cases where the families of gay persons try to challenge those pieces of paperwork in order to cut the partner out. There won't be confusion as to who owns what, since they'll own it jointly. And nobody has to spend more money on it - so the children won't have money being taken away from them.

How civilized is the US anyway???
I strongly disagree with you: It is not going to happen that queers get the same rights than hetero sexual couples. And that is just. Equality doesn´t mean to threat everything the same way. The principal of equality before the law requirese do treat the same thing the same way AND TO TREAT DIFFERENT THINGS DIFFERENTLY. And unnatural and biological spoken -sensless sexuality- is not the same thing than a marriage, which requires the long-term relationship of one man and one woman, who form a family and may have children as well.
well that first question I can't answer, which is why I stated "in the US" to begin with- I wasn't sure which countries you considered to be civilized
Regardless, it doesn't matter what you say or even how you feel currently on the matter, because it will happen. Love is love, romantic love is romantic love. Gay sex might not be the same as straight sex. But it will happen, and probably pretty soon. Even if somehow an amendment is written into the constitution, it will be repealed. This will happen. So I'm not sure how old you are, but you might as well start coming to terms with sexuality- it's not really such a bad thing.

Are you from Denmark???
Well: does Denmark allows euthanasia as well????

Currently Denmark has a right-wing government. I look in a favourable light to that as well as the attitude of this political formation towards immigration.

However: I see gay marriage and euthanasia as wrong and as an attack on civilisation. It damages the ethical and civil standard of a nation.
Therefore it would be wise to stop it before future damage accurs - due to euthanasia (which is very dangerous given the future developments which we can already predict now) and gay marriage (as well dangerous since it encourages homosexuality).

Gay marriage is dangerous because it encourages homosexuality? How do you figure? I don't see it.

I think this issue is turning into one about sex again. I was under the impression that it was about marriage. Hell, there are same-sex couples who love each other, but never have sex. There's even a term for it among lesbians. When they're together long enough, they just seem to stop having sex. It's called "bed death". I think the two issues should be seperate.

The bible says nothing against gay marriage. It's never mentioned. Gay SEX is, but not gay marriage.

When they're together long enough, they just seem to stop having sex. It's called "bed death".

:O

DOWN WITH GAY MARRIAGE!!!

The bible says nothing against gay marriage. It's never mentioned. Gay SEX is, but not gay marriage.
Someone mentioned that earlier, and I think it's an interesting argument (although many people say their reasons aren't religious)
I'm a sinner (by the Christian standard) far worse than many homosexuals, and I'm agnostic. Yet I can get married to the person I love, because he's the opposite gender. So gay sex is a sin, and gay marriage is not mentioned in the bible. So is the point that people that don't feel bad for their sins can't be married?
None of what I just said makes sense...
Sinners can get married, as long as their sin isn't gay sex. Well, it can be sodomy as long as it's between opposite genders...
?

Hey, I dig what you're saying. I have this theory that we still retain some of our animal sensitivities, and the more primitive among us see sodomy as the ultimate in domination. It's kind of the same thing as saying, "fuck you". There's an unspoken "I" before it. It's all about domination. It's alright to dominate a woman, but to have another man dominate you in the most animal sense of the word, getting on you and mounting you...the thought is too much for most homophobic men to bear.

The rest of us know that gay sex is actually not all about anal sex. Hell, if I remember correctly, heterosexual couples practice anal sex twice as much as gay ones, but it comes back to that.

Naturally, homophobic straight men are afraid of being raped (domination again, DOUBLE DOMINATION! Anal rape. Imagine it. :rolleyes: ) by gay men and imagine themselves to be irresistible to all gay men. They're just so attractive, it would be like throwing a steak on the floor and expecting that pack of dogs not to jump all over it. ;)

The idea of gay marriage is so sick. That´s all what I have to say.

I´m convinced that this is never going to happend in civilized countries.

This comment adds nothing to the discussion but your opinions. You will not convince anyone of anything or inspire any thought by such statements. They are useless to make unless you are doing so to prove to the world that you can type, but i would refrain from this in the future since it also gives away the fact that you don't know how to think.

My question is simply why is it that people always seem to get into other people's bussiness? Gay people should be afforded the same rights as straight people. Just like (insert race here) should have the same rights as anyone else. This is like the F*cking Black Codes after the US Civil War. How are you going to try and set an Ammendment into place that bans gay marriage because you are trying to uphold the sanctity of marriage, when you are in a country where the divorce rate is well above 50%. All of this is being done for religious reasons, there is no other reason for it. This doesn't mean the Catholic Church(or any other church for that matter) has to allow it, but what does that have to do with courtroom marriages.

If you support banning gay marriage. Anything you say supporting yourself will make you sound like a Nazi, and I wouldn't doubt your urge to give out pink armbands and trying to put them into camps. Worry about yourself leave everyone else alone.

Hey, I dig what you're saying. I have this theory that we still retain some of our animal sensitivities, and the more primitive among us see sodomy as the ultimate in domination. It's kind of the same thing as saying, "fuck you". There's an unspoken "I" before it. It's all about domination. It's alright to dominate a woman, but to have another man dominate you in the most animal sense of the word, getting on you and mounting you...the thought is too much for most homophobic men to bear.

The rest of us know that gay sex is actually not all about anal sex. Hell, if I remember correctly, heterosexual couples practice anal sex twice as much as gay ones, but it comes back to that.

Naturally, homophobic straight men are afraid of being raped (domination again, DOUBLE DOMINATION! Anal rape. Imagine it. :rolleyes: ) by gay men and imagine themselves to be irresistible to all gay men. They're just so attractive, it would be like throwing a steak on the floor and expecting that pack of dogs not to jump all over it. ;)

Issues much? Please don't stereotype all men by the worst examples... :(

I thought I had implied that this was what the worst example was like, that I was talking about the primitive throwbacks. You know, knuckle-walkers. Mouth -breathers.

I try not to stereotype all men or all women, if I can help it.

I have a couple of good reasons why Gays shouldn't be married.

1) Gays have a higher risk of disease, so they shouldn't be allowed to marry.
(let's just ignore that straights have a high risk as well, not to mention no straights are denied marriage on the grounds of disease, and marriage is a known partner reducer)

2) Gays will destroy the santity of marriage.
(let's ignore that straights have put the divorce rate at alll time high of 52%, not to mention that many straights are choosing not marry in these days yet are doing much of marriage's normal activties)

3) GOD say's it's wrong.
(Okay....let's simply ignore that the bible, written by erronous man doesn't say why those two cities were destroyed, and the Bible also supported stoning people to death)

4) The majority say's it's wrong
(The majority also supported atrocities and was aganist beneficial acts)

5) Gays have higher rates of neglect, abuse, trauma, and other bad things.
(let's ignore the fact that all those were made up and supported with false numbers)

Obviously we can't let the gay marry!

I thought I had implied that this was what the worst example was like, that I was talking about the primitive throwbacks. You know, knuckle-walkers. Mouth -breathers.

I try not to stereotype all men or all women, if I can help it.

Fair 'nuff ;)

I understand the argument that people will think it's awkward at first, and sure it will. But the future generations will not have any problems with it and it will seem like something that has always existed.

Look at the civil rights period with blacks, they certainly faced a lot of discrimination and many people didn't want to see anything but black and white, when in today's world, there are just shades of black and white. We don't just see somebody and say "Black person" "White person", but we look at them as a shade of gray and just as a "person".

As long as gay men don't hit on me I'm alright.

No offense, Cuneo, but so what if they do? You say, "thanks, but no thanks, I'm straight." and walk away. It's nothing so awful that you can't walk away. God, the number of times I've had men I wasn't even remotely attracted to hitting on me...if I got a complex about it every time, I, as a woman, would be thought of as just a bit hypersensitive. You turn them down and get on with it.

Look at the civil rights period with blacks, they certainly faced a lot of discrimination and many people didn't want to see anything but black and white, when in today's world, there are just shades of black and white. We don't just see somebody and say "Black person" "White person", but we look at them as a shade of gray and just as a "person".
This is why a christain movement strated called "don't compare it to the the color of my skin"

The christian movement can say whatever they like, but the comparison is there. It's there, and it's valid.

How civilized is the US anyway???
I strongly disagree with you: It is not going to happen that queers get the same rights than hetero sexual couples. And that is just. Equality doesn´t mean to threat everything the same way. The principal of equality before the law requirese do treat the same thing the same way AND TO TREAT DIFFERENT THINGS DIFFERENTLY. And unnatural and biological spoken -sensless sexuality- is not the same thing than a marriage, which requires the long-term relationship of one man and one woman, who form a family and may have children as well.


I'm sorry, but could you try to show your ignorance a little more clearly? I not really sure i'm getting it all over here.
Hey guess what? The government should not treat marriages any way at all. If you are talking about the sanctity of marriage, guess what: there's this little thing called the First Amendment which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Now, althought this doesn't state it directly, this is where the idea of separation of church and state comes from. Since marriage is a really a church affair, the state should not have any say in it at all. If however, the state would like to recognize a civil union for legal purposes, that is the states buisiness, as long as there is no "sanctity" invovled, because who would judge on such an abstract topic? As long as the state wants to issue these unions, they would have to give them to both female/male couples and those of same sex or else be judged dicriminatory. If churches do or do not want to conduct marriages for same sex couples, that is the churches buisiness, but a marriage in the church and a civil union with the government should be two separate things. The government should not deal at all with the term "marriage" if the churches want to claim that as their own. Therefore, all rights currently given to legally married couples would instead be given to all those joined in civil union, and marriage would be something done separately in which ever church is chosen to do it.

:cool:

Thank you Onanis. You've stated the facts of the issue as succinctly as they ever could be. Bravo.

The christian movement can say whatever they like, but the comparison is there. It's there, and it's valid.
And it insults black christains becasue they some how chose the color of their skin ant that freakei deakei.

I think you just shot yourself in the foot, Dark Fututre. The comparison is not insulting to them, because like skin color, homosexuality is not a choice someone makes. They don't just wake up one day and decide they're gay. They're born that way. As for being freaky-deaky, or whatever it is you're trying inarticulately to say, gay people are no more kinky than straight people. You obviously haven't actually gone out on a limb to get to know any gay people as people. That might force you to rethink some of your conclusions.

And it insults black christains becasue they some how chose the color of their skin ant that freakei deakei.

I'm trying to respect your ideas, i really am, but your not giving me anything to respect. I mean, i can't even understand what you are attempting to say. If you can't even write proper sentances, or rather, even just mere legible ones, you show that you do not have an education to back up your poorly used words. Please, for the good of useful discussion, read and educate yourself a little more before trying to make yourself an advocate for a cause. Or, if you really feel the need to speak your mind, type it in MS Word first and use the grammar check. That way we can actually understand your points and shoot them down directly instead of all of this guess work.

ok u gotta think about it both ways, if gay was the way, and everyone became gay, would human life sustain? if everyone was straight (which we should be) would human life sustain?
if you know very simple science (or even common sense) the first answer would be no, and the second would be yes

I think you just shot yourself in the foot, Dark Fututre. The comparison is not insulting to them, because like skin color, homosexuality is not a choice someone makes. They don't just wake up one day and decide they're gay. They're born that way. As for being freaky-deaky, or whatever it is you're trying inarticulately to say, gay people are no more kinky than straight people. You obviously haven't actually gone out on a limb to get to know any gay people as people. That might force you to rethink some of your conclusions.
woot now I am sure modern america has no back bone or will power any more its all gentic i blame on my parents not me, they birthed me lazy thats why i sepnt three weeks in juvy when i was a kid.

I think you're confusing a few things, Dark Fututre. You're confusing criminal behavior for sexual orientation. They're not the same thing. If you commit a criminal act, you're hurting someone, either directly or indirectly. Same-sex marriage hurts nobody, nor does being attracted to someone who is the same sex as you.

Fuck it. I have to go to work, and besides, I don't have time for this. Why dignify patent garbage like this with a response?

I think you're confusing a few things, Dark Fututre. You're confusing criminal behavior for sexual orientation. They're not the same thing. If you commit a criminal act, you're hurting someone, either directly or indirectly. Same-sex marriage hurts nobody, nor does being attracted to someone who is the same sex as you.

Fuck it. I have to go to work, and besides, I don't have time for this. Why dignify patent garbage like this with a response?
so technincally i have to right to say "you are all gay, retard, loser dumbass,basterds/bichtes, blow hard idoits, and God damn Atheist." (which i don't want to say) (I know some blacks and they are very hacked at people like you very hacked )

They don't just wake up one day and decide they're gay. They're born that way.


Just be careful saying they are born like that my friend. It is a theory, but not always a benefitial one for the rights movement. In saying that homosexuals are born with that preference, you limit the right of free choice that we each have. It's difficult to explain, and i'm not really hitting the nail in the head here. I think part of the problem with it is saying that they are different, and therefore separating them into a minority group. It is like saying that blacks are different because they have darker skin, instead of realizing that there is a huge spectrum of different complexions amoung all humans, but we are all still humans, and that is all that matters. As soon as you acknowledge that there is a difference, you create a separation.

woot now I am sure modern america has no back bone or will power any more its all gentic i blame on my parents not me, they birthed me lazy thats why i sepnt three weeks in juvy when i was a kid.


Can you read what you wrote here, because i sure can't?

ok u gotta think about it both ways, if gay was the way, and everyone became gay, would human life sustain? if everyone was straight (which we should be) would human life sustain?
if you know very simple science (or even common sense) the first answer would be no, and the second would be yes


Well, actually, if you know a little more than simple science, or perhaps use a little imagination, you would realize that with the earth's population at over 6 billion and rising, homosexuality might be a natural way of balancing off since we are already above the maximum sustainible limit or "carrying capacity" of the earth. It is actually common in many species to have different mating practices depending on the availibility or resources, or climatic effects. So, if sustainibility is what you are worried about, you should cheer for homosexuals who are able to live happily without making more mouths to feed.

I'm sorry, but could you try to show your ignorance a little more clearly? I not really sure i'm getting it all over here.
Hey guess what? The government should not treat marriages any way at all. If you are talking about the sanctity of marriage, guess what: there's this little thing called the First Amendment which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Now, althought this doesn't state it directly, this is where the idea of separation of church and state comes from. Since marriage is a really a church affair, the state should not have any say in it at all. If however, the state would like to recognize a civil union for legal purposes, that is the states buisiness, as long as there is no "sanctity" invovled, because who would judge on such an abstract topic? As long as the state wants to issue these unions, they would have to give them to both female/male couples and those of same sex or else be judged dicriminatory. If churches do or do not want to conduct marriages for same sex couples, that is the churches buisiness, but a marriage in the church and a civil union with the government should be two separate things. The government should not deal at all with the term "marriage" if the churches want to claim that as their own. Therefore, all rights currently given to legally married couples would instead be given to all those joined in civil union, and marriage would be something done separately in which ever church is chosen to do it.

Right on. My thoughts exactly.

y do u hate blacks so much, being gay is the sin...

Well, actually, if you know a little more than simple science, or perhaps use a little imagination, you would realize that with the earth's population at over 6 billion and rising, homosexuality might be a natural way of balancing off since we are already above the maximum sustainible limit or "carrying capacity" of the earth. It is actually common in many species to have different mating practices depending on the availibility or resources, or climatic effects. So, if sustainibility is what you are worried about, you should cheer for homosexuals who are able to live happily without making more mouths to feed.
uhhh.. what the hell, go start ur own village full of gays and sustain urself, notice u meant other species, humans arent part of it, and if u wanna go further check the mammal species, try to find me a homosexual animal here besides the sickening gay humans

The higher primates, dolphins and dogs?

uhhh.. what the hell, go start ur own village full of gays and sustain urself, notice u meant other species, humans arent part of it, and if u wanna go further check the mammal species, try to find me a homosexual animal here besides the sickening gay humans
various specis of primates, dolphins, dogs, squirrels

Why gay marriage?

Well, civil marriage is a contract, not anything more.

IMO if homosexual people love eachother and wish to formalize their reationship in front of the state then they should marry.

Now if some religious group opposses to gay marriage, and they refuse to officialice a couple in the name of their god as they think such union is offensive to him/her, then don't, hey, they are the ones losing followers here!

Obviously most cases of homosexuality are from birth, not from environment. Who would chose a life of ridicule??? Even still, you cannot say that it is entirely formed by genetics. Like anything, it must be a product of both.

Now assuming that at least some part of the puzzle is genetic, then why would we not allow them to get married? Are they any different than people of different racse, religions, or backgrounds, joining together in marriage?

marriage is not sacred anymore, and should not be misconstrued as a "holy union" people get married from different faiths, or religions even. Marriage by law is exactly as it states... "marriage by the law".

Now granted, if you still do not believe in any of these aforementioned things, then the last point is the most puzzling to me....

Provided you hate homosexuals, do not believe they are real, or assume they are damned to an eternity in hell... why do you care they get married?

What does a heterosexual person stand to lose from the deal? Do they lose the title of "marriage"? Is that so discouraging?

I believe my view of marriage was already tainted by the press long long ago. Drunken 24 hour Vegas marriages anyone?

oh yes, to the message about human life sustaining, on why homosexuality is wrong...

just curious, should we shoot all those incapable of reproducing? or merely prevent them from marrying?

its a long list my friend.

The higher primates, dolphins and dogs?

There are abnormal members of more species than these...and exclusively homosexual animals - as opposed to bisexual - are rarer still.

Homophobia is so gay.

I am gay.

I did not choose to become a member of the most discriminated-against group of people in the world, nor did I ask for it. I was not traumatized as a child, nor was I raised by a single parent. I do not desire to be different from the status quo, and I do not want to rebel in my own way.

I am a human being.

I did not choose to become a human being, nor did I ask for it. I was raised a human being and will die a human being. But I am a human being. I have the same common dreams, desires, and functions of other human beings. I share many of the same morals as other human beings.

I was raised in a Methodist Christian family, and attended church reguarly. Recently, I reached the age and maturity in which I felt I could define my own beliefs and follow my own heart.

What I wish for in this world is to be treated with the same dignity and respect that you would treat anyone else. I do not ask for anything special or unique, nor do I want to be above you. I wish to express my love and I wish for it to be recognized, socially and legally. Sadly, I cannot. My expression does not harm others, nor does it threaten couples that currently can have their love recognized. I understand and respect those whose religious beliefs tell them to only express their love to one member of the opposite sex. I am not asking that those beliefs be changed.



I am not imposing my beliefs on you. All I ask for is that you show me the same courtesy and not impose your beliefs on me. Now that you have taken a few moments of your time to read my words, I thank you.

Let them marry.

I'm against any couples getting tax benefits simply because they are together. IMHO, that's descriminating against singles.

Child support is a different matter.

Rewarding people for lifestyle choices (i.e. marriage) is a form of social engineering. No one should be rewarded for getting married. Keep the government out of marriage, and people's private lives.

Rewarding people for lifestyle choices (i.e. marriage) is a form of social engineering. No one should be rewarded for getting married. Keep the government out of marriage, and people's private lives.

Point very well taken and acknowledged, sir/ma'am.

uhhh.. what the hell, go start ur own village full of gays and sustain urself, notice u meant other species, humans arent part of it, and if u wanna go further check the mammal species, try to find me a homosexual animal here besides the sickening gay humans

Actually, homosexual behavior has been observed in several species.

Such as penguins:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL

And insects, apes and sheep:

http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/animals/love_that_dare_not_squeak.htm

Can't you even entertain the idea that homosexuality may exist in animals? It's really not that difficult of a concept.

Hey, I have a novel idea. How about we stop worrying about if gay people want to get married or not? With every other problem going on in the world right now, I'm surprised that so many people are getting all pissed off because gay people want to get married. If they want to get married, let them get married. How does that hurt anyone? It sure as hell has no impact on my life at all.

What really surprises me by reading other posts is how so many people play the religious card saying that "God hates gays" and "being gay is a sin." Whatever happened to tolerance, acceptance, and every other little thing in that category that the Bible was supposed to teach us? For the sake of argument, let's say that being gay is a sin. Ever hear of someone named Jesus? Ever realize that he died for our sins, if you believe in that sort of thing? So to all you radical Christians out there, don't play the "being gay is a sin" card anymore because if gay people lead good lives, then they can still be forgiven for their "sin" of being gay and go up to heaven just like you, after you are forgiven for your "sin" of not being an accepting person.

So you know what? If gay people want to get married, I say go ahead. And by the way, I'm not gay. I'm just pissed off that so many people are being such babies about an issue like this.

If the faggots get to redefine marriage to conform to their sickness, you may as well legitimize marrying a set of jumper cables. Anyone opposed to it must be some kind of fundy christian CABLEPHOBE!

PS government should stay out of people's private lives, except government school will be graphically teaching your kids all about cable sex by the 5th grade.

If the faggots get to redefine marriage to conform to their sickness, you may as well legitimize marrying a set of jumper cables. Anyone opposed to it must be some kind of fundy christian CABLEPHOBE!

PS government should stay out of people's private lives, except government school will be graphically teaching your kids all about cable sex by the 5th grade.


TRANSLATION: I'm a dumbass who doesn't know shit. I believe the government should stay out of me life but get involved with everyone elses. Please desregard this post, as it is only me talking aout of my asshole.

Translation, you're a faggot so its no surprise you want the government to force decent people to pretend they approve of you.

You'll be happy to know that there are people very similar to you who were very big in history.

They're called the KKK.

Actually I'm straight.


WOO WOO! Here comes the clue train! YOu haven't provided any arguments against it so far other then "I'm against it."

Oh, and the slippery slope logic doesn't work. TO quote MYSELF:

Aheam

Look, I'm going to extend my challenge once more: Give me a reason that has not yet been refuted. That's right, I'm throwing down the gauntlet: I want YOU to personally kick my ass in this debate.

REASONS THAT DON'T WORK:

ANYTHING that mentions God: Nobody cares about your religion. NOBODY. So don't push it on others. The US never HAS, and never WILL be a religious nation.
Morals: This line of reasoning says that being homosexual is immoral. Which shows YOU to be a hateful piece of dogshit.
Tradition: Tradition isn't the end all and say all. In some countries, mutilation of the female sex organs is tradition. Is that all cool?
Slippery Slope (aka, "blah and blah will marry!): There's a word called "consent." Learn it. Love it. Use it. Then shut up.
Churches will be forced: No, dumbass, they won't be. It's called a "courthouse"
Other religions don't want it: Other religions were marrying gay people. I know demonations of christians were. Episcopaleons and Presbeterians, I believe.


So go on, prove me wrong.



Logic and myself: 1
Ignorance, hatred, and you: 0

Actually I'm straight.

Then try acting like it for a change.

I am gay.

I did not choose to become a member of the most discriminated-against group of people in the world, nor did I ask for it. I was not traumatized as a child, nor was I raised by a single parent. I do not desire to be different from the status quo, and I do not want to rebel in my own way.

I am a human being.

I did not choose to become a human being, nor did I ask for it. I was raised a human being and will die a human being. But I am a human being. I have the same common dreams, desires, and functions of other human beings. I share many of the same morals as other human beings.

I was raised in a Methodist Christian family, and attended church reguarly. Recently, I reached the age and maturity in which I felt I could define my own beliefs and follow my own heart.

What I wish for in this world is to be treated with the same dignity and respect that you would treat anyone else. I do not ask for anything special or unique, nor do I want to be above you. I wish to express my love and I wish for it to be recognized, socially and legally. Sadly, I cannot. My expression does not harm others, nor does it threaten couples that currently can have their love recognized. I understand and respect those whose religious beliefs tell them to only express their love to one member of the opposite sex. I am not asking that those beliefs be changed.



I am not imposing my beliefs on you. All I ask for is that you show me the same courtesy and not impose your beliefs on me. Now that you have taken a few moments of your time to read my words, I thank you.



except for the part about being raised methodist christian, this statement is very true for me as well,

thank you

Then try acting like it for a change.

No comment to the rest of my post?

And how am I not acting straight?



You're a shit. Smile! :)

except for the part about being raised methodist christian, this statement is very true for me as well,

thank you

You are quite welcome. I appreciate the response. We are all here on this Earth together as human beings. I only hope that one day we will treat each other as such.

Translation, you're a faggot so its no surprise you want the government to force decent people to pretend they approve of you.

TRANSLATION: "Hey, maybe if I say 'faggot' enough, people won't suspect that I'm a redneck, white-trash idiot who failed high school and is having trouble with my own sexuality, which is why I lash out so harshly at gay people who just want to lead normal lives and not be harassed for something as trivial as sexual preferances. Hell, why I'm at it, why don't I complain about losing my job to that foreign guy who was willing to work harder than me for less money."

http://www.boundless.org/2000/features/a0000307.html
http://www.leaderu.com/focus/canchange.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/107/41.0.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

These are all interesting articles concerning homosexuality and gay marriage. I am personally against gay marriage for reasons that have probably been summed up already. I have seen other forums that can handle this issue with alot less flaming and bigotry.

Yes I am a Christian. I dissagree that someone who believes homosexuality to be a sin is intolerant or hateful. I treat gay people the same way I treat all people (with respect), I won't however tell them (if asked) that their behaviour is acceptable in my eyes or in God's.

That's my 2 cents, I have gone over this time and time again.

This place has gotten alittle out of control... and it's long!

I'm not gay (not sexually active at all), and a black baptist by nature

I have to say that this is really two arguements going on here. one is about religion, christianity in particular. And the understanding religious version knows that A) the scriptures are gods words filtered through men, and that B) these words have been reinterpreted for the greater good of man several times. Christianity by nature shouldn't focus it's hate on anyone group.

Not to mention that we have changed our view on what god believes before, through recognition that these were actions taken as liberties by the authors or editors of the bible over the years.

But the other side is blatant ignorance for the rights of others. It's well known (wheter people want to admit it or not) that there has always been homosexuality, even in some of the most civiliazed of nations. Actually, the most civilize nations of this world had a good understanding of homosexuals. This doesn't condone it, but people treat it like an invasion. like someones beating on your door and then littering it with gay porn.

In the end, it's mostly irrevalent. If the government tries to enforce any anti gay law our nation will fall apart when the people rebuke it. and if gay marriage is legalized... the world will be a better place for it. (less population strain, higher level of civil rights awareness, and less ignorance for the whole nation and/or world.). I'd love to go into some greater detail, but I'm a freakin high school student.

[url]

Yes I am a Christian. I dissagree that someone who believes homosexuality to be a sin is intolerant or hateful. I treat gay people the same way I treat all people (with respect), I won't however tell them (if asked) that their behaviour is acceptable in my eyes or in God's.

That's my 2 cents, I have gone over this time and time again.

I appreciate your calm approach and respectful response. I agree that there is far too much flaming going on in this thread. Now, if I may offer an opposing viewpoint...

You say that you do not condone the idea of same-sex marriage and you say that neither does God. That is your belief, and I have no right to change that. It is my belief that I was born gay, live gay, and will die gay. I do not ask and will not ask your church to accept my sexuality or honor any marriage I have. My beliefs will not affect yours in the least. My sexuality does not put yours in question.

However, I am not shown the same courtesy. The beliefs of others are enforced on me. I do not believe in your God, and I do not ask you to not believe in your God. I ask that the rules of your God apply only to the followers of your God, and that your religion and beliefs have no place in my love life. My beliefs harm no one. I do not put anyone in danger by loving another man. My beliefs affect only myself. I ask that you not enforce your beliefs on others.

I don't have any belief in God at all and in my opinion gay marriage is wrong and being gay is also wrong. It is againest nature. When I say nature I mean people are to propigate the for the speices to survive.

In the end, it's mostly irrevalent. If the government tries to enforce any anti gay law our nation will fall apart when the people rebuke it. and if gay marriage is legalized... the world will be a better place for it. (less population strain, higher level of civil rights awareness, and less ignorance for the whole nation and/or world.). I'd love to go into some greater detail, but I'm a freakin high school student.

Bravo. Don't be hesitant to voice your opinions, no matter what your age is! I just graduated high school and am headed off to college, and I've stated my stance several times over already.

You bring up some good points that have all been discussed before, but should not at all be dismissed. Homosexuality has existed in all beings, human or otherwise. Our population is rising steadily and the space for that population is rapidly shrinking. It's my belief that this is nature's way of saying, "Slow down!" I say nature because it is not a religious issue and it is not a Christian issue. People got married long before the birth and death of Christ.

I don't have any belief in God at all and in my opinion gay marriage is wrong and being gay is also wrong. It is againest nature. When I say nature I mean people are to propigate the for the speices to survive.

...it would be nice if all members of the species were literate too.

I don't have any belief in God at all and in my opinion gay marriage is wrong and being gay is also wrong. It is againest nature. When I say nature I mean people are to propigate the for the speices to survive.

With a population of over six billion human beings and rising, how do you suggest we accomodate the population when it reaches seven billion? Eight billion? Ten billion? Nature is trying to slow us down, not speed us up.

There are abnormal members of more species than these...and exclusively homosexual animals - as opposed to bisexual - are rarer still.


Well you know what Fubaria? Humans aren't exclusively homosexual either! You know, what with all these straight people and all?

You're point, as I understood it at least (vague as it was) is moot.

You know when you wake up in your hotel room in Las Vagas, and there's the person you met at the bar last night beside you?

And you're wearing a dime-store ring, and you suddenly think "Geez, I hope my attorney can get me out of this!"

Gay marriage should be legal. Everywhere. Except Nevada.

A lot of the fear surrounding gay marriage seems to be because it will somehow 'degrade' marriage for everyone else. It won't - as far as i know, gays simply want to have a part of the whole marriage thing, rather than destroy it (unless theres some global conspiracy that only gays know about). So why shouldn't they get married? Of course, they shouldn't be allowed to have children (and not because they would be any worse parents). Homosexuality in itself is not 'unnatural' (as there a gay individuals in other species). Homosexuals having children, however, is unnatural.

I agree... the gays pushing for the right to marry are *more* likely to uphold the sanctity of marriage - they wouldn't be pushing so hard if there wasn't *love* behind it.

Personally, if I were religious, I'd be pushing for the death penalty (by stoning perhaps) for idiots like Britany Spears - *she* and people like *her* are the one who turn marriage into a sickening sham. Go take up arms against her, and I'll grab a torch and come along for the fun too.

I guess Holland is not a civilized country, what with all the gay marriages here.

here's a novel idea:

How about government get the hell out of marriage asap?

I guess Holland is not a civilized country, what with all the gay marriages here.
I take issue with that! :p

Seriously, this discussion is getting nowhere. There are some people who debate on a slightly higher level, but for the most part, it's a bunch of kids screaming "GOD HATES FAGS HUUUUUUURRRR !!!!1one" at the top of their lungs, and then people debunking those claims in a consistent and structured manner.

No disrespect to some of the more articulate Christians in here, of course. Though I would ask them to please consider the idea that marriage could be left completely a religious issue. In other words, the State would give out a "civil union" paper to any couple that wants to get married (homo- or heterosexual), and then religious people could get their marriage in their church. That separates legal benefits from the religious issue. I doubt the average gay person would want to get married in a church/synagogue/mosque anyway. It's about equal treatment for the Law. Nobody is trying to force religions to accept values they disagree with.

(unless theres some global conspiracy that only gays know about)

Shit, we've been rumbled!

Civil unions are unconstitutional. You cannot have something that is the same under a different name - if it is truly the same (and it must be, to be considered equal), then calling it by a different name is discrimination.

Not my opinion - RULED IN A COURT. Go read the other post if you're curious. Or just totally ignore anything factual, if you're on the opposing side, I suppose.

The way to do it is have State marriages, which the churches can ignore as they so choose. Churches can refuse to hold gay cerimonies (although that's just pushing away worshippers and is hence stupid), and homosexuals can get married at registry offices, or at the more open-minded churches.

to the guy who started treadh:

take it as a man that you were wrong instead of making bullshit xplenations

effect youre grand children ?.. right it will... if one of them is gay... other than that it wont...unless you fear that a huge part of the population will turn gay and there wont be any mroe humans in 300 years...

but to answer youre question: Because it gives varius advanteges to be married that should be availabel to all people.

the christians can do as they like its their faith but society should be just for all

and with the non christians going its bad..

well why is it bad ?.. because we dont get kids.. why is that bad.. because they cant live then.. why is that bad ?....

good and bad are just things we made upp to describe things.. it isnt a reason in it self you brainless farts

I disagree.

The government should not interfere with nor recognize religious ceremonies. If a woman goes to church to marry her tractor, dog, sister, or whatever, so be it. The government should not be forced to recognize it.

If a man wants to marry his boyfriend or girlfriend in a church, the same applies. The government ought to recognize civil unions ONLY.

So long as the two people are old enough to vote/buy cigarettes/go to a bar/carry a handgun/join the military and kill people, they should be able to marry.

Be they the same or opposite sex. Regardless of what (if anything) their church says.

Separation of church and state: if the church declares someone a saint, the government shouldn't be forced to recognize it. Same with marriage.

So what to do with the childen of an underaged couple? Medical experiments.

E.

Well then, every straight couple who has ever been married anywhere outside of a church/religious setting must also refer to their union as a "Civil Union".

If that's what you meant, then yes, I agree.

Either all are 'marriages' (with some being 'religious' and some being 'state')
Or the are all civil unions (with an added title of 'marriage' for the religious ones)

Anything else is discrimination.

nope i don't even have either yet but i assure you it would i would have excessivly shelter i would have to be on gaurd for all sorts of problems it would intall like "daddy my best freinds mom picked him up last week and his other mom picked him up this week how did he get to momys" (That is just in kindergarten on and on the list goe's to long to list) so i don't think i want to put any other parent thru it.


Your children/grandchildren need to be more worried about your dreadful grammar.

Marriage is a religious institution. The govenrment should stay the hell out of it.
If you can find a religion to do it, then I say go for it.
And I am quite certain there is a religion somewhere in this nation willing to marry gay people. If you don't like it too bad.
Hell yeah.

REGISTRY OFFICE! STATE MARRIAGE LICENSE! ARGH!

It is *not* just religious you moron. The government doesn't give a flying fuck about what you get done in a Church. That's why you have to pick up that little slip of paper called a STATE MARRIAGE LICENSE. Learn the term and use it.

If you don't have any actual facts, stay the fuck out of the debate.

Yes, there are religions that will marry gays. But the government will not currently issue them with their state licenses. Know what that means? No hospital visits if their partner gets hit by a truck, no custody of their partners child in the case of death, no financial aid, no NOTHING.

The government is *MORE* important in this issue than the religions.

REGISTRY OFFICE! STATE MARRIAGE LICENSE! ARGH!

It is *not* just religious you moron. The government doesn't give a flying fuck about what you get done in a Church. That's why you have to pick up that little slip of paper called a STATE MARRIAGE LICENSE. Learn the term and use it.

If you don't have any actual facts, stay the fuck out of the debate.

Yes, there are religions that will marry gays. But the government will not currently issue them with their state licenses. Know what that means? No hospital visits if their partner gets hit by a truck, no custody of their partners child in the case of death, no financial aid, no NOTHING.

The government is *MORE* important in this issue than the religions.
That religious bigotry pure and simple
and it is religious you imbecile
the government has no right to say who can and who can't get married.
when I run for office in about a year, part of my campaign will be to abolish requirements for couples to get government issued marriage licenses.
what people do in their private lives is none of the govts. business.

You sound just like an anti religion bigot since you think you have a monopoly on facts. you haven't responded with any thing of substance.

All those restrictions you speak of, can always be remedied with a will, living will, and power of attorny which the government must legally abide by.

Jesus supports the gay community and its desire to be treated equally

ok u gotta think about it both ways, if gay was the way, and everyone became gay, would human life sustain? if everyone was straight (which we should be) would human life sustain?
if you know very simple science (or even common sense) the first answer would be no, and the second would be yes

You're right. And legalizing gay marriage is somehow going to make everyone in the world gay - even you! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Seriously, do you really think you even made a point in this post, other than "I'm afraid of teh gays?"

Whittier - let me try one more time. care to read what I write this time around?

State Marriage License - Without this, no one is entitled to any of the rights that come with marriage. Religions cannot control these, since they fall within the realm of the government. You know this, and are simply trying to be controversial. And failing, might I add.

Registry Office - ever notice how some people who are athiests can still get married? That's because religion has very little to do with marriage. You can go down to your local registry office, fill out some forms (with no mention of God), and be united with the person you love. Nothing to do with religion.

You can't have a monopoly on facts. Facts are available to anyone willing to bother looking for them. And since you ignored everything of substance in my post, it's no wonder it appeared to have no substance to you.

A power of attorny cannot grant *all* the rights of marriage. I suggest you go fact gathering. The stuff your pulling out of your arse is substandard.

When you run for office, you'll probably get voted in. You know why? Because there are lots of people who would *love* religions to have more power, so they can discriminate against all the people they hate. I expect to see the number of hate crimes and racist attacks multiple tenfold where ever it is you live. So have fun with that. Spreading hatred and ignorance is fun, for some.

gay marriage (as well dangerous since it encourages homosexuality).
You say it as if people have a choice to be gay or not. Given the level of discrimination that gays face in almost every society in the world, why would anyone just choose to be gay?

You're right. And legalizing gay marriage is somehow going to make everyone in the world gay - even you! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Seriously, do you really think you even made a point in this post, other than "I'm afraid of teh gays?"


GASP! Didn't you know!? You can catch the gay from being around gay people....


..... just like you can catch tallness from hanging around tall people.

You say it as if people have a choice to be gay or not. Given the level of discrimination that gays face in almost every society in the world, why would anyone just choose to be gay?

There are already many scientific studies that have shown beyond reasonable doubt (that's the same stuff that comes between 'guilty' and 'innocent', by the way) that being homosexual is connected to hormones present from birth - not only in humans but in animals.

I believe that disallowing the right to marry to gay people simply because of predjudice against what they do in the comfort of their own homes is wrong! We let convicted murders marry, I think what they do is wrong ... who stops them? :headbang:

To quote (freakbymistake) "Law is based on what is right... not religion, cause we all know that:
1- Not everybody believes in God
2- There are heaps of different religions anyway...

So why are we pushing these beliefs onto ALL of society then?
Marriage is about 2 people that are in love devoting themselves to each other forever... so what has gender got to do with it?
By the government banning these people from getting married they are belittling them, and telling society that gay people are not really in love!" <-- News flash, they are in love! Sorry guys.

Marriage (last I checked) was indeed about love, not religion. So, if marriage is about religion, even I cant get married, to any gender! (For those about to word-bash me, I am heterosexual) Gay people are just as in love as everyone else, so why are they denied the right to be recognised as a united couple in the eyes of the law? :confused:

Whittier - let me try one more time. care to read what I write this time around?

State Marriage License - Without this, no one is entitled to any of the rights that come with marriage. Religions cannot control these, since they fall within the realm of the government. You know this, and are simply trying to be controversial. And failing, might I add.

Registry Office - ever notice how some people who are athiests can still get married? That's because religion has very little to do with marriage. You can go down to your local registry office, fill out some forms (with no mention of God), and be united with the person you love. Nothing to do with religion.

You can't have a monopoly on facts. Facts are available to anyone willing to bother looking for them. And since you ignored everything of substance in my post, it's no wonder it appeared to have no substance to you.

A power of attorny cannot grant *all* the rights of marriage. I suggest you go fact gathering. The stuff your pulling out of your arse is substandard.

When you run for office, you'll probably get voted in. You know why? Because there are lots of people who would *love* religions to have more power, so they can discriminate against all the people they hate. I expect to see the number of hate crimes and racist attacks multiple tenfold where ever it is you live. So have fun with that. Spreading hatred and ignorance is fun, for some.
I think that you two were arguing totally different things

YOU were arguing that the government currently has a BIG say in marriage which is true.

What Whittier was arguing was that marriage originally came from a RELIGIOUS background and that the government should have no say in the religious portion

By making ALL unions the same (no marriages all civil unions) and allowing the church to add the title of “married” for those that are religiously qualified


See what I mean u were arguing that they DO have a big say while Whittier was arguing that they shouldn’t

Exactly. If we take the 'government' out of marriage, then only religious folks can get married, and then only if their church likes them.

And these are the same people complaining about the 'sanctity' of marriage? Oh no, we don't want people who *love* each other getting married... my goodness me no... we only want the drunkards from vegas and the idiots like Miss Spears... they send out a *great* message.

That religious bigotry pure and simple
and it is religious you imbecile
the government has no right to say who can and who can't get married.
when I run for office in about a year, part of my campaign will be to abolish requirements for couples to get government issued marriage licenses.
what people do in their private lives is none of the govts. business.

Part of the reason for marriage liscenses is to make it easier to keep records. When you are married, you generally share all of your assets - being legally married is the way to legally do that. Otherwise, people get screwed in the end and the courts are tied up with it.

All those restrictions you speak of, can always be remedied with a will, living will, and power of attorny which the government must legally abide by.

Except for the fact that all of those can be challenged by the family of the person (and since the partner is not *family* they have no say in it). No to mention that this doesn't cover health insurance, 5th amendment rights, child custody, etc, etc.

Whittier - let me try one more time. care to read what I write this time around?

State Marriage License - Without this, no one is entitled to any of the rights that come with marriage. Religions cannot control these, since they fall within the realm of the government. You know this, and are simply trying to be controversial. And failing, might I add.

Registry Office - ever notice how some people who are athiests can still get married? That's because religion has very little to do with marriage. You can go down to your local registry office, fill out some forms (with no mention of God), and be united with the person you love. Nothing to do with religion.

You can't have a monopoly on facts. Facts are available to anyone willing to bother looking for them. And since you ignored everything of substance in my post, it's no wonder it appeared to have no substance to you.

A power of attorny cannot grant *all* the rights of marriage. I suggest you go fact gathering. The stuff your pulling out of your arse is substandard.

When you run for office, you'll probably get voted in. You know why? Because there are lots of people who would *love* religions to have more power, so they can discriminate against all the people they hate. I expect to see the number of hate crimes and racist attacks multiple tenfold where ever it is you live. So have fun with that. Spreading hatred and ignorance is fun, for some.

no what you're an asshole. the government, in the US, cannot dictate marriage, marriage is not a political institution
any thing granted in a power of attorny must be abided by the government
nice to know you're an antireligion bigot.

I think that you two were arguing totally different things

YOU were arguing that the government currently has a BIG say in marriage which is true.

What Whittier was arguing was that marriage originally came from a RELIGIOUS background and that the government should have no say in the religious portion

By making ALL unions the same (no marriages all civil unions) and allowing the church to add the title of “married” for those that are religiously qualified


See what I mean u were arguing that they DO have a big say while Whittier was arguing that they shouldn’t
exactly, you hit it on the head.

Exactly. If we take the 'government' out of marriage, then only religious folks can get married, and then only if their church likes them.

And these are the same people complaining about the 'sanctity' of marriage? Oh no, we don't want people who *love* each other getting married... my goodness me no... we only want the drunkards from vegas and the idiots like Miss Spears... they send out a *great* message.
athiests can be married by other athiests.

I'm a baptised Catholic, and my best friend is Christian (and anti gay marriage)

I'm not anti-religion, I'm anti-idiot.

The government *can* ammend the constitution disallowing gays to be given state licenses. And no, you're wrong about power of attorneys. Someone else already addressed that. Feel free to go back and reread.

No. Athiests aren't religious. You are saying that marriage is a religious thing (despite all evidence to the contrary). Athiests cannot marry each other under your own notion.

exactly, you hit it on the head.


Marriage was around before religion. Go do some research into ancient culture.

And argh, if you *were* saying that everything should be a civil union if not religious (with the 'additional' title of marriage for religious folks) I either missed it or it was not clear.

If I missed it, I apologise. If it wasn't clear, then just :p

But man, I said that ages ago anyway. You must have missed it when *I* said it too.

Part of the reason for marriage liscenses is to make it easier to keep records. When you are married, you generally share all of your assets - being legally married is the way to legally do that. Otherwise, people get screwed in the end and the courts are tied up with it.



Except for the fact that all of those can be challenged by the family of the person (and since the partner is not *family* they have no say in it). No to mention that this doesn't cover health insurance, 5th amendment rights, child custody, etc, etc.
Your statements make sense. And indeed are matters that hold great weight in the marriage issue.
my comment was directed at someone who was saying religion had absolutely nothing to do with marriage

I'm a baptised Catholic, and my best friend is Christian (and anti gay marriage)

I'm not anti-religion, I'm anti-idiot.

The government *can* ammend the constitution disallowing gays to be given state licenses. And no, you're wrong about power of attorneys. Someone else already addressed that. Feel free to go back and reread.

No. Athiests aren't religious. You are saying that marriage is a religious thing (despite all evidence to the contrary). Athiests cannot marry each other under your own notion.
You don't have to be religious to be married in a church.
Being athiest does not mean you are not religious, that's stereotyping people
and no the government cannot amend the constitution, only the people have the power to amend the constitution
I said the government should not have the power to dictate who can and can not get married.
whether you are religious is irrelevant. There are plenty of churches who marry non religious people
why?
cause its good publicity for them

Marriage was around before religion. Go do some research into ancient culture.

And argh, if you *were* saying that everything should be a civil union if not religious (with the 'additional' title of marriage for religious folks) I either missed it or it was not clear.

If I missed it, I apologise. If it wasn't clear, then just :p

But man, I said that ages ago anyway. You must have missed it when *I* said it too.
religion is what makes marriage sacred,
people should not have to be content with civil unions

I think we are misunderstanding each other
perhaps I misinterpreting your posts

*Shrugs* I was under the impression you were saying the government should have no say in marriage. If you say they have control over 'civil unions' and that *everything* is a civil union, with marriage being an option extra with no extra benefits, I agree with you.

But see, if that had been clear from the start, there'd be no bad blood.

And I still don't know if that's right or not.

----
Yeah, I think we were misinterpreting each others posts... since we both seem to think the other is a pain in the arse, even though we appear to actually agree :p

I'm willing to take the blame for my half and extend peace - hopefully we *are* on the same side, since mud slinging and insults are tiring

*Shrugs* I was under the impression you were saying the government should have no say in marriage. If you say they have control over 'civil unions' and that *everything* is a civil union, with marriage being an option extra with no extra benefits, I agree with you.

But see, if that had been clear from the start, there'd be no bad blood.

And I still don't know if that's right or not.

----
Yeah, I think we were misinterpreting each others posts... since we both seem to think the other is a pain in the arse, even though we appear to actually agree :p

I'm willing to take the blame for my half and extend peace - hopefully we *are* on the same side, since mud slinging and insults are tirering

I think you are right. I will take blame for my half and apologize for calling you dumb***.

UpwardThrust's post brought it to my attention
when I read his post
so he should be credited.

lol glad I helped relieve some of the tension


Anyways I agree with that theory …

Personally marriage has strong religious connotations (regardless of actual law it is a very religious sort of thing)

I think the “all civil union and marriage only for those that request it from their religion” is my favorite point of view

There should be no difference in benefits between them (such as tax … or any other benefits)

Basically what I am saying is should be all the same regardless of the title that comes with it :)

marriage being an option extra with no extra benefits, I agree with you.

interesting. how would that work?

lol glad I helped relieve some of the tension


Anyways I agree with that theory …

Personally marriage has strong religious connotations (regardless of actual law it is a very religious sort of thing)

I think the “all civil union and marriage only for those that request it from their religion” is my favorite point of view

There should be no difference in benefits between them (such as tax … or any other benefits)

Basically what I am saying is should be all the same regardless of the title that comes with it :)

I agree with that

but there is a problem with it though. unfortunately.

yeah their always is :)

And as for how it would work … don’t know, I am sure the government could come up with some fancy new paper work :-P

As long as all the benefits (and yes costs … not EVERYTHING is a benefit) are the same … they could just make a “marriage title” application that has to be approved by lets say a recognized priest or something (would have to be determined) and a few witnesses and what not


But yeah not all that important on the process (at least for this argument :-P )

Well, I'd imagine it being similar to now, but for the civil union (the part without religion, and all the legal benefits) would be like a registry office marriage - you fill out the forms, have a small service for friends and family (or a large one :p), but without a priest... technically just a legal binding.

Then, once you have that, you are entitled to a full religious cerimony at whichever religion it is that accepts you - then you can say you're married (and have a spiffy certificate that says as much too).

I might be missing something vital though :p

The pro-gay marriage people don't need to come up with better reasons. The anti-gay marriage people need to come up with better answers. Or quit whining.[/QUOTE]

Nobody needs to come up with a better anything. This does not affect anybody's life except for gays. It doesn't count if you say something such as, "Well, maybe this guy here who is gay would eventually marry my daughter and have kids with her if gay marriages were illegal, but they're legal so I'll never have grandkids blah blah blah", or some other nonsense - which is all you've got. Shut. Up. Everybody. Pro- and anti-gay marriage. Seriously. Why does everyone care so much? If it doesn't affect you, shut up about it. If it does affect you, leave the unaffected alone about it instead of making it the most widely debated issue in the country.
People who debate this issue-> :confused: :sniper: <- Me

people who skirt the issue

:confused: :mp5:

The idea of gay marriage is so sick. That´s all what I have to say.

I´m convinced that this is never going to happend in civilized countries.

It's already happened in civilized countries, like Canada, and in europe. Pretty much, the US is the backwaters country fighting against it.

Nobody needs to come up with a better anything. This does not affect anybody's life except for gays. It doesn't count if you say something such as, "Well, maybe this guy here who is gay would eventually marry my daughter and have kids with her if gay marriages were illegal, but they're legal so I'll never have grandkids blah blah blah", or some other nonsense - which is all you've got. Shut. Up. Everybody. Pro- and anti-gay marriage. Seriously. Why does everyone care so much? If it doesn't affect you, shut up about it. If it does affect you, leave the unaffected alone about it instead of making it the most widely debated issue in the country.
People who debate this issue-> :confused: :sniper: <- Me

yeah, sort of like how those stupid civil rights people should have shut up and left everyone alone, instead of making a big stink about inequality. after all, if you aren't black then you shouldn't care what happens to black people, and if you're a man you shouldn't care about women, and if you are Christian you shouldn't care about Jews...just leave them to suffer when they are being treated unfairly. and if you are the one being persecuted, don't speak up or try to change things, just suffer and die and let everyone else get back to watching the game.

Wow...

D'ya think Dark Futrures really was a Rhesus monkey?

Gays are not. If they are not existing the world wouldn´t be missing anything. .

Ok, that's it. You just earned my Ignore Cannon. you have nothing useful to say.
If THEY (insert your favorite hated minority here) are not existing the world wouldn't be missing anything.
Real intelligent.
So, we exist simply to procreate and nothing else, huh?
What about technological/scientific discoveries that happened to have been done by gays? What about great works of art (Michelangelo, for example) done by gays...yes, Michelangelo WAS gay, folks...
So the world wouldn't be missing anything, right?

Idiocy such as this can have but one response...
goodbye, Kybernetia. Enjoy your all-expense paid, one-way trip to Ignore Island, courtesy of ValuJet.