NationStates Jolt Archive

If gay relationships are getting the same benefits than there would be less money for those benefits for marriage .

Ah, and NOW we get to the NUB of the argument...If you give money and benefits to those "freaks" there's less there for ME!!!
We understand now, Kybernetia. Enjoy your one-way trip to Ignore Island.

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.
so are Unitarian Universalists! Sorry, had to get a plug in for MY religion...
Yes, i know we are only 0.8% of the U.S. population, but we still ARE a recognized religion.

Ah, and NOW we get to the NUB of the argument...If you give money and benefits to those "freaks" there's less there for ME!!!
We understand now, Kybernetia. Enjoy your one-way trip to Ignore Island.

yeah, seriously. that's what it always comes down to..."gays are icky, and i don't want to share."

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 )

and how quickly those HACKED OFF black people forget the gays who marched alongside them to get their rights...the gays who faced the fire hoses in Selma and other places, BECAUSE IT WAS RIGHT THAT BLACKS SHOULD HAVE EQUALITY.
I see this as no different.
Yet, here now, we see these "hacked off" blacks, many of whom are old eniugh to have lived under Jim Crow...and many of whom faced those fire hoses, lynch mobs, and police brutality...now they are rubbing shoulders with the very people who mowed them down with fire hoses 40 years ago, against a hated minority. What short memories these "hacked off" blacks have.
I'm quite frankly HACKED OFF with thes "hacked off" blacks who obviously have a pathetically short memory, and have forgotten what discrimination, bigotry, hatred, and prejudice feel like.

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. .

As a transgender person, I feel I must disagree with you. WE are the most-discriminated-against group of people in the world. HRC continuing to use transgender as bargaining chips in ENDA, anyone?

You want to discuss WHY transgender are EVEN MORE vulnerable to, and recipients of discrimination than you gays are, I'll be glad to do it, but in a different thread, as I will not hijack this one.

Having said that, I still stand behind your cause...you ought damn well be allowed to get married to the person you love.

This is something that REALLY HACKS ME THE F**K OFF ABOUT SOME IN THE GAY COMMUNITY!! WE transgenders support THEIR causes...but then, when WE ask for the GAY community to support US...by including us in ENDA...they sell us down the f**king river!!

Forget the whole "gay marriage" issue for a moment. (I'm against it)

I am deeply concerned about Dark Fututre's apparent lack of command regarding the English language. Simple conjugation and symmetry are beyond Dark's ability, or so it would seem.

Therefore, without the ability to put forth a cognizant argument in plain and simple English, I find no reason to give credence to anything Dark espouses.

Ah, and NOW we get to the NUB of the argument...If you give money and benefits to those "freaks" there's less there for ME!!!
We understand now, Kybernetia. Enjoy your one-way trip to Ignore Island.

And never mind that people don't get money for being married and that the benefits aren't exactly limited by supply and demand principles. In reality Kybernetia's argument boils down to, "FREAKS!" and that's it.

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.

.
GET THIS THROUGH YOUR F**KING THICK HEAD...NO ONE IS TELLING YOU THAT YOU HAVE TO SAY OR THINK THAT THEIR BEHAVIOR IS ACCEPTABLE IN YOUR EYES OR GOD'S EYES.
WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS GAY PEOPLE OUGHT TO HAVE THE SAME LEGAL RIGHTS AND STANDING AS HETERO COUPLES!!
Anything less is a breach of the Consitituion, and the promise of america to ALL it's citizens.
Sorry, but The Declaration of Independence DOES NOT read "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all heterosexual men were created equal..."

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.
Actually, Christianity, as I learned it SHOULD NOT HAVE HATE TO FOCUS!! The Christianity I learned about was about acceptance, joy, love, tolerance, peace...wasn't THIS the message of Jesus?
Or did I miss some newly-revised version of The Bible?

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.

No, he's an Anti-HATE bigot.
Many religious people support gay marriage.
Thanks for playing.
and enjoy your one-way trip to Ignore Island, courtesy of ValuJet, where you can join other like-minded people as yourself who have been sent there ahead of you.

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.)
because gay people arent different, tats why they need to marry. we shouldnt argue about it at all, its going to happen. the times they are a changin

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

A bit off topic, but it seems appropriate here...
I'm going to quote P.J. O'Rourke, on The War On terror:
"We are approaching this war on terror all the wrong way. We should be looking for common ground. We could go to them and say, 'hey...you're religious lunatics...WE'RE religious lunatics! how 'bout them Salem witch trials?! Come to America, guys...you can be Osama Bin Ashcroft!"

Thank you, P.J. for those fine words.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled flame war, already in progress...

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.

That was a joke: Canada - Kaner da (bavarian) - Keiner da (german) - Nobody there (English).
Well: Admittetly you hardly had a chance you get it.
And by the way 31,825,416 people are very little for a country that is bigger than the USA. How many are that per Km² or per square mile??? 10 or less????
We already have more than 230 people per km². I think that is more than enough really.
Canada may not have states but you have provinces - or whatever you call them: departements, cantons, countys - I don´t know.
They have some independence as far as I know, especially the province Quebec.

As far as I know most immigrants to Canada nowadays are Asians. So obviously you don´t need to be white.
There are not so many white people who are leaving Europe permanently nowadays. But they are some so called Russian Germans (most from Kazachstan (in Central Asia) who first migrated to Germany (which they can do due to the fact that they are decendants of Germans) and than decide to move to Canada because they are you used to leave in rural low populated areas and such arreas are pretty scare in this country.
I´m shure that Canada has some restrictions.
But whether they are really that high, I doubt. They may be high for Africans but not for middle class or upper middle class Europeans actually.
Anyway: I don´t plan to migrate. I´m currently quite happy where I am.

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? 1. To support a minority group (what about a majority groupand harm a majority group?), 2. to stop discrimination (to discriminate against Christains proving their ideal are stuipd?), 3. 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.), 4. Because they deserve the same rights. (My point they have the same rights as we do.), 5. 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.)

1. What majority group? How would it harm them? Would gay marriage really infringe upon their own rights as United States citizens?

2. Discrimination against Christians? Christianity, although popular, is not a core in our government. Taking the 10 Commandments out of school could "discriminate against the Christians" according to you, I guess. But it happens. Seperation of Church and State, my friend. And besides, that's not discrimination in the first place.

3. True marriage according to what? Christianity? ERRRRNT! Wrong answer, I think we covered this already? True marriage is whatever the leglislative branch wants to say it is, or the Supreme Court too!

4. Oh, they have the same rights as us but they can't get married? You're saying that marriage is such an insignificant right, then, that it isn't included in someones rights. Why are you making such a big fuss about it being legal for homosexuals, then?

5. Know what, how? How is a generation of homosexuals today going to affect your children and grandchildren and so on down the line? Sure, more homosexuals will appear in more generations to come, but what, are they going to force your future children and grandchildren to become homosexuals like them? That's ridiculous. Why don't you come up with something non-religious and that really states that homosexuals, as United States citizens, can't have the same rights because of their sexual preferences.

And never mind that people don't get money for being married and that the benefits aren't exactly limited by supply and demand principles. In reality Kybernetia's argument boils down to, "FREAKS!" and that's it.

Which is WHY he was given my all-expense-paid, one-way trip to Ignore Island. I have no problem with someone who holds a different opinion, if they can back up their argument with something logical. Kybernetia, alas, does not fit this qualification.

Reading through this thread has painted an interesting and intricate picture of how society works. There are two sides to this issue, and both are calling each other wrong and saying that they are right. I suppose that's what you have in any debate.

To solve this debate, one must look at all of the points on both sides and judge their validity. The arguments for gay marriage are overwhelming (at least on this forum - I find the audience here to be more liberal/open-minded). Those arguments include:

Equal treatment
Born that way, not raised
It is unconstitutional to discriminate against a group of people
Victims of imposed beliefs
The Bible teaches love, acceptance, and joy; not hatred.
Two men or two women can love each other with just as much affection as one man and one woman.
The real threat to marriage is the high divoce rate.
The real threat to marriage is marriages like Ms. Spears'.
A gay couple getting married would not affect a straight couple.
This is the next group in the civil rights movement.
Marriage is not a religious instutition.
People were married long before Christianity or other religions existed.

I am sure there are many more, but they elude me for the moment. The arguments against include:

I don't like gay people.
God says it's wrong.
[insert religious figure here] says it's wrong.
It is not natural.
We are meant to make babies.



That's the general gist of it. Now, weigh both those sides. I would say the for group has a great deal of concrete points to debate, while the agaist people use the same reasoning without validity. I am not saying that all religious people are wrong, don't interpret it like that. I am saying that there is really very little in the argument against allowing these civil rights compared to the argument for it.

John Waters said...

.."why would homosexuals want to engage in such a hetrosexual practice"

The only negative aspect I have heard regarding marriage and homosexuals is that it would diminish the "Act of marriage"...no other civilization (and I'm talking civilization, not just the 4-5 countries currently accepting of it) has endorsed homosexual "marriage"..it has been accepted for millenia that of being one man and one woman...

Currently in Norway or was it Sweden..I forget which...marriages have declined since the inception of homosexual "marriages"...fewer heterosexuals have been married....there are groups here in the States that present the "Domino Theory" of marriage..that if you let homosexuals marry, then what is to stop polygamists..necrophiliacs..etc..etc..

"marriage" has always had religous undertones to it...it is an undeniable fact of life..now...the proper thing to do would be to have the federal government no longer have any special recognition to "marriage" and issue out civil union licences in order to obtain the necessary benefits that currently "married" heterosexuals enjoy.....if the gay activists truly were looking out for their own, then they would accept this proposal instead of trying to make a point and set precedent just to make their point.

... so I will retort to the question why not gay marriage, Why? To support a minority group (what about a majority group and 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.)


First of all no one is saying the christian ideals are stupid, and anyway we dont HAVE christian ideals in our government, or we shouldn't at any rate. Second of all, this ideal that marriage is one man and one woman came from the BIBLE and to hold a biblical view of marriage would be supporting a religion within our government. Third of all, why are you so afraid of homosexual people getting equality? Cause it's not like women got treated like crap for millenia just because of the Bible oh wait.. they did, and we are starting to fix that now too. Why not fix the discrimination against homosexuality while we are at it? Banning gay marriage is yet another attempt at religious jerks saying that their will is right and everyone else's opinion is wrong simply based off the words written by MAN.

Reading through this thread has painted an interesting and intricate picture of how society works. There are two sides to this issue, and both are calling each other wrong and saying that they are right. I suppose that's what you have in any debate.

To solve this debate, one must look at all of the points on both sides and judge their validity. The arguments for gay marriage are overwhelming (at least on this forum - I find the audience here to be more liberal/open-minded). Those arguments include:

Equal treatment
Born that way, not raised
It is unconstitutional to discriminate against a group of people
Victims of imposed beliefs
The Bible teaches love, acceptance, and joy; not hatred.
Two men or two women can love each other with just as much affection as one man and one woman.
The real threat to marriage is the high divoce rate.
The real threat to marriage is marriages like Ms. Spears'.
A gay couple getting married would not affect a straight couple.
This is the next group in the civil rights movement.
Marriage is not a religious instutition.
People were married long before Christianity or other religions existed.

I am sure there are many more, but they elude me for the moment. The arguments against include:

I don't like gay people.
God says it's wrong.
[insert religious figure here] says it's wrong.
It is not natural.
We are meant to make babies.



That's the general gist of it. Now, weigh both those sides. I would say the for group has a great deal of concrete points to debate, while the agaist people use the same reasoning without validity. I am not saying that all religious people are wrong, don't interpret it like that. I am saying that there is really very little in the argument against allowing these civil rights compared to the argument for it.

You won't find many adherents in the African-American community. The major African-American groups oppose homosexual marriage...and many of them are ticked offf that gays would try to piggyback their situation on top of their struggle.

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.

I'm not saying gays should shut up about it. Pay attention. I said gays should leave us out of it. We have nothing to do with it, the only people who do that aren't gay is the government, and only them because they were morons and got INTO it. Again, pay attention.

I'm not saying gays should shut up about it. Pay attention. I said gays should leave us out of it. We have nothing to do with it, the only people who do that aren't gay is the government, and only them because they were morons and got INTO it. Again, pay attention.

pay attention to my post before you throw a tantrum, little one. it is EVERYONE'S business when rights are being denied to a minority. i'm white and female, but i support the rights of ethnic minorities and men because it IS my business...don't make me bring out the "and then they came for me and there was nobody left to speak out" quote.

in America, WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. take some freaking responsibility, you child, and get past your selfish, petty world view. if you don't want to have to deal with other people's issues than go live on an island some place. if you want to live in America then you will have to deal with discussion and issues beyond your tiny whims. if you don't want to participate then go play in your room and let the grown-ups get things done.

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.

Going back to your original inane comment...(insert elitist, obscure joke couched in a foreign language here), I guess the gist of your arguement is that because Canada has such a low population density IT'S OKAY FOR GAYS TO MARRY HERE. Other countries with higher populations however, by the very fact of having a higher population, are more moral than us. Which I guess is why I can go to Amsterdam and smoke hash legally (need I insert the population density of the Netherlands? Na.), and if I go to Brazil, I can see legally recognized transgendered folks all over! Brazil is pretty crowded, ya know. Now, I think both of these things are great, but it kind of blows a whole in your theory. Now if you want to do a comparative study on the level of civilization in different countries...go right ahead, but please come up with something that at least resembles evidence for once. You know... facts, not opinions.

Uh-oh.... now I've let the cat out of the bag... gays from all over the world will flock to savage, barren, empty Canada to get married.....then they'll go back to their crowded, moralistic countries and spread the gay! (that's just my opinion mind you. See how that works?)

Going back to your original inane comment...(insert elitist, obscure joke couched in a foreign language here), I guess the gist of your arguement is that because Canada has such a low population density IT'S OKAY FOR GAYS TO MARRY HERE. Other countries with higher populations however, by the very fact of having a higher population, are more moral than us.

There is one thing I don´t like and that is if people make up things out of other peoples comment which they haven´t said. I was only responding to your comment that there 31 million (and whatsoever people) isn´t nothing and countering with the fact that Canada is such a big country with one of the lowest density levels of the population in the world.
I was not at all refferring to gay marriage, I was more referring to immigration.
And by the way: just look on the map how big Brazil is and look on the population density: it is much lower than the one in Central Europe. Well: higher than in Canada but there are not many countries with a lower population density than Canada- Kaner da- Keiner da- Nobody there, hehehe)
Coming back to the issue: I´m against it for principal reasons which I have already stated before, you just have to go back in the thread.
That has nothing to do with the population density.
And I´m of course also against the outrageous Dutch drug laws. If one country does foolish things we don´t have to copy it. There are countries who stone people to death: Shall we copy that as well??? Or cut away hands????
That is not an argument at all.

Adding: I underline my statement regarding immigration: it would open another door for it.
But this is not the reason I´m against it. There are many other reasons which I´ve stated before. You can´t give benefits to everybody, you have to make a choice.
And after all: the state has the right to regulate marriages.
After all: it affects rights and responsibilities of husband and wives towards each other. They are legal responsibilities and rights, which differ from country to country but who are always there (taxation, social security, financial responsiblity, will, name, e.g.).

I don´t know how you call your sub-state units: maybe you call them provinces, territories, depatements, cantons or something else. Granted, admitted I don´t know. But what I do know is that they have some sovereignity and independence (e.g. Quebec). And I´ve heard here that there are different laws regarding this in different provinces, states or whatever you call them.

@US gay marriage supporters,
Someone said that the state has no right to regulate marriage. I strongly disagree. The state has the right to regulate marriages.
After all: it affects rights and responsibilities of husband and wives towards each other. They are legal responsibilities and rights, which differ from country to country but who are always there (taxation, social security, financial responsiblity, will, name, e.g.).
If a religion would allow pedophilia, polygamy, bestiality or incest marriage would that be ok as well???
No, it wouldn´t. And since there are rights which are due to marriage, rights of civil law, responsibilities as well it is a responsibility and a right of the state to regulate it. After all: also divorce is a state matter, a matter of the courts. So the argument that it is not a state matter is completly eroneous.

By the way: the state of Utah had to ban polygamy before it could enter the US. So, obviously the US has a long legal tradition of regulating marriages by the state, such as any other country has.

It's not whether or not you believe they have the moral right. Everyone has a different opinion on that.

They don't have the legal right. Church and state are separate institutions. Although marriage does have something to do with state, the church is the main thing.

Maybe they should just let gays get married by the church and deny them legal marriage rights.

I don't really care though because I'm not gay.

And I´m of course also against the outrageous Dutch drug laws. If one country does foolish things we don´t have to copy it. There are countries who stone people to death: Shall we copy that as well??? Or cut away hands????
That is not an argument at all.

It is a fact tho that the use of drugs in Holland is declining, so their drug laws aren't that foolish don't you think? People that use weed there don't have to go into a criminal enviroment to buy them, they don't have to pay a lot as they aren't that expensive, they can get help with relative ease, they don't get thrown in jail which only makes them weaker in the social system and more inclined to revert to crime ... when we are talking about weed the problem really isn't the drug itself (allthough you can still overdo it in which case you need help, not punishment) but the criminal enviroment and the cost. why do you think the typical junky you see in the movies steals tv's? because he is insane?

The only negative aspect I have heard regarding marriage and homosexuals is that it would diminish the "Act of marriage"...no other civilization (and I'm talking civilization, not just the 4-5 countries currently accepting of it) has endorsed homosexual "marriage"..it has been accepted for millenia that of being one man and one woman...

So it would diminish marriage just because it changes it? That *might* make sense if the definition of marriage hadn't been changing for all of those millenia.

Currently in Norway or was it Sweden..I forget which...marriages have declined since the inception of homosexual "marriages"...fewer heterosexuals have been married....

Actually that's a common misconception. The marriage rates were already super-low (as compared to the rest of the world) because the laws there actually favor singles. When homosexual marriage was legalized, the rates went up to a point that was still lower than the rest of the world, but was higher than it had been for years. So, there has been no drop in marriage due to homosexual marriage being legalized.

there are groups here in the States that present the "Domino Theory" of marriage..that if you let homosexuals marry, then what is to stop polygamists..necrophiliacs..etc..etc..

That would be fine if the "domino theory" had any validity at all. But it doesn't.

"marriage" has always had religous undertones to it...it is an undeniable fact of life..now...the proper thing to do would be to have the federal government no longer have any special recognition to "marriage" and issue out civil union licences in order to obtain the necessary benefits that currently "married" heterosexuals enjoy.....if the gay activists truly were looking out for their own, then they would accept this proposal instead of trying to make a point and set precedent just to make their point.

If there was anyone in the government who espoused that view, I doubt the pro-gay marriage crowd would object (other than to say that the idea of changing the term is useless). The problem is that this proposal is only constitutional if the term "civil union" is applied to both homosexual and heterosexual marriages - and no one in the government has even brought up that idea (to my knowledge).

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.)

Well, here's a new argument. Gays and lesbians, on the average, exhibit much better spelling and grammar than this moron. Is English your native language? I would suggest you go back to school and learn how to communicate with other English-speaking people (these include Americans, Canadians, the British, Austrailians, New Zealanders... I'm sure you've heard of at least one of these places) before you attempt to mangle your own political positions in public forums.

- Proud to be a literate American

No, he's an Anti-HATE bigot.
Many religious people support gay marriage.
Thanks for playing.
and enjoy your one-way trip to Ignore Island, courtesy of ValuJet, where you can join other like-minded people as yourself who have been sent there ahead of you.
Where the hell did I say they didn't?
Read the posts before responding.

It's not whether or not you believe they have the moral right. Everyone has a different opinion on that.

They don't have the legal right. Church and state are separate institutions. Although marriage does have something to do with state, the church is the main thing.

Maybe they should just let gays get married by the church and deny them legal marriage rights.

I don't really care though because I'm not gay.
bull, the church is NOT the main thing, church is just icing, a church wedding is just a frilly cover, the actual marriage is going to the coutrhouse and getting papers filed

bull, the church is NOT the main thing, church is just icing, a church wedding is just a frilly cover, the actual marriage is going to the coutrhouse and getting papers filed

yeah, i am deeply offended by people saying the Church is the most important part of marriage. the ONLY part i care about, from the outside, is the rights and civil laws about my union. my (most likely heterosexual) union will have NOTHING to do with God, since i believe religion is an insult to a true union between two people, and i think it is horribly arrogant and rude for people to claim that a church wedding is anything more than a state wedding or even just getting a marriage certificate. i don't care whose imaginary friend watches other people get married, the only way it really counts is in the way the state recognizes, since that's the only way i am bound to respect.

Originally Posted by New Fubaria
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.

Yes, the misunderstanding was yours.

I meant that members of a particular (non-human) species which are exclusively homosexual are much rarer than members of a particular species which are bisexual. I thought that the wording was fairly clear on this. To dumb it down for you some more, I will give an example: male chimps which have sex ONLY with other male chimps are much rarer that chimps who have sex with male AND female chimps...i.e. they just enjoy sex and aren't picky.

But I guess you were so whipped up in a frenzy trying to read homopohbic or other context into my message that you missed the point of it. ;)

The point I was trying to make is that you can't neccessarily compare the sexual habits of humans and other animals. Comprende? :)

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


You are not very smart. I bet you anything that i could make a community of homosexuals last longer than you could a community of hetersexuals. Anything.
Hmm, well, back when i used to wait for the bus outside the fence where two male dogs lived, we used to get a kick out of watching them lick eachothers penises till they got aroused. Now, i live with two female cats, and they enjoy licking eachother. If you're going to say that thay is because there is an irregular living condition forced upon them, i would agree with you. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
If you would ask me to find homosexual mammals in the wild, i would ask you to find mammals that are not struggling to keep their numbers from being killed off by human development.

Yes, the misunderstanding was yours.

I meant that members of a particular (non-human) species which are exclusively homosexual are much rarer than members of a particular species which are bisexual. I thought that the wording was fairly clear on this. To dumb it down for you some more, I will give an example: male chimps which have sex ONLY with other male chimps are much rarer that chimps who have sex with male AND female chimps...i.e. they just enjoy sex and aren't picky.

But I guess you were so whipped up in a frenzy trying to read homophbic context into my message that you missed the point of it. ;)

The point I was trying to make is that you can't neccessarily compare the sexual habits of humans and other animals. Comprende? :)


i am with you right up until the end...all evidence suggests that humans are just like chimps in this respect, that we are "naturally" bisexual but that our social conditioning and environment bias people differently toward "gay" or "straight" orientations. very few humans are actually 100% straight or gay, just like with the chimps.

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.


i agree with all of your points here except for the first: "Obviously most cases of homosexuality are from birth, not from environment. Who would chose a life of ridicule???"
Why would Ghandi, Copernicus, Jesus, Elizabeth I, Martin Luther King, and so many other great thinkers have defied authority to expand the social consciousness of the world. Was it genetic? I think not. I think it had much more to do with being inspired by the state of affairs around them.

i agree with all of your points here except for the first: "Obviously most cases of homosexuality are from birth, not from environment. Who would chose a life of ridicule???"
Why would Ghandi, Copernicus, Jesus, Elizabeth I, Martin Luther King, and so many other great thinkers have defied authority to expand the social consciousness of the world. Was it genetic? I think not. I think it had much more to do with being inspired by the state of affairs around them.
those are individuals making a choice to make a statement
you tell me how thousands if not millions of people are just becomngui gay to make a statement, all the 14 year olds out there being "i think ill be gay and make a point"
lets try no

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.

Thank you Arantia. That was very well said.

I'm not saying gays should shut up about it. Pay attention. I said gays should leave us out of it. .
Ah, the classic FYIGM attitude! You must be an Uncle Tom. Bet you even vote Republican, don't you? You certainly have their attitude!
What is FYIGM, you ask? Well, FYIGM is "Fuck You, I Got Mine!"
And that is the only attitude I can ascribe to "hacked off" blacks like you who fail to see the comparison of unfair discrimination y'all recieved less than 40 years ago...and the unfair discrimination WE face today.
You are now rubbing shoulders with the same people who, 40 years ago, mowed you down with fire hoses to prevent you from going to public schools...and, of course, prevented you from marrying a WHITE woman, if that was what you wanted. (I'm assuming here you are a black man.)

My, what poor and short memory your have, my dear. Have you forgotten the gay people who stood up with you, faced down the fire hoses in Selma and other places with you, or your ancestors? Who stood up to hate and bigotry when YOU were the victim of it...but now that WE are, and you aren't...your attitude is FYIGM!! Interesting.

Perhaps Dean Koontz was right when he put these words into a character's mouth in one of his books, "An oppressed minority, given it's rights, will eventually become ardent oppressors in their own right."

You and other "hacked off" blacks are proving the truth of those very words with your FYIGM attitude.

Have a nice day, Uncle Tom!

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.

Ninjaustralia, thank you for at least using some calm intelligence in your input. Because you seem like someone actually worth discussing the issue with, do you think that the United States government has the right to keep gays from marrying?

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.

Read a few pages back, we already discussed this. Go study biology, current affairs, and how love works a bit more and then think about it some more.

Ninjaustralia, thank you for at least using some calm intelligence in your input. Because you seem like someone actually worth discussing the issue with, do you think that the United States government has the right to keep gays from marrying?
dont they have the same right to marry just like every one else right now?

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...


Dude, how funny would that be if 300 years from now, a small group of rebel men and women tried to have sex with eachother instead of their own genders, and all of the homosexuals who had been using genetic science to reproduce shunned them and refused to let them be together and they had to fight for their rights. Oh man that would be funny.

Okay, this argument is going all askew. But, I'll re-add my 10 cents worth too.

Everyone is talking about discrimination against the Christians ... how can they wave their arms around about discrimination?! My understanding of human history is that they were the most notorious discriminators of them all. Lets burn you, lets drown you, lets stab you, lets steal your kids, lets throw you in the stocks … and why? Because they had a personal preference to do things that weren’t boldly Christian (and I’m not talking about obvious criminal acts such as murder here) – and most likely they were doing these things well before they even knew what a Christian or a Church was. Do people think that homosexual practise is a totally new thing? That no one had ever done it before the Christians came onto the scene? Ever think that the Christians have objected to enough lifestyle choices in their run of absolute power over the years?

On the note of effecting further generations and children:
I’d like to note here, most of the famous literary geniuses that we teach our children about in all grades of school had engaged in some form of homosexual practise. It is noted and well known. Want to stop Shakespeare from being openly taught too cause it will 'have bad effects' on your children?

religion is what makes marriage sacred,
people should not have to be content with civil unions
Ding ding ding ding!!! Give this guy a car, he is a champion!

To the anti-gay marriage people, what would you say if you were told “Okay, we will give you this means nothing, cheap knock off of a marriage ceremony so you will shut up” ? I wouldn’t want the sub-standard knock off, would you? Ever think that the gay people who share very Christian ideals might feel a bit unhappy at being poked away into a ‘civil union’?

It's already happened in civilized countries, like Canada, and in europe. Pretty much, the US is the backwaters country fighting against it.Yup, and good old Aussie too. There is as much debate about the issue over here as in the States. We are a little sheep nation following the US around like faithful doggies. Civilized people living in civilized countries? We can’t call ourselves such. Not when over half our population would happily murder all gay people (probably in the name of God) instead of offering them equal grounding. That isnt civil.

Human beings are exactly that, human. Freedom of choice shouldnt be held under a glass roof. Otherwise everyone can shut up about being "a fair and civilized people", cause we are NOT!

This is my opinion, take it, or don't. Whatever.

:headbang: <-- Me

pay attention to my post before you throw a tantrum, little one. it is EVERYONE'S business when rights are being denied to a minority. i'm white and female, but i support the rights of ethnic minorities and men because it IS my business...don't make me bring out the "and then they came for me and there was nobody left to speak out" quote.

in America, WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. take some freaking responsibility, you child, and get past your selfish, petty world view. if you don't want to have to deal with other people's issues than go live on an island some place. if you want to live in America then you will have to deal with discussion and issues beyond your tiny whims. if you don't want to participate then go play in your room and let the grown-ups get things done.*Claps hands frantically* While we are at it, give this woman a car too. You are a champion! I totally agree.

dont they have the same right to marry just like every one else right now?

yes, we are all equally oppressed by American laws; we all are required to only choose a mate from the opposite gender, much like we once were all required to choose a mate from our own race. while some people are fine with this restriction, others are not, and we all deserve to make that choice for ourselves rather than having the government make it for us.

after all, it's hard enough to find the right person to settle down with, without the goverment cutting your options even further :).

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

Next point?


Read the UN laws regarding marriage.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents]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.
QUOTE]


AH HA! SO we have gotten to the root of the problem -- assets. Any other anti-capitalists out there agree?

Read the UN laws regarding marriage.

why? America apparently doesn't give a damn about the UN, so why would we use their definition of marriage? and where in our membership to the UN does it say we need to be bound by the UN's definition of marriage?

[QUOTE=Dempublicents]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.
QUOTE]


AH HA! SO we have gotten to the root of the problem -- assets. Any other anti-capitalists out there agree?

i'm very much a capitalist, yet i agree that's the root of the problem. why would one need to be anti-capitalist to see the idiocy and transparent greed in that person's post?

Or better yet do not make marriage a legal issue but leave it to the seperate relgions to make the rules and the goverment would just recongize civil unions.

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.

Yes they can. They can create a church of Atheism, where they listen to a preacher talk about how God does not exist. And in this church they can marry eachother. The government ensures their right to do so, yet it does not say that they must. This way, they can call them selves married in the eyes of their friends and neighbors if they really want to.
The goverment should not concern itself with this though. It is part of their private lives. Why should the government care? If, however, the goverment would like to offer an organizational option for people who would like to to share assets and health benefits they can. For the sake of avoiding confusion, we are calling this civil union, and the religious agreement marriage.

Yes they can. They can create a church of Atheism, where they listen to a preacher talk about how God does not exist. And in this church they can marry eachother. The government ensures their right to do so, yet it does not say that they must. This way, they can call them selves married in the eyes of their friends and neighbors if they really want to.
The goverment should not concern itself with this though. It is part of their private lives. Why should the government care? If, however, the goverment would like to offer an organizational option for people who would like to to share assets and health benefits they can. For the sake of avoiding confusion, we are calling this civil union, and the religious agreement marriage.I think the thing is that they do not want it just to be recognised in the eyes of their friends and neighbours ... they want the world, and (for those who share that religion) their God to recognise it.

God is supposed to love everybody (unless they kill people in cold blood and such and dont repent, etc) ... right? Then, the Churchs and God should love the fact that two of 'Gods creatues' love eachother and want to be recognised as a couple.

My friend is bisexual and is currently in a homosexual relationship. She was raised Christian and even dragged me to Church once. She believes in God, and as such, her God should love her. If she wants to get married, what ... God doesnt love her anymore???

:confused:

If we want to bring religion into this so deeply with statements like "being Gay is against God, so they cant be married"... then anyone who isnt of a Catholic or Christian religion cant get married. And there, well, you have a whole new set of beans to play with.

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 )

I would be cautious of doing this. I think that it is important to keep the separation of church and state, even if it makes it slightly inconvenient for people in that htey must go to two places to get a marriage and then a civil union. Who knows, some people might even like being marriaed to one person and civily united to another. Or would that be polygamy? Oh well, it's legal in Utah.

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.

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

Umm, wow. That's really funny. See, we are all having a good time discussing this, and we do have a reason, whether we are gay or not -- we feel that it is important for the advancement of civil liberty and social consiousness. Now, if you don't think that this is worth talking about, simply don't read it, and don't write anything. We are all aware of our right to remain silent. Are you? Because you seem a little hypocritical if yo uthink about it. I suggest going and asking the person nearest to you for a hug.

I would be cautious of doing this. I think that it is important to keep the separation of church and state, even if it makes it slightly inconvenient for people in that htey must go to two places to get a marriage and then a civil union. Who knows, some people might even like being marriaed to one person and civily united to another. Or would that be polygamy? Oh well, it's legal in Utah.

i think it would be easy to make marriage and civil union mutually exclusive, and people already have to go to two different places to be married...the ceremony and the court house (for the license).

personally i wish i didn't have to be "married" to get the benefits, as i have said before, because i hate most of what the tradition of marriage stands for. i totally support having civil unions available for those of us who have no interest in "traditional" unions.

>To the anti-gay marriage people, what would you say if you were told “Okay, we will give you this means nothing, cheap knock off of a marriage ceremony so you will shut up” ? I wouldn’t want the sub-standard knock off, would you? Ever think that the gay people who share very Christian ideals might feel a bit unhappy at being poked away into a ‘civil union’?<

I am for legalisation of gay marriages (well, to be honest, I'm not really one way or the other). I am most definitely against people telling a church or religion that they must change their traditions to pander to anyone.

Why should any religion be expected to change the "rules" to suit particular parishoners? Here's a simple tip - if you don't want to follow the rules of a particular religion, LEAVE. Yep, that easy. Personally I think the majority of organised religions are incredibly stupid, which is why I choose not to belong to any. I am happy to be agnostic. :)

Your argument is like saying "Hey, a lot of Jews out there would really enjoy eating bacon, lets erase that pesky little line from their holy book so they can". Anyway, I think that your argument may be fundamentally different from that of most people here - I think more are looking for a legal acceptance than a religious one.

That was a joke: Canada - Kaner da (bavarian) - Keiner da (german) - Nobody there (English).
You are funny, you should go into comedy


How many are that per Km² or per square mile??? 10 or less????
We already have more than 230 people per km². I think that is more than enough really.
Oh man, i'm moving to Canada -- they have much fewer stupid people per square foot.

Canada may not have states but you have provinces - or whatever you call them: departements, cantons, countys - I don´t know.
They have some independence as far as I know, especially the province Quebec.
It's called Google.com. It's easy to use, and helps you not sound ignorant.

I´m shure that Canada has some restrictions. Sure.

I´m currently quite happy where I am. That is what matters. But it is always nice to openmindedly compair your situation to that of others, becasue you mind find that you could be happier. It's a process of enlightenment.

I'm sorry for being mean sometimes, like that ignorant comment and correcting your spelling. I'm just looking out for you. I wouldn't want you being so happy where you are that you don't take the time to improve your thought process, since that is the reason we find ourselves here on this discussion board (unless you are just trying to show off and doing a bad job of it).

I am for legalisation of gay marriages (well, to be honest, I'm not really one way or the other). I am most definitely against people telling a church or religion that they must change their traditions to pander to everyone.

Why should any religion be expected to change the "rules" to suit particular parishoners? Here's a simple tip - if you don't want to follow the rules of a particular religion, LEAVE. Yep, that easy. Personally I think the majority of organised religions are incredibly stupid, which is why I choose not to belong to any. I am happy to be agnostic. :)

Your argument is like saying "Hey, a lot of Jews out there would really enjoy eating bacon, lets erase that pesky little line from their holy book so they can". Anyway, I think that your argument may be fundamentally different from that of most people here - I think more are looking for a legal acceptance than a religious one.

I agree with that.

I think the thing is that they do not want it just to be recognised in the eyes of their friends and neighbours ... they want the world, and (for those who share that religion) their God to recognise it.



But... Odiumm, their friends and neighbors are the world, unless you mean the rocks and trees and such. I'm sorry if i was wrong to assume they wouldn't care as much. Umm, and as for their God, atheists don't have a god. That's what atheist means.

i'm very much a capitalist, yet i agree that's the root of the problem. why would one need to be anti-capitalist to see the idiocy and transparent greed in that person's post?

Well, it's the inherent tendancy toward corruption because of it's allowance for greed to abound that makes me dislike capitalism. As an economic system, it makes a lot of sense and would work quite well, if some device could be added to it that would prevent people from being greedy and accumulating wealth. This creates class stratification and the need to institute inflation, which both will respectively bring about a collapse of organized democratic society, and of the economy itself (though not necessarily in that order).

I am for legalisation of gay marriages (well, to be honest, I'm not really one way or the other). I am most definitely against people telling a church or religion that they must change their traditions to pander to anyone.

Why should any religion be expected to change the "rules" to suit particular parishoners? Here's a simple tip - if you don't want to follow the rules of a particular religion, LEAVE. Yep, that easy. Personally I think the majority of organised religions are incredibly stupid, which is why I choose not to belong to any. I am happy to be agnostic. :)

Your argument is like saying "Hey, a lot of Jews out there would really enjoy eating bacon, lets erase that pesky little line from their holy book so they can". Anyway, I think that your argument may be fundamentally different from that of most people here - I think more are looking for a legal acceptance than a religious one.I just find it interesting that religions are happy to change things (and they have, which is why there are different editions of the bible) when it suits something 'they' want to do, but not others. (No, I cant think of any exact examples ... but I remember a few issues that fitted into that statement). I am an athiest myself (for all intents and purposes anyway) ... but even though I dont believe in God no one will stop me from marrying a man in a Church, my exact religious beliefs dont even enter the picture really. If I wanted to marry a woman however, well there are beans everywhere - but none about me not believing in God, just my choice in love. I just find that odd when everyone is on the religious boat that no one cares about my religion in marriage.

But... Odiumm, their friends and neighbors are the world, unless you mean the rocks and trees and such. I'm sorry if i was wrong to assume they wouldn't care as much. Umm, and as for their God, atheists don't have a god. That's what atheist means.I know that, I am athiest myself (for all intents and purposes anyway). I was refering to the homosexual community in my statement there. Yes, I kinda redirected your statement and didnt explicitly explain that I had, sorry. And by world I mean, sure ... in Utopiaville homosexuals are recognised as married ... then they go somewhere else and it doesnt even get to grasp at straws, it just suddently doesnt matter anymore. The *world* wont recognise them ... Gay Marriage, screening only in selected cinemas.

I am for legalisation of gay marriages (well, to be honest, I'm not really one way or the other). I am most definitely against people telling a church or religion that they must change their traditions to pander to anyone.

Why should any religion be expected to change the "rules" to suit particular parishoners? Here's a simple tip - if you don't want to follow the rules of a particular religion, LEAVE.

Your argument is like saying "Hey, a lot of Jews out there would really enjoy eating bacon, lets erase that pesky little line from their holy book so they can".

Firstly, my words may not sound like it at first, but i am agreeing with you.
Freedom of religion allows us to create our own, so if a whole bunch of Jews didn't see a problem with eating bacon, they could leave the main group and form their own sect.
Many people think that it is ok to say the same of government though -- if you don't like it, leave. This cannot be said. Firstly, it ignores the cost of travel. Secondly, the government is here to serve the people, and to ensure that we have the right to believe what we want. Because it is a democracy, some issues we must grin and bear because more than 50% of the population agrees even if we may not.
Because religion is about you and your beliefs, it is your choice to leave at your choosing, because you will still have your beliefs, with or without the title of your previous organization. Because government is for the benefit of everyone though, if you were to leave, you would lose it's benefits.
Therefore, we cannot and should not waste our breathe on religion, because we are given the freedom to choose it on our own. The only topic that should be discussed is government, since we must all (or at least 50% of us) agree in order to make anything within it work.

I know that, I am athiest myself (for all intents and purposes anyway). I was refering to the homosexual community in my statement there. Yes, I kinda redirected your statement and didnt explicitly explain that I had, sorry. And by world I mean, sure ... in Utopiaville homosexuals are recognised as married ... then they go somewhere else and it doesnt even get to grasp at straws, it just suddently doesnt matter anymore. The *world* wont recognise them ... Gay Marriage, screening only in selected cinemas.

Gotcha, and i agree.
The world is difficult place to change, especially since it is split into countries with separate ideas. I think that we need to focus on creating Utopiavilles so at least we can show that these ideals we are discussing do work. (Or we might find some of them don't work, and it will be a useful experiment for the rest of the world to learn from). Nevertheless we must try, and the negative attitudes of all those who simply say "no gay marriage" without any positive ideas to add, get us nowhere. It is sad that traditions have become so strongly ingrained that some people do not even allow themselves to live, love and learn. And since they are stagnant and not learning, they will never learn that their attitude is that of the end of civilization.

Firstly, my words may not sound like it at first, but i am agreeing with you.
Freedom of religion allows us to create our own, so if a whole bunch of Jews didn't see a problem with eating bacon, they could leave the main group and form their own sect.
Many people think that it is ok to say the same of government though -- if you don't like it, leave. This cannot be said. Firstly, it ignores the cost of travel. Secondly, the government is here to serve the people, and to ensure that we have the right to believe what we want. Because it is a democracy, some issues we must grin and bear because more than 50% of the population agrees even if we may not.
Because religion is about you and your beliefs, it is your choice to leave at your choosing, because you will still have your beliefs, with or without the title of your previous organization. Because government is for the benefit of everyone though, if you were to leave, you would lose it's benefits.
Therefore, we cannot and should not waste our breathe on religion, because we are given the freedom to choose it on our own. The only topic that should be discussed is government, since we must all (or at least 50% of us) agree in order to make anything within it work.Okay, I agree with that (though the same with you, it may not seem it by the end of this). Everyone says that the reason that Gay people can only have civil unions is because being homosexual is against the religion marriage was made for. That is why people (including myself) continue to debate the topic of religion. Civil unions are made to sound sub-standard, and also separate gays into a segregated group. This doesn’t sing like an 'equality' song. However yes, without the support of the government, gay unions are only something held within their own minds and not in the law. You can’t escape your government without relocation, agreed. And yes, who wants to relocate to a whole new country/state just so it is okay to be in love with whom you choose?

Gotcha, and i agree.
The world is difficult place to change, especially since it is split into countries with separate ideas. I think that we need to focus on creating Utopiavilles so at least we can show that these ideals we are discussing do work. (Or we might find some of them don't work, and it will be a useful experiment for the rest of the world to learn from). Nevertheless we must try, and the negative attitudes of all those who simply say "no gay marriage" without any positive ideas to add, get us nowhere. It is sad that traditions have become so strongly ingrained that some people do not even allow themselves to live, love and learn. And since they are stagnant and not learning, they will never learn that their attitude is that of the end of civilization.I agree. And that is a very good point. :) We as a world are locked in a backwards spin. We need to hit the breaks, and then work on moving forward again.

Think outside the box. Why does the state have to support gay OR straight marriage? If marriage is a religeous, Christian institution- as your initial post suggests with your mention of Christians- then what is the government doing being involved in it? We all know that when you combine religeon and government, you get Iran. So how about the state just handle the legal aspects, the civil union part, and apply that to whoever wants it- and then the religeous aspect can be handled by religeous organizations. So if you don't want gay marriage, you can get married in a church that doesn't allow it, and you religeous sanctity is not being violated. And people who want it can get married with an organization that allows it. And so most people should be happy, and those who aren't need to learn that compromise makes the world go round and that sitting on your butt demanding things go exactly the way you want them to all the time is both unrealistic and immature.

I'm gonna be honest here. Gay people make me uncomfortable a good share of the time. It's pretty much a gut reaction, and likely irrational, but it's true. I really don't like the idea of gay marriage, pretty much for that reason.

I also don't think it should be illegal.

One: it's none of the government's business. Government has a limited set of purposes; and while I'm no extreme libertarian, I don't think regulation of marriages should be one of them. It's private life, folks, and I'd prefer that it be kept private; even if I approved of interference with gays' lives (which I don't), I wouldn't trust such a government to remain out of my life indefinitely.

Two: it's none of MY business. The fact that there are gay people getting married will not make my straight relationships less stable. I love my girlfriend quite a bit, thank you, and what ANYONE else does won't change that. If your relationship is so fragile that it can be damaged by a little thing like two lesbians having a ceremony and getting tax benefits... Well, I think you're in trouble anyway.

As for arguments related to their effect on our children... please. Gay people will not magically change our kids' orientations. I have no trouble with the idea of explaining to a kid the idea that two men or two women may love each other and get married without having children, as sterile people have done the same thing. And if your church is anything like mine, it claims a good share of the world population is going to Hell for reasons unrelated to sex; but we haven't bothered trying to outlaw having other beliefs, or eating unclean foods, or dancing or playing cards or reading science fiction.

I have other priorities. Like education, and health care, and foriegn policy, and what time Stargate SG-1 is on! Seriously, people: is your life so perfect that you have time to devote to others' private lives?

I just caught the end of this, but good thoughts here. Some people have become mired in tradition, unable to see the unfamiliar as anything but chaos and disaster. What makes a tradition valuable? Time tested applicability, or that it's a tradition? Traditions can certainly have merit, and are, at times, worth keeping. Let's go with the issue of marriage, as touted lately by certain Christians. Must it remain unchanged because it has always been this way (again, go along with me here), or because it continues to work? Look at the state of marriage today and tell me, with a straight face (no pun intended), that marriage legislation needs to remain the same because it is working. It is not, so the argument that it needs to be left alone is without merit. The institution of marriage is a wreck now, and homosexuals haven't been marrying...hmm. It seems that many anti-gay-marriage people are use this issue as an excuse to discriminate against those horrible Soddomites, because, let's face it, gay marriage (for the what? 4% of the population who'd want one?) is a splinter compared to the log that is currently in the eye of marriage.

What is that log? How should I know? I'm not an expert on this. If you want marriage back, Christians, lobby to get the term "civil union" adopted to replace marraige in all legal contexts (so that everyone does indeed get the financial/legal benefits that you claim marriage is not about) and take the term for yourselves exclusively. If you want marriage back, Conservatives, get the government's hands out of it so that it holds no discriminatory benefit to some people and not others (so that no one gets the aforementioned benefits). Rights for all or rights for none.

I might end up eating crow on this one, since I'm just ranting on a topic I've seen way too many times. But hey, why not? ;)

Addition - I realize there are people on each side I've mentioned who don't argue as I've mentioned. I'm referring to those who do, so please don't respond with "I'm a Conservative/Christian in favor of gay marriage..." I am not trying to generalize, just pointing out the key groups in the issue.

Reading through this thread has painted an interesting and intricate picture of how society works. There are two sides to this issue, and both are calling each other wrong and saying that they are right. I suppose that's what you have in any debate.

To solve this debate, one must look at all of the points on both sides and judge their validity. The arguments for gay marriage are overwhelming (at least on this forum - I find the audience here to be more liberal/open-minded). Those arguments include:

Equal treatment
Born that way, not raised
It is unconstitutional to discriminate against a group of people
Victims of imposed beliefs
The Bible teaches love, acceptance, and joy; not hatred.
Two men or two women can love each other with just as much affection as one man and one woman.
The real threat to marriage is the high divoce rate.
The real threat to marriage is marriages like Ms. Spears'.
A gay couple getting married would not affect a straight couple.
This is the next group in the civil rights movement.
Marriage is not a religious instutition.
People were married long before Christianity or other religions existed.

I am sure there are many more, but they elude me for the moment. The arguments against include:

I don't like gay people.
God says it's wrong.
[insert religious figure here] says it's wrong.
It is not natural.
We are meant to make babies.



That's the general gist of it. Now, weigh both those sides. I would say the for group has a great deal of concrete points to debate, while the agaist people use the same reasoning without validity. I am not saying that all religious people are wrong, don't interpret it like that. I am saying that there is really very little in the argument against allowing these civil rights compared to the argument for it.

Very good summation. I would just like to make a side note here though, that it is sad that this type of discussion must exist. There is such a huge difference in simple education here that it hurts. I'm not saying that the second category of arguers is stupid, or has less of a right to express themself. I am saying that i find it a shame that the educational system failed in not teaching them how to have a successful discussion. Here are some key points which we all must keep in mind, especially when our tempers flare and out fingers type wildly:

1) Respect the person you are talking to. They have as much right to their beliefs as you have to yours.
2) Know the difference between fact and opinion. It is okay to state your opinions, but this is fruitless unless you have facts to justify them. Yes, this means that in order to make a point, you might have to do research (Google is awesome for this).
3) Be willing to back down or change your opinion. An open minded discussion is a gamble. Do not go into it unless you are willing to lose everything you have. You will only be losing bad things though, because anything you lose will be replaced by what you have decided is a better picture of the truth. It is a waste of everyones time if we all came here not willing to change our ideas.
4) Forgive those who are not willing to change or do not understand. We are all human and can be stubborn or misguided. Getting angry at others for not understanding only raises their defences and makes them even less likely to try to understand or learn.
5) Proofread, or at least make sure you know your sentances make sense and that your points contain more than just opinion. It is important for others to be able to follow point #1.

Addition - I realize there are people on each side I've mentioned who don't argue as I've mentioned. I'm referring to those who do, so please don't respond with "I'm a Conservative/Christian in favor of gay marriage..." I am not trying to generalize, just pointing out the key groups in the issue.

just a note, you cant be a christian who believes in gay marriage. it goes against the beliefs of christianity

I just caught the end of this, but good thoughts here. Some people have become mired in tradition, unable to see the unfamiliar as anything but chaos and disaster. What makes a tradition valuable? Time tested applicability, or that it's a tradition? Traditions can certainly have merit, and are, at times, worth keeping. Let's go with the issue of marriage, as touted lately by certain Christians. Must it remain unchanged because it has always been this way (again, go along with me here), or because it continues to work? Look at the state of marriage today and tell me, with a straight face (no pun intended), that marriage legislation needs to remain the same because it is working. It is not, so the argument that it needs to be left alone is without merit. The institution of marriage is a wreck now, and homosexuals haven't been marrying...hmm. It seems that many anti-gay-marriage people are use this issue as an excuse to discriminate against those horrible Soddomites, because, let's face it, gay marriage (for the what? 4% of the population who'd want one?) is a splinter compared to the log that is currently in the eye of marriage.

What is that log? How should I know? I'm not an expert on this. If you want marriage back, Christians, lobby to get the term "civil union" adopted to replace marraige in all legal contexts (so that everyone does indeed get the financial/legal benefits that you claim marriage is not about) and take the term for yourselves exclusively. If you want marriage back, Conservatives, get the government's hands out of it so that it holds no discriminatory benefit to some people and not others (so that no one gets the aforementioned benefits). Rights for all or rights for none.

Well said. Very well said. You may have just found a point of agreement. Now we just have to convince everyone that it's ok to agree on an issue. We really need to get over this idea of competition in everything we do. It keeps us from actually listening to eachother and turns what could be intelligent discussions into shouting competitions.

i'm very much a capitalist, yet i agree that's the root of the problem. why would one need to be anti-capitalist to see the idiocy and transparent greed in that person's post?

Holy shit people! I was pointing out the government's reason for recognizing marriages (to the person who said the governemnt shouldn't recognize them at all). I never claimed that sharing assets was (or should be) the reason that people get married. So don't call me an idiot or greedy just because I recognize a monetary reason for the government to give out civil marriage liscenses.

Ok, this whole issue of same-sex marriage i being to jumbled up and streched far beyong its limits. First of all, marriage is an institution of the state as well as the church. Hence why there's such a great debate. Now, from the last time I read the 14th Amendment, it says that all persons are gauranteed equal protection under the law. W/o this, the progresses of civil rights and liberties are protected. It is also in the Constitution that each state must respect the judicial proceedings, acts, and records of other states under the Full faith and credit clause. So since marriage is an institution with segregates between same sex and different sex couples, they infringe on the same sex couples. No matter what the state constitution says, the Federal Constitution walks the board on this. Also, this being more of a state issue than federal issue, the DOMA law violates the 9th and 10th amendment. Now thats just the legal side. Socially, why should it matter if two people are married if there's still schools being deprived of the funds needed for improvement, nor does it mean that the world is some horrible place. Guess what, with thousands of nuclear arms up for sale on the black market and illegal drug use becoming more deadly and widespread, same sex marriage is a minor issue compared to what directly affects the general public.

just a note, you cant be a christian who believes in gay marriage. it goes against the beliefs of christianity

Correction: you should not call yourself a Christian if you are not willing to accept homosexuals as Christians. The reason for this is that Jesus accepted everyone who was willing to believe, regardless of their nationality, gender, or social status.
John 3:15 -
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Acts 10:43 -
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Romans 9:33 -
As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

See that word "whosoever". That's stated pretty clearly on multiple occasions. Please try to refute it with silly instances of words with double meanings.
Also, please note how i backed up what i was saying with reason and evidence. You should try it sometime. Maybe then you wouldn't get shot down so quickly.

just a note, you cant be a christian who believes in gay marriage. it goes against the beliefs of christianity

Your particular brand of Christianity maybe, but you definitely don't speak for all of us.

Holy shit people! I was pointing out the government's reason for recognizing marriages (to the person who said the governemnt shouldn't recognize them at all). I never claimed that sharing assets was (or should be) the reason that people get married. So don't call me an idiot or greedy just because I recognize a monetary reason for the government to give out civil marriage liscenses.

No one was calling you an idiot, although now i might because you jusped to that conclusions before reading carefully enough. We were just stating that we believe that the monetary aspect of this is the only reason it is such a big issue. I'm sure that there are tons of health insurance providers lobbying to prevent having to give benefits to more spouses than they already do, since they would lose money because of it. We are just illistrating that everything is interconnected.

It is also in the Constitution that each state must respect the judicial proceedings, acts, and records of other states under the Full faith and credit clause.

Remember, though, that Full Faith and Credit also says that Congress may enact legislation controlling the manner in which such judicial proceedings, acts, and records are recognized.

As for forbidding government marriage and instead applying the same civil unions to all people, I think it's a good idea. The trouble is there is a huge body of international laws, treaties, and agreements that specifically consider the institution of marriage in those words. Unfortunately, we cannot simply change the wording in the United States because it would create huge international problems (and frankly, we don't need to make the rest of the world any more upset right now).

No one was calling you an idiot, although now i might because you jusped to that conclusions before reading carefully enough. We were just stating that we believe that the monetary aspect of this is the only reason it is such a big issue. I'm sure that there are tons of health insurance providers lobbying to prevent having to give benefits to more spouses than they already do, since they would lose money because of it. We are just illistrating that everything is interconnected.

You replied to my post as if I was personally stating that was the only reason for marriage (which I was not). Bottle then replied to you saying (and I quote) "the idiocy and transparent greed of that person's post." Therefore, yes I was called an idiot.

I agree that the biggest reason people are lobbying against gay marriage is that they might lose money (ie insurance companies) and I think that's an idiotic reason to deny rights to anyone. However, my post was simply pointing out for those that say government should have no stake in marriage whatsoever that there is a clear reason for the government to recognize civil marriage. That is all.

Correction: you should not call yourself a Christian if you are not willing to accept homosexuals as Christians. The reason for this is that Jesus accepted everyone who was willing to believe, regardless of their nationality, gender, or social status.
John 3:15 -
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Acts 10:43 -
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Romans 9:33 -
As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

See that word "whosoever". That's stated pretty clearly on multiple occasions. Please try to refute it with silly instances of words with double meanings.
Also, please note how i backed up what i was saying with reason and evidence. You should try it sometime. Maybe then you wouldn't get shot down so quickly.

sure god loves everyone and gives everyone the right to believe to believe in him but homosexuality is a sin. read romans 1:16 through 1:32
Romans 1:26-27 says "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
god may love homosexuals as christians should love homosexuals but to be a christian one must live life buy the bible.

I'm gonna be honest here. Gay people make me uncomfortable a good share of the time. It's pretty much a gut reaction, and likely irrational, but it's true. I really don't like the idea of gay marriage, pretty much for that reason.


This is a common feeling that i would like to adress. I suport gay rights very strongly. I have many gay friends who i treat no differently than anyone else. I have also been hit on many times by gay men. Sometimes jokingly as friends often do. This is am completely comfortable with, but i can see where some people are not. I have also been hit and made to feel very uncomfortable by someone who didn't respect my simple right to not like him. This is no different for me however from when a girl hits on me whom i am not interested in who also does't get it and goes to far. I believe that the reason why so many people think there is a large difference if it is a man or woman hitting on them is because A) they don't have enough women hitting on them to be picky, and/or B) because there is a social stigma of people believing that men are stronger than women, so they do not know what to do when someone that they percieve to be of their same status makes them feel uncomfortable.
Now, the homosexual who makes another feel uncomfortable by going too far is at fault. They are just as much at fault as a heterosexual who goes too far hitting on a person of the opposite gender. The worst think that we can do is create stereotypes and generalizations, and we must all make sure to fight these as much as possible.

Remember, though, that Full Faith and Credit also says that Congress may enact legislation controlling the manner in which such judicial proceedings, acts, and records are recognized.

As for forbidding government marriage and instead applying the same civil unions to all people, I think it's a good idea. The trouble is there is a huge body of international laws, treaties, and agreements that specifically consider the institution of marriage in those words. Unfortunately, we cannot simply change the wording in the United States because it would create huge international problems (and frankly, we don't need to make the rest of the world any more upset right now).

well i do agree the pissing off the world would be adding more salt to injury, however, I do believe that civil unions are an inferior institution to marriage due to the recognition. As with the Massachussets Supreme Court, civil unions is a practice of seperate but equal, in which in reality, is seldom equal. Thus, eventually there will have to be either civil union or civil marraige that prevails. Marriage is something that doesnt need a church, but just a court clerk to perform the exercises. I believe that eventually this will work its way to the US Supreme Court, because marriage is such a large institution that it cannot be contained in one area. There needs to be some kind on continuity.

sure god loves everyone and gives everyone the right to believe to believe in him but homosexuality is a sin. read romans 1:16 through 1:32
Romans 1:26-27 says "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
god may love homosexuals as christians should love homosexuals but to be a christian one must live life buy the bible.

How many Christians do you know that have plucked their own eyes out? Now subtract that from how many you know that have ever looked as someone and thought "I like the looks of that." I guess all of those people aren't Christians either?

There are a lot of things in the Bible that don't fit into the idea of a good Christian life and one must realize that God didn't write those, people did. I don't believe in a God that condones slavery, genocide, and the murder of a woman just because she was raped - but it's all in the Bible. I also don't believe the Levitical law against two men getting it on because I truly believe that God wishes everyone to experience the type of romantic love that can only occur between two people that have committed their lives to one another - and when Paul (not Christ) wrote his letter to the Romans, he was basing what he said on that Levitical law. ::shrug:: So I don't believe that God is anti-gay any more than I believe that God is pro-genocide or pro-slavery.

How many Christians do you know that have plucked their own eyes out? Now subtract that from how many you know that have ever looked as someone and thought "I like the looks of that." I guess all of those people aren't Christians either?

There are a lot of things in the Bible that don't fit into the idea of a good Christian life and one must realize that God didn't write those, people did. I don't believe in a God that condones slavery, genocide, and the murder of a woman just because she was raped - but it's all in the Bible. I also don't believe the Levitical law against two men getting it on because I truly believe that God wishes everyone to experience the type of romantic love that can only occur between two people that have committed their lives to one another - and when Paul (not Christ) wrote his letter to the Romans, he was basing what he said on that Levitical law. ::shrug:: So I don't believe that God is anti-gay any more than I believe that God is pro-genocide or pro-slavery.

the bible is not pro-genocide or pro-slavery, you are saying that the bible was wrong which contraticts the bible which is taught as absolute truth. if you dont believe the bible as fact then you dont really believe in the bible. if that is the case how could you use the verses you used to support you case if you believe others may be wrong, what makes the verses you used right.

Whatever the bible says about homosexuality, gay marriage is never mentioned.

Find me any verse which deals with the subject.

Whatever the bible says about homosexuality, gay marriage is never mentioned.

Find me any verse which deals with the subject.

if the bible says homosexualty is wrong how can the bondage of homosexuals be okay

The bible says bondage is fine, but that's not marriage, or rather, bondage is slavery, even if some people confuse the two...

If the bible says nothing about it, how can you interpret it to mean that it was simply omitted due to the fact that it wasn't an issue when the book was written, and if God were still being published, he'd have something to say about it?

I think he'd strike you down if he knew that you were trying to speak for him.

Not that I think this is true, but if you happen to think that gayness is wrong, AND you think that gays have bad genes, I'd sure hope you're pro-gay-marriage, as 2 gays aren't going to pass on their genes most likely for at least a good 5 years, but if they're forced by society into straight marriages to keep themselves undercover they'd be propogating, thus making your perceived problem worse.

If you think that this is an environmental problem, and don't like the idea of gays, look at it this way, if the country continues to keep them from marrying, you'll keep hearing about it on the news, and gays will be made a big deal. In effect, you'll see them more with marriage banned than without, give 'em the rights they want, and they'll be much more quiet.

sure god loves everyone and gives everyone the right to believe to believe in him but homosexuality is a sin. read romans 1:16 through 1:32
Romans 1:26-27 says "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
god may love homosexuals as christians should love homosexuals but to be a christian one must live life buy the bible.

It is a good section. I especially enjoy Romans 1:22 - "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools". This verse sums up the point of the chapter much better. It is about forgetting God for earthly lust and self-righteousness. It does insinuate homosexuality, but that is a side effect, not the actual problem that is being discussed.

Here, live your live by the Bible and follow these helpful hints:
Mt 7:1 -
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Lu 6:37 -
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

The bible says bondage is fine, but that's not marriage, or rather, bondage is slavery, even if some people confuse the two...

If the bible says nothing about it, how can you interpret it to mean that it was simply omitted due to the fact that it wasn't an issue when the book was written, and if God were still being published, he'd have something to say about it?

I think he'd strike you down if he knew that you were trying to speak for him.

yes i am speaking for God because i am going by what the bible says and the bible is the word of God. if a man murders a man who murdered another man that dosn't make the murder okay. if someone is homosexual and someone is homosexual with him its still wrong. two wrongs dont make a right.

yes i am speaking for God because i am going by what the bible says and the bible is the word of God. if a man murders a man who murdered another man that dosn't make the murder okay. if someone is homosexual and someone is homosexual with him its still wrong. two wrongs dont make a right.

Remember, it is your belief that the Bible is the word of God. You cannot use that as a reason for anything, since it is not a fact but merely your opinion.

It is a good section. I especially enjoy Romans 1:22 - "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools". This verse sums up the point of the chapter much better. It is about forgetting God for earthly lust and self-righteousness. It does insinuate homosexuality, but that is a side effect, not the actual problem that is being discussed.

Here, live your live by the Bible and follow these helpful hints:
Mt 7:1 -
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Lu 6:37 -
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

wether or not if it is the main point of the scripture it is still a point. the bible still says it is wrong. Mt 7:1 isn't saying we should close our eyes whenever we see something wrong, in this case homosexuality, we just shouldn't run up to them and condemn they to hell but we should make the effort to tell them it is wrong but not in a rude way. luke is pretty much the same thing it's easier to point out someone elses promblems then our own. we shouldn't be prejudice against them but we should tell people when they are doing something wrong

Remember, it is your belief that the Bible is the word of God. You cannot use that as a reason for anything, since it is not a fact but merely your opinion.

how can it not be the word of God when God is the main "charater" in it. it has his teaching and what is required of us from God. how can it not be the word of God?

i believe no one has the right to say if u are or are not able to marry the one u love. i, myself, am very strict. but the fact that we still have issues like this is just embarrissing. we have more important issues to stress on. i am not gay, but those who are should not stay in the closet :sniper:

wether or not if it is the main point of the scripture it is still a point. the bible still says it is wrong. Mt 7:1 isn't saying we should close our eyes whenever we see something wrong, in this case homosexuality, we just shouldn't run up to them and condemn they to hell but we should make the effort to tell them it is wrong but not in a rude way. luke is pretty much the same thing it's easier to point out someone elses promblems then our own. we shouldn't be prejudice against them but we should tell people when they are doing something wrong

See, telling a person when you think what they are doing is wrong, that requires a judgement of what they are doing. This leaves us only able to judge ourselves, and to help our fellow man. The whole reason why Jesus made such a huge impression on history (and unfortunately what few people give him credit for nowadays) is that he taught a positive approach to life. He did away with the 10 commandments which were all negative statements--thou shalt not -- and replaced them with two positive statements: though shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, mind and soul, and thou shalt love thy neighbor as theyself. Jesus realized that negative rules and regulations bring only finger pointing and bickering, and really slow the improvement of civilization. This is why he was so down on judging but all about love, faith, and hope. It is why his message is still good today, although not many people listen to it. They would rather revert back to the way things were before he began spreading his message, and sit in stalemated arguments, yelling too loud to ever listen.

See, telling a person when you think what they are doing is wrong, that requires a judgement of what they are doing. This leaves us only able to judge ourselves, and to help our fellow man. The whole reason why Jesus made such a huge impression on history (and unfortunately what few people give him credit for nowadays) is that he taught a positive approach to life. He did away with the 10 commandments which were all negative statements--thou shalt not -- and replaced them with two positive statements: though shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, mind and soul, and thou shalt love thy neighbor as theyself. Jesus realized that negative rules and regulations bring only finger pointing and bickering, and really slow the improvement of civilization. This is why he was so down on judging but all about love, faith, and hope. It is why his message is still good today, although not many people listen to it. They would rather revert back to the way things were before he began spreading his message, and sit in stalemated arguments, yelling too loud to ever listen.

Heb 13:8 says "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever."
God did not throw out the ten commandments but he did add to them in a sense. God gave us more freedom to worship him god did not change his ming he still judges people for doing the wrong thing. when your brother falls in mud you help him up, you don't act like the mud isn't a problem. when your brother falls in sin you help him up out of it

just a note, you cant be a christian who believes in gay marriage. it goes against the beliefs of christianity

I'm backtracking, and I know that many people have already laid into you (and rightfully so), but I gotta get my quip in.

"The beliefs of Christianity" (that should be capitalized, you know), what an interesting phrase. Quite ambiguous, too...which Christianity would that be? You speak as if there's only one faith, and yet, I could swear that there are Christian denominations which marry homosexuals, and more which, at very least, accept them into the fold. And that's just the homosexuals...I can believe in gay marriage were I a Christian, because God said nothing about a government definition of marriage. Ssorry, his doctrine is over his followers and within his walls, not our government.

And, it's quite accurate to point out how minor such passages are in Christian doctrine. Jesus never speaks against homosexuality (that I recall), but he does speak very, very frequently against wealthy men; and last I knew, most churches was accepting, marrying, and being openly funded by members of that group of people. So, your argument fails.

Heb 13:8 says "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever."
God did not throw out the ten commandments but he did add to them in a sense. God gave us more freedom to worship him god did not change his ming he still judges people for doing the wrong thing. when your brother falls in mud you help him up, you don't act like the mud isn't a problem. when your brother falls in sin you help him up out of it


Ok. Fine. But, for a moment, why don't you accept that not everyone *wants* help out of sin.

I've seen boards where Christians try to 'help' Wiccans, and end up resorting to saying "Oh well, we really pity you all, for your gods are just our form of Satan... you poor deluded things". That sort of attitude is what really, really pisses people off.

You can say "I'm Christian, and my religion says that what you are doing is wrong. I don't approve". That is fine. No one has any right to get annoyed when you say that.

It's different when you say "You are going to end up in a hell you don't believe in unless you let me 'help' you - because even though my religion is based on love and acceptance, I'd rather use it as a blunt object to beat people over the head with"... well, just don't expect a good reception.

Many homosexuals do not want help. They don't want therapy. They don't want bible quotes. They don't want to be told to "sit down and shut up" or that they should be anything other than what they are. Some are Christian, and *they* don't deserve to be turned away just because some amongst the Church are scared stupid of change.

Oh noes, you might need to ammend the bible (*again*, no less), to allow it to be more functional in todays society. Seriously, what use is a rule book that can't adapt to new players?

Ok. Fine. But, for a moment, why don't you accept that not everyone *wants* help out of sin.

I've seen boards where Christians try to 'help' Wiccans, and end up resorting to saying "Oh well, we really pity you all, for your gods are just our form of Satan... you poor deluded things". That sort of attitude is what really, really pisses people off.

You can say "I'm Christian, and my religion says that what you are doing is wrong. I don't approve". That is fine. No one has any right to get annoyed when you say that.

It's different when you say "You are going to end up in a hell you don't believe in unless you let me 'help' you - because even though my religion is based on love and acceptance, I'd rather use it as a blunt object to beat people over the head with"... well, just don't expect a good reception.

Many homosexuals do not want help. They don't want therapy. They don't want bible quotes. They don't want to be told to "sit down and shut up" or that they should be anything other than what they are. Some are Christian, and *they* don't deserve to be turned away just because some amongst the Church are scared stupid of change.

Oh noes, you might need to ammend the bible (*again*, no less), to allow it to be more functional in todays society. Seriously, what use is a rule book that can't adapt to new players?

they're are no knew players the bible has had the same answers to the same problems that are around today. if someone dosn't want to here the bible that is there choice, and they shouldn't be forced to. but i can still offer to talk about it. still no one should have it forced upon them

I oppose gay marriage.
It has nothing to do with civil rights and I am sick of gays claiming it does all that does is tarnish the history of the civil rights movement in which blacks tried to fight from true opression fo the jim crow south.
Gays currentily posess the exact same rights as straights-- even the right to marry HOWEVER they cannot marry someone of the same sex, but then again neither can a straight person.

yes i am speaking for God because i am going by what the bible says and the bible is the word of God. if a man murders a man who murdered another man that dosn't make the murder okay. if someone is homosexual and someone is homosexual with him its still wrong. two wrongs dont make a right.

You do realize that it's a central theme of Christianity that we all live in sin, right? As in we all sin constantly, in one way or another. Which makes homosexuals about as damned as everyone else...oh yeah, that Christ guy died to get rid of all of that...but, I guess that's not a central theme of your Christianity, huh? Isn't that odd...queer, if you will...

By the way, analysts have found the Bible to be incorrect in a number of places. Just one of these makes your infallible Bible invalid, because then it is not infallible. One of those is that it is highly unlikely that Paul actually wrote all of his letters, as they differ in style and dates of authorship. So, your faith crumbles, as all letters claim to be that of Paul. What a pity.

"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?"

The reason people say "why not?" is because it is a part of american heritage that if you want to do something that is not hurting other people, you should legally be able to. Gay marriage does not "hurt" existing straight marriages, or straight marriages to come. I really don't udnerstand why you feel so threatened by something that ahs nothing to do with you.

"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?)"

OK seriously, explain to me how two men or two women marrying each other hurts you or your marriage, or the so-called sanctity of your marriage? We live in a country in which two people(a man and a woman currently) can get married by any religious institution, or without religion at all(two atheists can get married legally, by applying for a marriage liscense to the state.) Do hindu marriages infringe on your rights or the sanctity of your marriage because you don't believe in the hindu faith? Do non-religious marriages infringe upon you or your marriage? No. Does your marriage(or future marriage if you are not married but plan on getting married) mean any less because these other marriages exist? No. Do you have to recognise these marriages on a personal, religious level? No, you don't. But the state does, because we live in a country with freedom of religion.
Now, about your argument that gay marriage discriminates against Christians by "proving their ideals are stupid", I again point back to the free practice of any religion in this country. Does it offend you when jewish people wear yamukkahs because it is not a part of your christian beliefs? When muslims celebrate ramadan? It shouldn't. But even if it does, its none of your business, and it is not your right to tell them they can't. Hate it all you want, but the government gives these people certain inalienable rights. Why? Because this great nation of ours was founded upon freedom and the pursuit of liberty and happiness.
I would also point out that there are many Christians that do not believe that gay relationships are wrong. There are many Christians that support gay marriage. I suppose you would say that these people aren't "true christians". To that I would point out that the scriptures in the bible that supposedly forbid homosexuality(they are rather ambigious) also forbid eating shellfish and shrimp, women wearing pants, and give the OK on slavery, and detail animal sacrifices to be made to god. So in other words if you eat shrimp, let your wife, girlfriend, mother, daughter, or whoever wear pants, disagree with slavery, or don't partake in animal sacrifices, it could be said that you too are not a "true christian".

"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 don't feel the need to comment on this as it is ambigious and directed at an argument that I'm not making.

"Because they deserve the same rights. (My point they have the same rights as we do.)"

If two gay people fall in love and decide to swear vows to one another and engage in a prolonged monogamous relationship, they should have the same rights as two heterosexual people in the same boat. This includes the insurance benefits, tax benefits, etc... Or else, these benefits should be done away with for just married couples, and only apply to couples with children, married or not, gay or not(they were meant to cut the slack on people with families to support).

"Why is it any of you’re business (because it will affect my children and grand children and so on.)"

I have news for you. Gay people have existed as long as people have existed. Gay people have been forming relationships for just as long. Has their simple existence somehow hindered your life? If so explain. How would gay marriage affect the lives of your children or grandchildren? I read your agrument about having to explain to your grandchildren why one of their freinds has two mommies. So let me get this straight. You want to deny other people the right to marry for the CONVENIENCE of not having to explain it to your child? Do you also not agree with white couples adopting black children because you might have to explain one day to your child or grandchild how their black friend ended up with white parents? All you have to tell them is this: "Because Johnnie's two mommies were in love and decided to start a family by adopting a child." Or you can even tell them "because Johnnie's mommies are sinners" if thats what you believe. Tell them what you want. Keep in mind that you personally don't have to recognise gay marriages. You can go on thinking whatever you want on the subject. And you can keep going to the same church that forbids homosexuality all you want. The state is not going to tell you to change your mind, nor tell your religious institution what and what not to believe in or practice. Keep also in mind that when people support legalizing gay marriage, they're not saying that your church has to sanctify gay marriage, perform gay marriages, or recognise gay marriages. They're just saying that, on a LEGAL LEVEL, gay marriages should be recognised by the government. It has nothing to do with you, your beliefs, your marriage, or your faith.

But the state should recognize gay relationships because of the mountain of scientific information gathered by biologists, psychologists, sociologists, etc that says that people are born gay and cannot "ungay" themselves. And also because again, we live in a country that, by default, is supposed to allow any behavior that is not harmful to other people or society.

The purpose of this post has been to tear apart your defenses to what you recognise as the typical arguments for gay marriage. The purpose of my next post will be to provide fresh arguments for gay marriage.

I oppose gay marriage.
It has nothing to do with civil rights and I am sick of gays claiming it does all that does is tarnish the history of the civil rights movement in which blacks tried to fight from true opression fo the jim crow south.
Gays currentily posess the exact same rights as straights-- even the right to marry HOWEVER they cannot marry someone of the same sex, but then again neither can a straight person.

They have not got the freedom to marry *WHO THEY WANT*.

Unlike any straight person, who, given the same conditions (partner willing, above age of consent, etcetc ad infinitum) CAN marry who they want.

And, um, not to put too fine a point on it, but if a straight person married someone of the same sex, that would be a *homosexual* marriage by any logical definition... hence, not allowed, hence unequal.

It makes no sense that the law can go "You are free in the pursuit of happiness - unless that happiness involves loving and marrying someone with the same genitals as you - then you aren't allowed to do it".

---------------------
Everyone read Koea's post - better arguments put forward than by mine *and* it's all logical and follows the logical rules for debating in a proper argument (you know... logical connections, evidence, etc? That stuff).

how can it not be the word of God when God is the main "charater" in it. it has his teaching and what is required of us from God. how can it not be the word of God?

Because 1) it was written by men, and 2) it was edited by men over many, many centuries. Do you have any idea how many books they threw out? Do you have any idea how many men relied on their judgement to determine what was divinely inspired? Thirdly, do you have any idea how many translations those books had been through by that time, and that they are still trying to piece certain parts together today?

In many pieces of art, Moses is depicted with horns. Why is this? Why, because artists and sculptors working on religious themes, and for some time, it was mistranslated in Exodus 34:29 (and also 30 and 35) that Moses had horns. Of course, we know that's not true now. It's right here:

http://www.moseshand.com/studies/moses.htm

There's an Renaissance fountain in France depicting him as such (I think it's a Michelangelo), one in the Chambers of the House of Representatives and Senate office subway, and so it goes. Oops, and there goes your infallibility theory again. This is why your form of Christianity fails - it calls for complete, utter, and unchanging views and beliefs, and so it crumbles under inspection or leads to fundamentalist ignorance.

I can't wait until the world progresses beyond these petty arguements, and notes the concept of human rights. Not giving the right for certain couples to marry is simple, blatent discrimmination. End of story. Not legalizing gay marriage is a violation of human rights. Take away marriage for straight couples, and it's even. Give gay people marriage, and we're also even. Something's gotta change, and it will, it will only take time. But it will happen, and I'll rejoice when it does.

how can it not be the word of God when God is the main "charater" in it. it has his teaching and what is required of us from God. how can it not be the word of God?

Whether or not God is the main character means nothing. Are James Bond movies the word of James Bond?
Belief in God requires faith. The Bible is a record of mans experiences of faith with God. It is full of stories handed down through oral tradition and then eventually written down. The pages of the Bible to not contain what God is, for God's greatness is indescribable. What these pages do have is an account of how others throughout history have percieved him. The task fall upon us to discover what God is for us in our lives. The Bible is astarting point, but it is not the final say.
The reason i pointed out that it was your belief that the Bible is God's word is that you were trying to use that as an arguement, but it does not hold up since many people do not believe in God at all. It is important that we emphasize that God is more than just the stories from the Bbile, or else he is seen simply as a story book character, and this reduces people's desire to believe, since there are so many other stories out there, and also reduces God to less than Almighty.

i believe no one has the right to say if u are or are not able to marry the one u love. i, myself, am very strict. but the fact that we still have issues like this is just embarrissing. we have more important issues to stress on. i am not gay, but those who are should not stay in the closet :sniper:

Why? How come straight people should be allowed to acknowledge their sexuality, but gays can't? It's the same shit, different pile.

I oppose gay marriage.
It has nothing to do with civil rights and I am sick of gays claiming it does all that does is tarnish the history of the civil rights movement in which blacks tried to fight from true opression fo the jim crow south.
Gays currentily posess the exact same rights as straights-- even the right to marry HOWEVER they cannot marry someone of the same sex, but then again neither can a straight person.

Yeah, and blacks couldn't marry someone of another race, but neither could a white guy, so it's all okay, right?

Heh, even this sarcastic example doesn't do the current situation justice. At least that white guy also suffers, unlike the straight person in your example. What a pathetic argument - I first heard this a year ago as a joke, and to my horror, I found that some people actually thought it a good argument. I mean, could you possible try harder to avoid the elephant of logic in the corner?

Why? How come straight people should be allowed to acknowledge their sexuality, but gays can't? It's the same shit, different pile.

He said they should. *offers some glasses*

I oppose gay marriage.
It has nothing to do with civil rights and I am sick of gays claiming it does all that does is tarnish the history of the civil rights movement in which blacks tried to fight from true opression fo the jim crow south.
Gays currentily posess the exact same rights as straights-- even the right to marry HOWEVER they cannot marry someone of the same sex, but then again neither can a straight person.


Oh yeahhhh, and blacks were the only group to suffer oppression and how in the hell did "civil rights" become a catch phrase solely synonymous with their plight anyhow?

First, everything should by default be legal. Only if there are reasons, such as dammage to people or the society, should something be made illegal.

The open quesion is, is gay marriage damaging to the people or the society?

Second, if gay marriage should be allowed, then polygamy should be allowed too! If we are going away from the 'natural' man-woman marriage, then other constellations should be accepted too!

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)

Yeah! And look at what happened to the Egyptians. They were conquered by whatmany barbarian hordes (though no one can blame the gays or heterosexuals for that).

1. Surplus of children.
Do not adjust your monitors people. You've read correctly. I guess this is more of an argument for adoption by gay couples, but isn't that your real disagreement with gay marriage anyway? Now, the general "conservative"(whatever the words "conservative" and "liberal" even mean anymore) arguments with gay adoption are, as you mentioned "I don't want to have to explain to little Joe-bob why his friend his friend Skylar has two daddies. I don't want to explain why his classmate Christiana has two mommies" The other argument is basically as follows : "All gays are child molestors". The first argument was debunked in my first post, the second argmuent has been proven wrong time and time again by psycologists, investigations, etc.. In fact most child molestors are otherwise heterosexual. Anyway... There are loads of kids waiting to be adopted, and they are growing in numbers. More and more kids are getting brought up by the state because no one will adopt them. There are plenty of gay couples willing to adopt. In some states, they are already allowed to adopt. Now, where does marriage come in with this whole thing? The greatest merit of marriage as an institution is that it keeps both parents around for the upbringing of their children. There have been numerous studies showing that kids raised by two parents(yes, even gay parents) turn out more well-adjusted and better off psychologically than kids raised by one parent. Oh, and just so you know, there have also been studies showing that kids raised by gay parents have roughly the same chance of turning out gay as anyone else. So don't go saying that gay parents raise gay children.

Its late and I'm tired. I may or may not continue this post in the morning, depending on my disposition.

First, everything should by default be legal. Only if there are reasons, such as dammage to people or the society, should something be made illegal.

The open quesion is, is gay marriage damaging to the people or the society?

Second, if gay marriage should be allowed, then polygamy should be allowed too! If we are going away from the 'natural' man-woman marriage, then other constellations should be accepted too!

Socially, yes. At the level of government recognition, however, we run into some obstacles. Jumping to allowing unlimited spouses will cause more than a few kinks in the system, whereas gay marriage doesn;t change the number of parties involved. I have few reservations on accepting multiple-spousal relationships, but the legal and economical factors are not so easily transferred. Simply, the system we have in place is not ready for such a leap, even if society were. This move would require more thought, and I'm not sure you'll find too many people ready and asking for such a union. Threeways are difficult enough on a physical level (sharing attention and the like), and adding emotion in may only lead to a more unstable relationship, limiting the number of groups coming forward to be wed. That's my experience in it - I'm just musing now, don't mind me.

Yeah! And look at what happened to the Egyptians. They were conquered by whatmany barbarian hordes (though no one can blame the gays or heterosexuals for that).

Umm... if the gays had nothing to do with it... what exactly *was* your point?

That's like saying Rome was overthrown because woman were expected to work at home <insert comment about how you can't blame women for what happened>. Rome fell because of disscent in the ranks of the senate. Egypt fell because of political reasons (opression of minorities seems to ring a bell, but I'd have to look that up - note how I'm saying it's not fact? That's what you're meant to do when stating an opinion).

Fair points Anbar.

Maybe I'll have to just stick to one girl after all. :rolleyes:

"Gay marriage is wrong."
Pardon me for asking, but what was the question? Such a difinitive answer, though I'm not sure what was asked. Was it for a reason why same-sex marriage should be legal? In that case, your answer doesn't make much sense. Ah, well.
In case you didn't know, marriage is not strictly a religious issue, though many Christians may wish it were. Not in the least. I'd bet government officials perform many more marriages than the church. If marriage is to become a legal issue, then equal protection must be allowed. To claim that homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals since they too can marry, albeit only the opposite sex, is misleading. Heterosexuals have the right to marry whom they choose, since the only ones they care to marry are members of the opposite sex. Homosexuals are not allowed marry whom they choose, since those which they wish to marry are members of the same sex. This is like making membership of the Klan legal, while outlawing the Black Panthers. It makes no sense. Sure black people will have the same nominal rights, all could hypothetically join the Klan. I don't think I need to explain that any more. Other reasons that gay marriage would be beneficial is that it would curb the spread of STDs in that community, which would also help keep transmission rates low among heterosexuals, since bisexual men sleep with heterosexual women as well. The added number of weddings is good for the economy. The gay market in the United States alone is $40 per annum. Much of it is sent overseas, but if the US were more gay friendly, we could capitalize on that money, and that of homosexuals around the world.
According to the Kinsey institute, homosexuals make up 10% of the population of the United States. These people pay taxes, and are productive parts of society. Why should the Christian right decide their destinies for them? They have a voice, 30 million strong. The will of the majority is not allowed to infringe on the rights of the minority. People get this confused. The purpose of democracy is to suit the needs of the majority, but it is also to protect the minority. That one day when Christians do become the minority, you better pray to your god that the majority, whatever it is, is a bit more civil than the Christian right has been. Who would agree with Christians not being allowed to marry in Muslim nations?
Anyone remember when it was illegal to have interracial marriages in the US? It happened. By the bible's standards, interracial marriage is frowned upon. No one will touch that today, though, except the Ku Klux Klan-- are these the last true Christians?
If you're going to use the bible to push morality, please go by all it's precepts, don't pick and choose to fit the issue of the times. Women can lead churches, people plow two crops in one field, people wear clothing of two different types of material, intterracial marriages are legal, women are in the workforce. Does anyone think twice about these things anymore? They're commonplace, but the bible calls them "abominations." Fight the whole battle, go back and take it all on-- the problem is more widespread than gay marriage. It's an uphill battle for the Holy Bible. What does that old book have to say anyway?
1 Samuel 18:1-3
"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul."
Hmmm.... racy stuff!

Fair points Anbar.

Maybe I'll have to just stick to one girl after all. :rolleyes:

Yeah, people generally dislike sharing...especially in the long term. But, nothing ventured, nothing gained. If everyone is compatible, there's not such a problem.

Socially, yes. At the level of government recognition, however, we run into some obstacles. Jumping to allowing unlimited spouses will cause more than a few kinks in the system, whereas gay marriage doesn;t change the number of parties involved. I have few reservations on accepting multiple-spousal relationships, but the legal and economical factors are not so easily transferred. Simply, the system we have in place is not ready for such a leap, even if society were.

I think polygamy could be ok, as long as every party is willing (haven't thought about it too much). Although I haven't studied the matter too hard, it seems that in many instances the women don't have a lot to say about multiple partners, because their parents or village elders make those decisions for them. If your current wife or husband wants to marry someone else too, then if you can make choices based on this new information, then why not allow it? If you are free to divorce the bastard (if you are so inclined to think), then there are less problems.

Anyway, I doubt the legal barriers should be too high as to be an insurmountable obstacle. Laws are changed all the time anyway. Sometimes allowing or banning one thing is easy and sometimes its not. Although most things having to do with spouses or parents are made with the assumption that there are one or two such persons, it shouldn't be too hard to make do with three or more parents or spouses. For example: If something requires the consent of both parents/quardians (in case there are two), it basically means that ALL the parents should agree on the matter. It just makes more sense to say "both", because it makes it clearer and leaves less wriggling room for some lawyer. For economic purposes, let's say you have insurance which includes some benefits for your "spouse". At the moment, there can only be one "spouse", so insurance companies don't have to worry about it. Now if someone can have two or even more spouses, insurance companies would be quick to change their policies and how much you have to pay for them to allow for this fact (when you go to buy insurance, you are asked "How many spouses do you have?" instead of "Are you married or cohabiting?")

I think polygamy could be ok, as long as every party is willing (haven't thought about it too much). Although I haven't studied the matter too hard, it seems that in many instances the women don't have a lot to say about multiple partners, because their parents or village elders make those decisions for them. If your current wife or husband wants to marry someone else too, then if you can make choices based on this new information, then why not allow it? If you are free to divorce the bastard (if you are so inclined to think), then there are less problems.

Anyway, I doubt the legal barriers should be too high as to be an insurmountable obstacle. Laws are changed all the time anyway. Sometimes allowing or banning one thing is easy and sometimes its not. Although most things having to do with spouses or parents are made with the assumption that there are one or two such persons, it shouldn't be too hard to make do with three or more parents or spouses. For example: If something requires the consent of both parents/quardians (in case there are two), it basically means that ALL the parents should agree on the matter. It just makes more sense to say "both", because it makes it clearer and leaves less wriggling room for some lawyer. For economic purposes, let's say you have insurance which includes some benefits for your "spouse". At the moment, there can only be one "spouse", so insurance companies don't have to worry about it. Now if someone can have two or even more spouses, insurance companies would be quick to change their policies and how much you have to pay for them to allow for this fact (when you go to buy insurance, you are asked "How many spouses do you have?" instead of "Are you married or cohabiting?")

Ah, but then you have certain discounts, and who gets the right to make certain decisions or control assets? I'm not saying these are arguments to end the debate, but simply that the utter lack of preparation (or even consideration) in this area shows that this is not going to be anything that will happen any time soon.

AS far as the intra-relationship thing goes, the only precedent we have for such things are from very specific religious traditions. As far as I know, secular polygamy is virtually unheard of. So, there's something of a blank slate there, but I think the only realistic way such a thing could happen would be in the case of bisexual individuals. Otherwise, I think that territorial conflict and battles for attention and preference are inevitable. But, who knows - that's why people experiment with this and that.

Originally Posted by SchenaRah
I oppose gay marriage.
It has nothing to do with civil rights and I am sick of gays claiming it does all that does is tarnish the history of the civil rights movement in which blacks tried to fight from true opression fo the jim crow south.
Gays currentily posess the exact same rights as straights-- even the right to marry HOWEVER they cannot marry someone of the same sex, but then again neither can a straight person.


Seemily a good argument, until you think about it for a moment.

Straight people have the right to marry someone they can truly love and enjoy adult experiences with (as well as getting various tax breaks and stuff...not really sure, but I know there are financial reasons to marry). Gay people do not have that right.

Not equality.

the bible is not pro-genocide or pro-slavery, you are saying that the bible was wrong which contraticts the bible which is taught as absolute truth. if you dont believe the bible as fact then you dont really believe in the bible. if that is the case how could you use the verses you used to support you case if you believe others may be wrong, what makes the verses you used right.There are many versions of the bible, updates and such, that have occured over the years. Re-done by the church (At least that is what I believe. I dont think anyone but the Church is allowed to change the bible right?). These changes have created different editions. How would these new additions be written if there was nothing wrong with the last ones? The Church saw that there was stuff that no longer applied in modern society and decided to modify it, thus making new editions. How can this 'edit' happen if the bible is "absolutely correct" from word go and blah blah blah?

Correct me if I am wrong. I have no problem with correcting myself as long as there is good reason and evidence.

how can it not be the word of God when God is the main "charater" in it. it has his teaching and what is required of us from God. how can it not be the word of God?Erm ... did God write it, himself? No, man did ... more specifically men did. They were translators. If someone tells you something, and you have to pass it on, you tell it your way to the next person. Every played Chinese Whispers? Its like that. The bible was written by men, translated, translated again, ect ect ... and what is read now is the result of that. I dont think it is the "word of God" as such. More like the "general gist of God".

See, telling a person when you think what they are doing is wrong, that requires a judgement of what they are doing. This leaves us only able to judge ourselves, and to help our fellow man. The whole reason why Jesus made such a huge impression on history (and unfortunately what few people give him credit for nowadays) is that he taught a positive approach to life. He did away with the 10 commandments which were all negative statements--thou shalt not -- and replaced them with two positive statements: though shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, mind and soul, and thou shalt love thy neighbor as theyself. Jesus realized that negative rules and regulations bring only finger pointing and bickering, and really slow the improvement of civilization. This is why he was so down on judging but all about love, faith, and hope. It is why his message is still good today, although not many people listen to it. They would rather revert back to the way things were before he began spreading his message, and sit in stalemated arguments, yelling too loud to ever listen.Well said.

"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?"

The reason people say "why not?" is because it is a part of american heritage that if you want to do something that is not hurting other people, you should legally be able to. Gay marriage does not "hurt" existing straight marriages, or straight marriages to come. I really don't udnerstand why you feel so threatened by something that ahs nothing to do with you.

"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?)"

OK seriously, explain to me how two men or two women marrying each other hurts you or your marriage, or the so-called sanctity of your marriage? We live in a country in which two people(a man and a woman currently) can get married by any religious institution, or without religion at all(two atheists can get married legally, by applying for a marriage liscense to the state.) Do hindu marriages infringe on your rights or the sanctity of your marriage because you don't believe in the hindu faith? Do non-religious marriages infringe upon you or your marriage? No. Does your marriage(or future marriage if you are not married but plan on getting married) mean any less because these other marriages exist? No. Do you have to recognise these marriages on a personal, religious level? No, you don't. But the state does, because we live in a country with freedom of religion.
Now, about your argument that gay marriage discriminates against Christians by "proving their ideals are stupid", I again point back to the free practice of any religion in this country. Does it offend you when jewish people wear yamukkahs because it is not a part of your christian beliefs? When muslims celebrate ramadan? It shouldn't. But even if it does, its none of your business, and it is not your right to tell them they can't. Hate it all you want, but the government gives these people certain inalienable rights. Why? Because this great nation of ours was founded upon freedom and the pursuit of liberty and happiness.
I would also point out that there are many Christians that do not believe that gay relationships are wrong. There are many Christians that support gay marriage. I suppose you would say that these people aren't "true christians". To that I would point out that the scriptures in the bible that supposedly forbid homosexuality(they are rather ambigious) also forbid eating shellfish and shrimp, women wearing pants, and give the OK on slavery, and detail animal sacrifices to be made to god. So in other words if you eat shrimp, let your wife, girlfriend, mother, daughter, or whoever wear pants, disagree with slavery, or don't partake in animal sacrifices, it could be said that you too are not a "true christian".

"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 don't feel the need to comment on this as it is ambigious and directed at an argument that I'm not making.

"Because they deserve the same rights. (My point they have the same rights as we do.)"

If two gay people fall in love and decide to swear vows to one another and engage in a prolonged monogamous relationship, they should have the same rights as two heterosexual people in the same boat. This includes the insurance benefits, tax benefits, etc... Or else, these benefits should be done away with for just married couples, and only apply to couples with children, married or not, gay or not(they were meant to cut the slack on people with families to support).

"Why is it any of you’re business (because it will affect my children and grand children and so on.)"

I have news for you. Gay people have existed as long as people have existed. Gay people have been forming relationships for just as long. Has their simple existence somehow hindered your life? If so explain. How would gay marriage affect the lives of your children or grandchildren? I read your agrument about having to explain to your grandchildren why one of their freinds has two mommies. So let me get this straight. You want to deny other people the right to marry for the CONVENIENCE of not having to explain it to your child? Do you also not agree with white couples adopting black children because you might have to explain one day to your child or grandchild how their black friend ended up with white parents? All you have to tell them is this: "Because Johnnie's two mommies were in love and decided to start a family by adopting a child." Or you can even tell them "because Johnnie's mommies are sinners" if thats what you believe. Tell them what you want. Keep in mind that you personally don't have to recognise gay marriages. You can go on thinking whatever you want on the subject. And you can keep going to the same church that forbids homosexuality all you want. The state is not going to tell you to change your mind, nor tell your religious institution what and what not to believe in or practice. Keep also in mind that when people support legalizing gay marriage, they're not saying that your church has to sanctify gay marriage, perform gay marriages, or recognise gay marriages. They're just saying that, on a LEGAL LEVEL, gay marriages should be recognised by the government. It has nothing to do with you, your beliefs, your marriage, or your faith.

But the state should recognize gay relationships because of the mountain of scientific information gathered by biologists, psychologists, sociologists, etc that says that people are born gay and cannot "ungay" themselves. And also because again, we live in a country that, by default, is supposed to allow any behavior that is not harmful to other people or society.

The purpose of this post has been to tear apart your defenses to what you recognise as the typical arguments for gay marriage. The purpose of my next post will be to provide fresh arguments for gay marriage.*Bows down* You have a good, solid, evidence filled argument. I agree whole heartedly with it. Give this guy a prize!

Christianity is outdated and will die out eventually. This is apparent all over the world. Yes, there is a rise in membership/conversion, but that is mainly due to financial investments into the corporate system.

When speaking with my uncle's friend of 40+ years, he told me the SOLE reason for his Christian conversion was to hold an alliance with another company. He could care less if there was a Bible burning at the local garbage dump.

Christianity discriminates against everything - like the Bible, it does not progress. It continues to be extremely vague and full of holes. I can take it apart in a debate with pastors and priests in less than an hour. Always with the same answer, "God works in mysterious way" - my ass!

Always talking about the morality of the human race versus that of a creator's thoughts, rules and regulations. Heck if Jesus's words were so absolute, he should have appeared every where and not just at the height of the Roman Empire. What's so special about the Roman Empire and Israel? China was once a great empire, and France with Napolean, and Germany with Hitler, and what about the wars that have killed hundreds of millions over the past six thousand years?

Now a Christian speaks about the morality of gay marriages? Hahahahaha... What is the morality of gay marriages? Please enlighten me. What you think that your God created a man with a penis and a woman with a vagina, so they can get married one day, have sex, and make babies?

Have you ever wondered why the Bible portrayed Jesus as a man and not a woman? In the Bible it explained how Jesus went through the pains of the human man. Well, what about the pains of human woman? The pains of birth, the fear of rape, the hardships of going through periods, emotional distress, and the worries of a mother natural to the life of her children?

It's just so convenient that Christians worship a lopsided religion. All you do all the damn time is bring up some thing about morality, and then surrender yourself to God, because he loves you. Why do you portray your god as a human being? Why does your God have human emotions? Why does it care to create people?

You know what? You speak of Adam and Eve, but gay marriage is wrong. Well, isn't that ironic?! So you're basically saying that gay marriage is absolutely wrong, but incest is right... Okay... Why not?

That's exactly like saying, "God loves his children enough to send over 3 million Jews to the oven." [thumbs up] Well, what can I say?

Oh and then you will argue that people forfeit the Christian God enough that God himself just suddenly stopped caring. Well, isn't that a 'little' presumptious?

Over the centuries of recorded human history, how many mass deaths/murders have occurred? So you're basically saying that the Christian God stopped caring on the day he created the world. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. [rolls eyes]

Some of you make your God so humanly that it's hard to tell if you are devote or not.

The way I see the Christian God is the way I see a skinny little nerd, who's been unloved all his life, and then one day, he finds a way to create something to quench his boredom. Once he has done that, he creates an avatar, and makes everyone try to worship him. When people don't, he creates havoc to teach them a lesson.

Tell me, what' the difference between your God and that of a bullied nerd?

Well, that's my 2 cents... Oooh... I feel a MASSIVE flame war ensuing... If not, well... Fortunate for you then... 8]

I can't wait until the world progresses beyond these petty arguements, and notes the concept of human rights. Not giving the right for certain couples to marry is simple, blatent discrimmination. End of story. Not legalizing gay marriage is a violation of human rights. Take away marriage for straight couples, and it's even. Give gay people marriage, and we're also even. Something's gotta change, and it will, it will only take time. But it will happen, and I'll rejoice when it does.

Stratotiatus - exactly what I had in mind. I sincerely wish that the world is void of these petty religious outbreaks of human morality and their creator god. We don't need it here on this planet. We never did.

In a slightly more immature perspective, I kind of wished that the Roman Emperor Augustus had completely crushed the Christian rebels. Then again, I have some friends who REALLY NEED their Christian god... Dumped by two now ex-boyfriends, and most recently a third, she told me that she went further into her Christian God more than ever. Hmmm... When I asked her/them how they differentiate between their own integrity and strengths from that of the voice in their head, they say it's the same thing with a lot of hesitative pondering initially.

Hmmm... I wonder what the voice in my head says to me... "Go to sleep!" Yeah, I think I'll do that since it's 3:56am! Woah! God just told me to go to sleep! Wowzers! 8]

yes i am speaking for God because i am going by what the bible says and the bible is the word of God. if a man murders a man who murdered another man that dosn't make the murder okay. if someone is homosexual and someone is homosexual with him its still wrong. two wrongs dont make a right.


That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you're inferring something to be the will of God from something else in the bible, when the thing you're trying to justify is NOT. Basically, you're being awfully presumptious and putting words in God's mouth. I think your minister would have some choice words for you about this, even if he happened to agree with what you are saying. You're making something up and saying that it is the opinion of God that this is true, and I have a feeling he hasn't been speaking to your uppity butt lately.

Can anyone please justify why we need straight marriage?

If the law were changed to recognise parental rights and responsibilities regardless of marital status(I'm talking from my knowledge of British law, were the father only has rights if he marries the mother or adopts the kids), and groups of adults cohabiting were given the same breaks married couples get, you cut down on the tax burden, encourage people to cohabitate and share facilities and cut through this whole awful mess about child custody.

The only reason you'd need marriage or civil unions is in the case of infertile and same-sex couples where adoption or donor eggs/sperm are required to start a family, which is, after all, the cornerstone of society, ennit?

Here's my response to those who are anti-gay marriage:

Tell me this -> how does the marriage between two homosexuals personally affect your life? Let me ask this then; if two heterosexual people get married, how does it affect you life?

The answer is simple; neither affect your life! Even if one of the people getting married is your kid, it doesn't actually change your life! It's THEIR life and they have the same rights as everyone else.

Here's my response to those who are anti-gay marriage:

Tell me this -> how does the marriage between two homosexuals personally affect your life? Let me ask this then; if two heterosexual people get married, how does it affect you life?

The answer is simple; neither affect your life! Even if one of the people getting married is your kid, it doesn't actually change your life! It's THEIR life and they have the same rights as everyone else.

Yet they still have to respond to this with more than 'it will make baby Jesus cry!".

I just find it interesting that religions are happy to change things (and they have, which is why there are different editions of the bible) when it suits something 'they' want to do, but not others. (No, I cant think of any exact examples ... )(/snip)
I can. The Episcopal Church. Founded in the Fifteenth Century by King Henry the Eighth as The church of England (latterly, the Anglican Church...Episcopal in the United States) and was founded solely because the Pope would not allow Henry a divorce. Henry wanted a divorce, because his current wife (Queen) was not giving him a MALE child, to be an heir to the Throne.
And the entire Protestant Reformation, in the Fifteenth Century was ALL ABOUT changing rules that some people didn't like about the Church of the time. Read up on Martin Luther (founder of the Lutheran Church) sometime.

While you are at it, read up on John Calvin (founder of the Dutch Reformed church) which is the root of American Southern Baptist religion. Read up also on Michael Cervetus...burned at the stake by Calvin, for suggesting that the Trinity was nowhere mentioned in the Bible...Cervetus was not a believer in the popular Trinity teachings of the times.
Look also at the Mennonites...they were hunted down anf killed by Toyferjagers(spelling??) for correctly pointing out that infant baptism was nowhere mentioned in The Bible, and thus should not be a scrament. Also, look to the Mormons...today, they are Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or LDS, for short, but they were originally the Mormons.
all of these faiths were started by people who found some dissatisfaction with their current religion, wanted some rules changes, could not get them...and so formed their own religions.
I hope I have provided enough examples for you to be looking into!! This does not even take into account my own church, the Unitarian Universalists, nor any of the pagan, or earth-based religions, Wicca...or other pagan religions. The examples I just gave are all examples of MAJOR religions, mostly founded during The Protestant Reformation in the Fifteenth Century...and were founded by people who found something not to their satisfaction in their then-current religions.
No, I'm not a theology student, incidentally. but, we are exposed to all of this, and teachings of this in my own church, the Unitarian Universalist Church...and this is how I have come by the knowledge I have.

Marriage is a sacret instituition. One man, one woman that is the rule in our culture since thousands of years and that for good reasons. Marriage, the founding of a family - they belong together.

Marriages receive some privileges for that. Some countries give significant tax reductions for marriage, others give those reductions for marriage and additionally if they are children. If gay marriage would be allowed they would of course get tax deductions. But that means: the government has to cut them somewhere. You can´t give priviliges to everybody. It would mean that there would be less money for tax reduction for families.

And that´s not the way things should go. Families need more support not less. The declining birth rate is a sign of that. Therefore there should be more support for families.

No to gay marriage as it costs money and taxes away money from families.

just a note, you cant be a christian who believes in gay marriage. it goes against the beliefs of christianity

You can't huh?
Well, then, how come I AM???????
I'm a Unitarian Universalist Christian. I practice in a UU Church, because it's liberal political ideals are more in line with my own...I have yet to find a "Christian" church that doesn't (unspokenly, of course) require it's members to be hateful, arrogant, right wingnut, bigoted jerks.
Check out http://www.liberalslikechrist.org
I am a christian. However, until the majority of the Christian Church changes it's political stance to make me and MY political views welcome, I shall continue to practice in my Unitarian Universalist Church, thank you very much.

sure god loves everyone and gives everyone the right to believe to believe in him but homosexuality is a sin. read romans 1:16 through 1:32
Romans 1:26-27 says "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
god may love homosexuals as christians should love homosexuals but to be a christian one must live life buy the bible.

Which icludes LOVING YOUR ENEMIES...LOVING ALL PEOPLE UNCONDITIONALLY!!
Well, if THIS is how you show LOVE for me and MY people, then I'm sure as hell glad you DON'T hate me...'Nuff said!

the bible is not pro-genocide or pro-slavery, you are saying that the bible was wrong which contraticts the bible which is taught as absolute truth. if you dont believe the bible as fact then you dont really believe in the bible. if that is the case how could you use the verses you used to support you case if you believe others may be wrong, what makes the verses you used right.
One could ask YOU the same question, New Spartacus. Why do YOU choose to cherry-pick, and follow ONLY those Levitical laws that do not inconvenience YOU...and only inconvenience OTHER PEOPLE?

How recently have you eaten a ham sandwich? Shrimp?
How about worn clothing made of mixed fibers?
Are you wearing your tassel, as required by Deuteronomy 22:12?
Have you ever made love to your wife while she was in her "time of menstrual uncleanliness?"
In fact, why did you not banish her from the village during her time of menstrual uncleanliness...as the Bible says you should?

One could ask YOU the same question, New Spartacus. Why do YOU choose to cherry-pick, and follow ONLY those Levitical laws that do not inconvenience YOU...and only inconvenience OTHER PEOPLE?

How recently have you eaten a ham sandwich? Shrimp?
How about worn clothing made of mixed fibers?
Are you wearing your tassel, as required by Deuteronomy 22:12?
Have you ever made love to your wife while she was in her "time of menstrual uncleanliness?"
In fact, why did you not banish her from the village during her time of menstrual uncleanliness...as the Bible says you should?

Nono Labrador. Jesus magically made all those laws vanish. All except the one about gays. God truly works in mysterious ways. :P

Remember, it is your belief that the Bible is the word of God. You cannot use that as a reason for anything, since it is not a fact but merely your opinion.
and you can't use it as a basis for denying same-sex couples EQUAL STANDING IN THE EYES OF THE LAW!!

what part of "Congress shall make no law with respect to the establishment of a religion..." do you not understand?
what part of the Fourteenth Amendement's Full Faith and Credit clause do you not understand?

wether or not if it is the main point of the scripture it is still a point. the bible still says it is wrong. Mt 7:1 isn't saying we should close our eyes whenever we see something wrong, in this case homosexuality, we just shouldn't run up to them and condemn they to hell but we should make the effort to tell them it is wrong but not in a rude way. luke is pretty much the same thing it's easier to point out someone elses promblems then our own. we shouldn't be prejudice against them but we should tell people when they are doing something wrong

ah, yes...let's go up to them, and give them a message that offers them no joy, no peace, no love, no tolerance, no understanding, no mercy...let's go to them with a message every bit as comforting as a crown of thorns?? Surely, that will get them to acknowledge we are right, and make them change their ways that make ME uncomfortable...(sarcasm off)

Why? How come straight people should be allowed to acknowledge their sexuality, but gays can't? It's the same shit, different pile.

Oh wow I'm dense. I don't know how I missed the word "not" in that phrase. My bad!

Christianity is outdated and will die out eventually. This is apparent all over the world. Yes, there is a rise in membership/conversion, but that is mainly due to financial investments into the corporate system.

When speaking with my uncle's friend of 40+ years, he told me the SOLE reason for his Christian conversion was to hold an alliance with another company. He could care less if there was a Bible burning at the local garbage dump.

Christianity discriminates against everything - like the Bible, it does not progress. It continues to be extremely vague and full of holes. I can take it apart in a debate with pastors and priests in less than an hour. Always with the same answer, "God works in mysterious way" - my ass!

Always talking about the morality of the human race versus that of a creator's thoughts, rules and regulations. Heck if Jesus's words were so absolute, he should have appeared every where and not just at the height of the Roman Empire. What's so special about the Roman Empire and Israel? China was once a great empire, and France with Napolean, and Germany with Hitler, and what about the wars that have killed hundreds of millions over the past six thousand years?

Now a Christian speaks about the morality of gay marriages? Hahahahaha... What is the morality of gay marriages? Please enlighten me. What you think that your God created a man with a penis and a woman with a vagina, so they can get married one day, have sex, and make babies?

Have you ever wondered why the Bible portrayed Jesus as a man and not a woman? In the Bible it explained how Jesus went through the pains of the human man. Well, what about the pains of human woman? The pains of birth, the fear of rape, the hardships of going through periods, emotional distress, and the worries of a mother natural to the life of her children?

It's just so convenient that Christians worship a lopsided religion. All you do all the damn time is bring up some thing about morality, and then surrender yourself to God, because he loves you. Why do you portray your god as a human being? Why does your God have human emotions? Why does it care to create people?

You know what? You speak of Adam and Eve, but gay marriage is wrong. Well, isn't that ironic?! So you're basically saying that gay marriage is absolutely wrong, but incest is right... Okay... Why not?

That's exactly like saying, "God loves his children enough to send over 3 million Jews to the oven." [thumbs up] Well, what can I say?

Oh and then you will argue that people forfeit the Christian God enough that God himself just suddenly stopped caring. Well, isn't that a 'little' presumptious?

Over the centuries of recorded human history, how many mass deaths/murders have occurred? So you're basically saying that the Christian God stopped caring on the day he created the world. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. [rolls eyes]

Some of you make your God so humanly that it's hard to tell if you are devote or not.

The way I see the Christian God is the way I see a skinny little nerd, who's been unloved all his life, and then one day, he finds a way to create something to quench his boredom. Once he has done that, he creates an avatar, and makes everyone try to worship him. When people don't, he creates havoc to teach them a lesson.

Tell me, what' the difference between your God and that of a bullied nerd?

Well, that's my 2 cents... Oooh... I feel a MASSIVE flame war ensuing... If not, well... Fortunate for you then... 8]


I think I love you :-D

Straight people with unpleasant fetishes manage to get through life without making their sex preferences their entire identity.

There are no BDSM pride parades. There is no multi billion dollar polygamists lobby. People don't begin descriptions of themselves with "I like to dress my wife up as a schoolgirl and f--- her in the ---." We don't have groupsex pride month. We don't try and get schools to distribute books about our fetish of choice to 10 year olds.

Your identity is more than just sexual preferences. Everyone else can keep bedroom business in the bedroom. What is it about the faggots that makes them need to shove their lifestyle down everyone else's throat at every oppurtunity?

So homosexuals are trying to make you turn homosexual how?

Oh, and they do have bdsm parades.

I dont think that there is anything wrong with gay marriage. I think that if two guys or two girls want to be joined together like a straight couple then they should be allowed to do so. I mean they arent hurting you in anyway by getting married. Its not like they are going around making the whole world gay. I know someone who is a lesbian and nothing has happened to me...I'm into guys 110% cuz thats just me but if someone wants to be gay or a lesbian then by all means go for it...and if they want to make it final by getting married then alrite I say more power to ya! If you think its wrong then thats just you and your opition but as for me and anyone else who wants to agree with me leave them alone....they arent harming you in anyway, shape or form. If you're homophobic....get help.

Straight people with unpleasant fetishes manage to get through life without making their sex preferences their entire identity.

There are no BDSM pride parades. There is no multi billion dollar polygamists lobby. People don't begin descriptions of themselves with "I like to dress my wife up as a schoolgirl and f--- her in the ---." We don't have groupsex pride month. We don't try and get schools to distribute books about our fetish of choice to 10 year olds.

Your identity is more than just sexual preferences. Everyone else can keep bedroom business in the bedroom. What is it about the faggots that makes them need to shove their lifestyle down everyone else's throat at every oppurtunity?


How do they shove it down your throat? By hitting on other guys/girls, or wanting equal rights?

And since when was homosexuality a fetish?



Someone's insecure :p


And even though you're a shit, you should be proud of yourself! Smile! :)

Your identity is more than just sexual preferences. Everyone else can keep bedroom business in the bedroom. What is it about the faggots that makes them need to shove their lifestyle down everyone else's throat at every oppurtunity?

Listen to what straight people around you say before you talk about us shoving our lifestyles down your throat. Try turning on the TV and trying to find something that doesn't show heteros in all the prominant roles- something other than Will and Grace.

What the hell does gay rights have to do with shoving our lives down your throat? I didn't choose to be like this, however it happened, and I want to be able to get married. We need pride because we're over three times as likely to commit suicide before we reach twenty than heteros.

We are more than who we fuck, but when people are dying because they can't even feel safe commenting on a bloke's basket when all-male student accomodation is routinely plastered with dirty posters of women, it becomes an issue. We go around with this dirty little secret worrying people are going to find out and we lose friends, family and job.

And as Toastyland said, they do have BDSM parades, they even have a flag! People need to be comfortable expressing who they are, repressing yourself cripples you and is psychologically damaging.

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.

so black people should be shot because it's conceivable that in the future, my hypothetial 5 year old will tug at my sleeve one day and ask why their skin is dark?
i really don't think you give children enough credit, if they're raised in an environment where there are people of all races, religions, sexual orientations, they'll accept it as how the world is and while they might ask questions here and there, it's not difficult to explain.

Straight people with unpleasant fetishes manage to get through life without making their sex preferences their entire identity.

There are no BDSM pride parades. There is no multi billion dollar polygamists lobby. People don't begin descriptions of themselves with "I like to dress my wife up as a schoolgirl and f--- her in the ---." We don't have groupsex pride month. We don't try and get schools to distribute books about our fetish of choice to 10 year olds.

Your identity is more than just sexual preferences. Everyone else can keep bedroom business in the bedroom. What is it about the faggots that makes them need to shove their lifestyle down everyone else's throat at every oppurtunity?

This is because straight people with fetishes can get married and keep all of the benefits of marriage and have their fetish too, without anyone batting an eye. It's because they can come out the door together in street clothes, holding hands, and to anyone observing, they're as normal as they come. Never mind that they have a dungeon downstairs, and a nifty video collection, AND they have kids. Go figure.

Gay couples don't have this hiding place.

the bible is not pro-genocide or pro-slavery,

I see. So you haven't actually read the Old Testament then? If you haven't stop, using it as a crutch and actually read it before trying to use it as evidence for anything. There are places in the Bible that say God is pro-slavery (all of the Levitical laws that regulate it) and where God specifically tells the Jews to commit genocide (after leading them through the wilderness). So, yes, if you take the entire Bible as being literal, it is both pro-genocide and pro-slavery.


you are saying that the bible was wrong which contraticts the bible which is taught as absolute truth.

Most people do not believe it as the absolute truth, or at least not truth as in historical truth. Most of the stories have a point to them, and it is the point (the moral, if you will) that matters. The Bible contradicts itself but anyone with a little faith can read it and, through prayer, etc., figure out what parts are to be seen as "Truth" and which are to be seen as parable.

if you dont believe the bible as fact then you dont really believe in the bible.

::shrug:: I don't believe my God is pro-genocide or pro-slavery. I think that was the misinterpretation of an ancient society. If you would like to go out and start buying slaves, that is fine, but I will not.

if that is the case how could you use the verses you used to support you case if you believe others may be wrong, what makes the verses you used right.

I can use the verses as they relate to the general depiction of God in the Bible (ie - as they relate [or don't] to the rest of the Bible). For instance, a God of love would not advocate enslaving fellow human beings, thus I believe that God did not write all the laws on how to buy, sell, and treat your slaves. This has been done ever since Christianity as a religion began, although the church would like you to believe that it has not.

No to gay marriage as it costs money and taxes away money from families.

Why do you continue to ignore the fact that, especially in the short run, allowing gay marriage would *increase* the amount of taxes that the government gets? If you actually look at the tax laws, you would find that two people who both work (as most gay couples do) marry, they are placed in a tax bracket that results in them paying *more* taxes, not less. Unless there are children in the equation, there is no "tax break" for getting married, at least not in yearly taxes. So guess what? You are patently wrong in stating that it will "take money away from families."

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.


NaNa Banana has it spot on. I personally don't agree with gays, but they exist. I've known some, and some have been friends. I've learned not to let it bother me, because I can't change them.

Oh, and Dark Fututre, why are you so afraid of them? It's not like they're going to infect you by breathing your air or sitting near you.

Get Over It.

Dark Future, your an idiot.
Now, lets look into why Dark future is an idiot: 1) this person basis thier argument on religious doctrines which has absolutly no buissness in politics (separation of church and state) 2)Do you really believe that a person wakes up one day and decides: (male) "Gee I have a hankerin for cock today, I wonder what it is like to take it up the ol poopshoot? perhaps I should become gay! yeah that's the ticket! I will be scorned by a population of ignorant religious fanatics for the rest of my life, and be the center of furious debate over my sexual preferance which is not the buissness of anyone else, but since thiere own lives are so inane and lifeless, they will focus on mine. yeah today.. I am gay." These are people who want to live thier lives like anyone else. Perhaps heterosexuals like to view internet porn, should we have a moral debate about wacking off?! The tax argument is well founded in the sense that yes being married only brings more tax dollars to the good ol government. We believe that being gay is not a decision as it is a way of simply being. We say that gay people are born this way in most cases and would never choose to be gay. Who would purposfully make that choice? no one in our opinion. It saddens me that this is even a debate at all. Are gays attacking us in mass droves? no. Are they armed ready to take over our country? no. Do they however, wish to be accepted as human beings and not judged purely on thier sexuality? yes. Live and let live you supremicist fanatics! If they do not harm you in any way why be concerned?

Post script:

*stepping down from the soapbox and breathing heavily from his ranting and raving*

In support of people who have problems with gays however, we do not see why gay folk define themselves through thier sexuality. These gay pride parades are annoying and detrimental to gay people. Why? well when you make a huge issue out of your sexuality, people are going to define you by that. There is so much more to a person than thier sexuality. We are not saying that gays need to be ashamed in any way. however, do not let yourself be defined as a human being so simply.

Marriage is a sacret instituition. One man, one woman that is the rule in our culture since thousands of years and that for good reasons. Marriage, the founding of a family - they belong together.

Marriages receive some privileges for that. Some countries give significant tax reductions for marriage, others give those reductions for marriage and additionally if they are children. If gay marriage would be allowed they would of course get tax deductions. But that means: the government has to cut them somewhere. You can´t give priviliges to everybody. It would mean that there would be less money for tax reduction for families.

And that´s not the way things should go. Families need more support not less. The declining birth rate is a sign of that. Therefore there should be more support for families.

No to gay marriage as it costs money and taxes away money from families.Firstly, I want to wonder why someone is worried about a declining birth rate in a vastly overpopulated world? We have people living in tissue box sized houses with 20cm yards and you want more people? Wha?

"You can´t give priviliges to everybody. It would mean that there would be less money for tax reduction for families." By families ... do you mean with children or just man and woman? Cos I can name about 50 people (and that is just me naming) that I personally know that have no intention of ever having children - but they are married! ... They get all the rid and roll of marriage and they arent a 'family'. They are talking "support from the families" ... are you protesting them? Trying to stop them from getting married.

Stop with the petty crap people. "You can´t give priviliges to everybody" ... but we've given it to everyone else but the gays. And as everyone keeps saying, they are a minority. Geez, on the grand scheme of things ...

so bored now. have trawled through all if this narrow minded, discriminatory rubbish. whatever you guys say gay unions recognised by law *are going to happen*. whoever you american people vote for. because these guys are not going to give up. and nor should they. they have the right to equal treatment in the eyes of the law. and the usa should be setting the standard to stop the senseless violence and hatred that happens every day.

bet if al quaieda was specifically targetting gays then george bush would suddenly be fronting his new favourite civil rights group.

cynical? me?

all i can say is that there is a law in my country that says if you live together as a couple for long enough then your relationship is protected by law. common law relationship i believe it's called. so we british may be all stiff uper lip to you guys but we know how to protect our citizens and their basic rights to be treated decently. little island like us can deal with it but you guys can't.

shame on you

Straight people with unpleasant fetishes manage to get through life without making their sex preferences their entire identity.

There are no BDSM pride parades. There is no multi billion dollar polygamists lobby. People don't begin descriptions of themselves with "I like to dress my wife up as a schoolgirl and f--- her in the ---." We don't have groupsex pride month. We don't try and get schools to distribute books about our fetish of choice to 10 year olds.

Your identity is more than just sexual preferences. Everyone else can keep bedroom business in the bedroom. What is it about the faggots that makes them need to shove their lifestyle down everyone else's throat at every oppurtunity?
One could ask the same question about heteros. After all, take pop culture...movies, music...all about heterosexual sex. Reality TV. All about who's fucking who. You just do not notice that YOUR hetero lifestyle is being jammed in everyone's face every day, because you are accustomed to, and are comfortable, with it.

Here's a really basic concept...
Woman office worker, to co-workers: Me and my husband went to the movies last night.
Gay male office worker...cannot make the same statement "me and my boyfriend went to the movies last night." without being accused of "shoving his lifestyle in everyone's face."

Those who know me here, know that I'm a transsexual.

Here's an example from my own working life.
Every morning, I would see a couple get out of the car. The man would proceed to shove his tongue down his wife's throat...playing fucking tonsil hockey for all to see. Then, she would go in to work, and he drove off.

Once, when I was fortunate enough to have a boyfriend...he came by work to pick me up for lunch. After lunch, I gave him a quick, chaste kiss on the lips. It lasted half a second...at most. And we sure as HELL didn't ostentatiously play fucking tonsil hockey. And yet, within half an hour (less, actually) the whole goddamn office (3,000 plus workers) were all abuzz about me having kissed my boyfriend!
WTF??
If y'all HETEROS wouldn't make such a big deal about OUR lifestyle....and if you would realize the very hypocrisy of your statement...and realize that YOUR lifestyle is shoved in OUR faces every day, in ways you don't even realize, because you are accustomed to, and comfortable with them.

shame on you

Ha! Shame on Nationstates? Not bloody likely.

Well done New Cats Land, but we say be wary of generalising us all. I am an American and look at my post. Simply Smashing my dear boy! All we ask is for you not to be daft. " Quiet desperation is the English Way". - Pink Floyd

We admire this trait however in your countymen.

Why do you continue to ignore the fact that, especially in the short run, allowing gay marriage would *increase* the amount of taxes that the government gets? If you actually look at the tax laws, you would find that two people who both work (as most gay couples do) marry, they are placed in a tax bracket that results in them paying *more* taxes, not less. Unless there are children in the equation, there is no "tax break" for getting married, at least not in yearly taxes. So guess what? You are patently wrong in stating that it will "take money away from families."

Even if it were correct that it would "take money away from families" the oster you were replying to, Dempublicents, is showing their shit-headedness, in thier FYIGM attitude. (FYIGM = Fuck You, I Got Mine)
And why is it that poster's place to define what "family" is?
Those of us who are GLBT...we have a very different, and just as valid, definition of what constitutes a family!
To us, what constitutes a family is...are you ready??

L-O-V-E!!

Ha! Shame on Nationstates? Not bloody likely.

not nationstates. sorry if you feel i'm generalising but shame on america.

not nationstates. sorry if you feel i'm generalising but shame on america.

Shame on the whole world, apparently. Today France just annulled it's first gay marriage.

Smashing Labrador! perhaps the hetero's were at fault first but these parades only limit the ability for people to see you as a human being. because you define yourself through your sexuality. I could care less if you had breasts, and two cocks it matters not to me. I have seen the Crying Game. Say what you like but I say don't flaunt it chap er ma'am sorry what do you prefer?

Even if it were correct that it would "take money away from families" the oster you were replying to, Dempublicents, is showing their shit-headedness, in thier FYIGM attitude. (FYIGM = Fuck You, I Got Mine)

Oh, believe me, I agree with you whole-heartedly here. I just figure that, with someone like that, you have to take these things in small steps. =)

Those of us who are GLBT...we have a very different, and just as valid, definition of what constitutes a family!
To us, what constitutes a family is...are you ready??

L-O-V-E!!

Now, now, you don't have to GLBT to define a family that way. I consider myself and my boyfriend to be a family, and we're not even married yet (and might just wait until marriage is applied equally to everyone).

Firstly, I want to wonder why someone is worried about a declining birth rate in a vastly overpopulated world? We have people living in tissue box sized houses with 20cm yards and you want more people? Wha?

"You can´t give priviliges to everybody. It would mean that there would be less money for tax reduction for families." By families ... do you mean with children or just man and woman? Cos I can name about 50 people (and that is just me naming) that I personally know that have no intention of ever having children - but they are married! ... They get all the rid and roll of marriage and they arent a 'family'. They are talking "support from the families" ... are you protesting them? Trying to stop them from getting married.

Stop with the petty crap people. "You can´t give priviliges to everybody" ... but we've given it to everyone else but the gays. And as everyone keeps saying, they are a minority. Geez, on the grand scheme of things ...

yeah, i guess by his logic we need to deny marriage to infertile couples, couples whose children are all grown, and couples who don't intend to procreate...after all, only CHILDREN can make a family, and if there aren't children then that married couple is just taking money away from REAL families.

as somebody who never intends to have kids, and who is in a hetero relationship probably headed for marriage, i can only point and laugh at the pure idiocy once again :).

The gay lobby have done an excellent job of demonising anyone who questions or even remotely disagrees with anything at all that they stand for, more than any other minority group in the history of man. Kudos. ;) (Well, with the possible exception of blindly pro-Israel types, who scream "anti-semitism" when anyone questions Israel's oft-times brutal and unfair policies regarding Palestinians. They might have just pipped the gay lobby at the post in the field of blindly and unilaterally discrediting their detractors.)

P.S. I'm sure this will somehow make me homophobic, despite the fact that I have nothing against gay marriages. Just complimenting the marvellous job that the thought-police have done. :)

One could ask the same question about heteros. After all, take pop culture...movies, music...all about heterosexual sex. Reality TV. All about who's fucking who. You just do not notice that YOUR hetero lifestyle is being jammed in everyone's face every day, because you are accustomed to, and are comfortable, with it.

Here's a really basic concept...
Woman office worker, to co-workers: Me and my husband went to the movies last night.
Gay male office worker...cannot make the same statement "me and my boyfriend went to the movies last night." without being accused of "shoving his lifestyle in everyone's face."

Those who know me here, know that I'm a transsexual.

Here's an example from my own working life.
Every morning, I would see a couple get out of the car. The man would proceed to shove his tongue down his wife's throat...playing fucking tonsil hockey for all to see. Then, she would go in to work, and he drove off.

Once, when I was fortunate enough to have a boyfriend...he came by work to pick me up for lunch. After lunch, I gave him a quick, chaste kiss on the lips. It lasted half a second...at most. And we sure as HELL didn't ostentatiously play fucking tonsil hockey. And yet, within half an hour (less, actually) the whole goddamn office (3,000 plus workers) were all abuzz about me having kissed my boyfriend!
WTF??
If y'all HETEROS wouldn't make such a big deal about OUR lifestyle....and if you would realize the very hypocrisy of your statement...and realize that YOUR lifestyle is shoved in OUR faces every day, in ways you don't even realize, because you are accustomed to, and comfortable with them.

Heteros shoving their lifestyle in everyone's face - now I've heard it all. ROTFLMAO.

You ARE a minority. You ARE different from the norm. Deal with it. Me? I'm a fat guy, and people (including total strangers) give me grief and wiseass comments about it all the time. You know what I do? Ignore it. Until the day someone tells me "You have been declined for this job on the basis of your obesity", I won't even give it two thoughts. If someone has a problem with my appearance it is precisely that - THEIR problem, not mine.

That's also like me whining "Oh, skinny/well-built people are shoving their lifestyle in my face all the time!. I saw a guy in a department store blatantly buy a size medium T-shirt the other day! Oh, woe is me!".

And for the record, I AM against overt public displays of sexuality, hetero or homo. Many is the time I have seen a straight couple kissing and groping in public and told them "FFS, get a room!".

;)

Oh, believe me, I agree with you whole-heartedly here. I just figure that, with someone like that, you have to take these things in small steps. =)



Now, now, you don't have to GLBT to define a family that way. I consider myself and my boyfriend to be a family, and we're not even married yet (and might just wait until marriage is applied equally to everyone).

Perhaps I should have made myself clearer. We believe that what defines a family is LOVE. And, yes, heteros can love heteros...and be a family. Many bigots, however, deny that we GLBT people can love one another, and thus make for ourselves a family...also based on LOVE.

Heteros shoving their lifestyle in everyone's face - now I've heard it all. ROTFLMAO.

You ARE a minority. You ARE different from the norm. Deal with it. Me? I'm a fat guy, and people (including total strangers) give me grief and wiseass comments about it all the time. You know what I do? Ignore it. Until the day someone tells me "You have been declined for this job on the basis of your obesity", I won't even give it two thoughts.
But I bet you HAVE been discriminated against, and turned down for a job because of your obesity. They just weren't stupid enough to TELL you that was why they turned you down.

Hah. Discrimination comes in all shapes and sizes. Hell, I wouldn't say that marriage is even a very good prospect for women. We get the short end of the stick legally for it.

Of course, we have to deal with all kinds of sexist remarks, both subtle and obvious, and we can't say much of anything, or people call us "oversensitive". We can't get promotions and we get paid 75 cents on the dollar to what men make. I'd say that gay men get the best deal, economically, since a couple would be able to make roughly the same amount of money, and if they don't have kids, then it becomes easier to save money still. If it weren't for the stigma of homosexuality, they'd have a good advantage.

Gay women, on the other hand, have a disadvantage both from being gay, and the discrimination that comes from it, and being women.

But I bet you HAVE been discriminated against, and turned down for a job because of your obesity. They just weren't stupid enough to TELL you that was why they turned you down.

I'll take that bet, mainly because I have gotten every job that I really wanted...;)

Anyway, everyone in the world has something that they could worry that people were discriminating against them for: race, weight, clothes, wearing too much jewellery, smelling like Garlic, having curly hair, crooked teeth, height, speech mannerisms, accent, eye colour et. al. ad infinitum. Then there's the real kicker - some poeple just don't like other for no apparent reason at all (personality clashes, mainly).

Basically, unless someone is really getting in my face about something, I'm not going to agonise over "what if's" in the back of my mind.

Perhaps I should have made myself clearer. We believe that what defines a family is LOVE. And, yes, heteros can love heteros...and be a family. Many bigots, however, deny that we GLBT people can love one another, and thus make for ourselves a family...also based on LOVE.

I knew what you meant. =) I just want to make sure you don't lump all us (mostly) heteros together. =)

Straight people with unpleasant fetishes manage to get through life without making their sex preferences their entire identity.

There are no BDSM pride parades. There is no multi billion dollar polygamists lobby. People don't begin descriptions of themselves with "I like to dress my wife up as a schoolgirl and f--- her in the ---." We don't have groupsex pride month. We don't try and get schools to distribute books about our fetish of choice to 10 year olds.

Your identity is more than just sexual preferences. Everyone else can keep bedroom business in the bedroom. What is it about the faggots that makes them need to shove their lifestyle down everyone else's throat at every oppurtunity?One note, they have parades/marches/ect for everything you mentioned there! Just maybe not in your country of choices main streets. "What is it about the faggots that makes them need to shove their lifestyle down everyone else's throat at every oppurtunity?" I can name quite a few groups who do the exact same thing. (*Cough* Religious extremists *Cough* Stereotypical Christians *Cough* - Want to talk about lifestyle "shoving"?) The anti-gays for one. There are just as many (if not more) anti-gay marches as their are pro-gay marches. I cant walk from one side of the street to another in the city without being preached to and/or handed flyers saying "God will save me from the Gay". Homophobics "shove" their lifestyle choices and sexual preferences just as much as everyone else - with a little condemnation on the side.

And you know, whenever I walk in town, I get these churches shoved into my face. Why can't those damn religious people keep it to themselves?

Heteros shoving their lifestyle in everyone's face - now I've heard it all. ROTFLMAO.

You ARE a minority. You ARE different from the norm. Deal with it. Me? I'm a fat guy, and people (including total strangers) give me grief and wiseass comments about it all the time. You know what I do? Ignore it. Until the day someone tells me "You have been declined for this job on the basis of your obesity", I won't even give it two thoughts. If someone has a problem with my appearance it is precisely that - THEIR problem, not mine.

That's also like me whining "Oh, skinny/well-built people are shoving their lifestyle in my face all the time!. I saw a guy in a department store blatantly buy a size medium T-shirt the other day! Oh, woe is me!".

And for the record, I AM against overt public displays of sexuality, hetero or homo. Many is the time I have seen a straight couple kissing and groping in public and told them "FFS, get a room!".

;)Ignore it? Hahahahah, okay sure. You see 2 men or women walking hand in hand everyone has something derogative to say - HOLDING HANDS DAMMIT!!! Unless homosexual couples intend to completely ignore their partner in public, every now and then you are going to see something that characterises them as a couple. Whether it is over the top or completely simple (such as the hand holding). You think anyone is going to see *pretend that you arent gay in public please so you dont offend us homophobics* as a good argument/statement? I dont think so.

"Me? I'm a fat guy, and people (including total strangers) give me grief and wiseass comments about it all the time." ... but is anyone saying *you're fat, you cant get married. Go back into the closet, we dont want to be confronted by your fatness ... oh, and God hates you*. No!

"If someone has a problem with my appearance it is precisely that - THEIR problem, not mine." ... um, contridiction. If someone has a problem with a gay people ... its their problem. So, if everything is only OUR OWN problem ... WTF is with everyone protesting homosexual marriage? Its not YOUR problem is it ... so you cant keep protesting/bitching about it. :headbang:

Being discriminated against for being overweight is in no way comparable to the gay marriage thing.

No one is saying to you "You can never, ever, ever marry a skinny person. The fact that you even *want* to is going to leave you condemned to hell. Here, have a pamphlet about how God wants to save you from The Fat".

If you don't care, well then, don't join in discussions about it. It's not like this topic had some sort of ambiguous title. Coming here to say you're sick of discussions about it doesn't really add/change anything. Some of us *do* want to discuss it, to understand how on earth the other side can justify their stand (I bet I don't just speak for the pros here either, I'm sure some of the antis are just as baffled as to how we can *support* gay marriage).

The point is - discussion = good. Don't like it, stay out of it. Problem solved.

No one is saying to you "You can never, ever, ever marry a skinny person. The fact that you even *want* to is going to leave you condemned to hell. Here, have a pamphlet about how God wants to save you from The Fat".Welcome to our world. -Sarcasm- What an open, accepting and civilised collection of people we are!

*Cough* BS! *Cough*.

Everyone who is for moving to another rock and keeping the closed minded, self centred morons off of it say "I/Aye".

Heteros shoving their lifestyle in everyone's face - now I've heard it all. ROTFLMAO.

And for the record, I AM against overt public displays of sexuality, hetero or homo. Many is the time I have seen a straight couple kissing and groping in public and told them "FFS, get a room!";)

So which is it - heterosexuality is not shoved down peoples' throats, or that it's a given that it is? Or, did you just not think that through very well? The answer seems pretty obvious to me, since you don;t even seem to address what is a perfectly valid point...or are you too busy laughing to read?

You ARE a minority. You ARE different from the norm. Deal with it.

And by that you mean, of course, deal with the abuse it brings?

Oh, there's a great attitude. Let's just apply that to history and see where that gets us. Oh yeah, such a midset would advance society beautifully. As for your fat-guy rant, here's a couple of points: 1) Have you ever been denied the right to marry the person you love because you're too fat and people don't want to think about you being intimate? 2) Are fat people physically assaulted in this country for being fat (outside of adolescence)?

Your case is not parallel to that of a homosexual person in the world today, and you have no highground from which to preach.

Welcome to our world. -Sarcasm- What an open, accepting and civilised collection of people we are!

*Cough* BS! *Cough*.

Everyone who is for moving to another rock and keeping the closed minded, self centred morons off of it say "I".

I (or "Aye" if you prefer)!

Heteros shoving their lifestyle in everyone's face - now I've heard it all. ROTFLMAO.

(/snip)

And for the record, I AM against overt public displays of sexuality, hetero or homo. Many is the time I have seen a straight couple kissing and groping in public and told them "FFS, get a room!".

;)

Hmmm, does anyone else see the hypocrisy in these two statements?
First, he ridicules me, and denies that hetero is shoved in our face every day, and all over the place...

And in the next breath, he talks about seeing heteros kissing and groping in public to the point where he says "FFS, get a room!"

Why doesn't that quite add up?

Why will you not, after making that set of statements, acknowledge that I AM RIGHT...that heteros DO shove their lifestyle in everyone's face...in books, movies, music, pop culture, reality TV, the back of the city bus, etc, etc, etc.??

But they aren't given grief, by most people, for doing this!!

On the other hand, recall my story from earlier in the thread about giving MY boyfriend a small, quick kiss on the lips, and hearing about it the entire afternoon around my office, whereas the tonsil-hockey couple, who ostentatiously groped one another every morning, and shoved their tongues down each other's throats every morning...were not given one TENTH the degree I got...for a quick, chaste kiss on the lips of MY boyfriend?
WTF??

Heck, even 2 women are allowed to be intimate in public. I regularely see 2 girls walking hand-in-hand. And I'm pretty damn sure they're not all lesbians either.

Heck, even 2 women are allowed to be intimate in public. I regularely see 2 girls walking hand-in-hand. And I'm pretty damn sure they're not all lesbians either.
uh so that you noe, there is a difference between being intimate and being sexually intimate

uh so that you noe, there is a difference between being intimate and being sexually intimate

No I didn't know, but your wise comments have changed my view on life itself! ffs, think before you post.

And in case *you* didn't know, Labrador certainly isn't complaining about her inability to be sexually intimate with her partner *in public*.

No I didn't know, but your wise comments have changed my view on life itself! ffs, think before you post.

And in case *you* didn't know, Labrador certainly isn't complaining about her inability to be sexually intimate with her partner *in public*.

Exactly. I am merely stating the obvious...that we are persecuted for even showing the most basic and chaste signs of affection towards one another in public...whereas heteros engage in ostentatios displays of things in oublic better left behind closed doors, and get not even a TENTH of the grief for it that WE get for something so innocent as a small, quick peck on the lips.

I mean, my God...
I'm a transsexual, this was VERY WELL KNOWN where I worked, as I was a very outspoken advocate, at the time, for local civil-rights ordinances.
I give my boyfriend a quick, chaste peck on the lips, it wasn't even a WET kiss, for God's sake..no Frenching, I mean...the kiss I gave him could be compared to the kind of kiss maybe you might give your father...I mean, we are talking VERY TAME stuff...and I got no end of grief over it from co-workers the entire rest of the afternoon, even from my boss...and yet...the tonsil-hockey couple did their routine every morning, and no one gave TEM greif!!
Hell, I'm not asking or wanting to be SEXUALLY INTIMATE in public with my partner, and I agree with you, I DON'T WANT TO SEE ANYONE BEING SEXUALLY INTIMATE IN PUBLIC!! All's I'm saying is I want the same ability to show some affection towards my partner without greif...to talk about what me and my boyfriend did (saw a movie) last night...in the same way any other female co-worker could, without ANY grief, talk about what she and her husband did (saw a movie) last night...or, without ANY greif, give her husband/boyfriend a quick good-bye kiss.

I mean, seriously, whats the big fucking deal?? Why's it okay for heteros...but NOT ok for gays...or transsexuals? What gives here?

Y'all heteros go MUCH FURTHER in "public displays of affection" than most GLBT people I know...yet YOU aren't given grief for it.

On Edit: I felt like videotapig, or photographing, the tonsil-hockey couple the next morning, and then asking my boss to justify why he didn't EVER give HER grief over this, even though it was far more ostentatious than what I'd done...AND mine was a one-time thing, whereas THEIRS was an every morning routine...and I mean EVERY morning!
I damn near wanted to BARF watching those two go at it every morning!

On Edit: I felt like videotapig, or photographing, the tonsil-hockey couple the next morning, and then asking my boss to justify why he didn't EVER give HER grief over this, even though it was far more ostentatious than what I'd done...AND mine was a one-time thing, whereas THEIRS was an every morning routine...and I mean EVERY morning!
I damn near wanted to BARF watching those two go at it every morning!

Go for it. These disgusting heteros need to be put in their place. They don't seem to realise that we don't neccessarily seem them as natural and normal. It's disgusting to see them going at it.

No one is saying to you "You can never, ever, ever marry a skinny person. The fact that you even *want* to is going to leave you condemned to hell. Here, have a pamphlet about how God wants to save you from The Fat".

That last part was funny - not poking fun at, but the idea of it is so funny. 8]

What the mainstream Christians should do is create a land for themselves and move themselves there, and build on that. If people outside of their nation wants to follow their [cough] `absolute` [cough] faith, then they can choose for themselves whether to move there or not, rather than have those damn mormons trespass on my... I mean, on our properties and bring their pretty boys and sexy looking Chinese girls to my, I mean, to your door and preach the love of their Jesus, yaddi yadda. Damn, if Canada wasn't so strict on gun laws, I'll blow them away to their Oh Mighty Heavenly Kingdom. 8]

1. marriage is personal. if you want to get married, find a church (or other religious or establishment) you believe in, fill it with the people who believe in you and your partner and will be there for you as you build a new life together. or use a state park, or your back yard; I used my living room. it's a comitment ceremony- it's fun, it's cool, it's deep, it's a ritual, it's a party. if you want certain legal rights, you *should* be able to apply for a civil union which would be a legal contract. end of problem.

2. gays are maybe 10% of the population. if you care about the sanctity of marriage you'll do better to work on the 50% of hetero unions that end up in DIVORCE.

3. children are obselete. we don't need to support propogation anymore. Well, except to create workers to fuel the machines of capitalism.
Oh, wait... So that's what this is all about...


BTW- I used to be neutral on this issue, on the one hand I believe in equal rights, on the other hand I'm traditionally religious- but I just ran out of excuses for forcing my views on others.

Go for it. These disgusting heteros need to be put in their place. They don't seem to realise that we don't neccessarily seem them as natural and normal. It's disgusting to see them going at it.

It is NOT their heterosexuality that turns me off or makes me want to barf. Technically, I'm hetero myself, since I am now a woman...and like men. I'd feel the same way if I saw two gay guys playing tonsil-hockey in public!

I don't wanna see ostentatious disgusting displays of affection like that in public, and I don't CARE WHO the participants are...or what their orientation is. It is STILL DISGUSTING and makes me want to BARF!

My point was, they, being hetero, got no greif for their actions, yet, the smallest, most innocent display of affection on my part...got me an entire afternoon's worth of grief...for a one-time thing...and yet, this other couple didn't get grief for a more ostentatious display than I'd ever DREAM of putting on in oublic, AND theirs was a DAILY THING!!

Does that clear up my original statement?

It is NOT their heterosexuality that turns me off or makes me want to barf. Technically, I'm hetero myself, since I am now a woman...and like men. I'd feel the same way if I saw two gay guys playing tonsil-hockey in public!

I don't wanna see ostentatious disgusting displays of affection like that in public, and I don't CARE WHO the participants are...or what their orientation is. It is STILL DISGUSTING and makes me want to BARF!

My point was, they, being hetero, got no greif for their actions, yet, the smallest, most innocent display of affection on my part...got me an entire afternoon's worth of grief...for a one-time thing...and yet, this other couple didn't get grief for a more ostentatious display than I'd ever DREAM of putting on in oublic, AND theirs was a DAILY THING!!

Does that clear up my original statement?
too right

i dont want to see gay people making out in public, matter of fact i dont want to see any damned person making out in public

I don't get what's disgusting about public affection. Public space is filled with sexual/violent displays of disdain and hatred. At least in new york it is, tons of billboards and bus ads and such. So what if people are making out, they like each other, so what?

I don't get what's disgusting about public affection. Public space is filled with sexual/violent displays of disdain and hatred. At least in new york it is, tons of billboards and bus ads and such. So what if people are making out, they like each other, so what?

yeah, i don't get it either. if it's in a movie theatre, and they are right in front of you, and they are making those slurpy noises, then maybe yeah i get how you would be annoyed. but if there's just two people on a bench necking in the park, what the hell do you care? they like each other, and they are enjoying their bodies...what's wrong with it?

thats why i suggest "romantic areas" where you can go and make out

To all the sarcastic (and too clever by half, it seems) people who seem to find a conflict in the statements:

Originally Posted by New Fubaria
Heteros shoving their lifestyle in everyone's face - now I've heard it all. ROTFLMAO.

(/snip)

And for the record, I AM against overt public displays of sexuality, hetero or homo. Many is the time I have seen a straight couple kissing and groping in public and told them "FFS, get a room!".

Let me explain a concept to you called twisted logic. For example "From war comes peace, and peace is good - therefore, war is good". This is twisted logic. As is your erroneous assumption of hypocracy in my statements.

To give another example: I have "often" told my friends that I don't like them farting in my presence. That DOES NOT mean that when they do fart, they are "shoving it down my throat". (That conjures up an interesting mental image) ;)

Can you see the difference now?

Like I said earlier, no minority group has perfected the technique of unliaterally discrediting their detractors (and funnily enough, I'm not even a detractor) like the gay lobby, even if they must use pseudo-logic to do it :) Now quick, whip out your burning crosses and crucify me for that statement, too. :)

There's a time and a place for everything :p

I don't mind as long as it's romantic. A couple kissing in the park? Go for it. Two people making out in the rain? Rock on.

Interrupting my movie by lying on top of each other? DIE.

Anyway, I retire from this thread.

Despite the fact I have never once said I oppose gay marriage, I seem to have been painted with the "homphobe" brush.

Debating with rabid pro-gays and the gay lobby is not dissimilar to trying to debate with rabid Bush supporters or rabid Christians - all they seem to want to do is either attack you personally rather than actually read what you have to say, or justify their stance with fuzzy logic.

One last attempt to put across my stance:

I am pro- gay marriage.
I am also for the fact that ANY minority group must learn to deal with the fact that some people don't accept them, and as long as this non-acceptance isn't causing fiscal losses or physical harm, you must just learn to deal with it. At the end of the day, every single human being on the face of the earth belongs to some form of minority or another, either by race, religion, physical attributes, sexuality or any other number of infinite parameters.

-----------

Farethewell - now you may rejoice in my departure and have your "victory" celebrations at my departure (who knows, maybe I am overestimating my own importance). ;)

too right

i dont want to see gay people making out in public, matter of fact i dont want to see any damned person making out in public

ah, but your bias is still showing. The way you phrased that, you still leave me conviced that, while you don't want to see ANYONE making out in public, you are STILL more offended and grossed out if it is gay guys doing the making out.
MY point was, I'm equally grossed out, and I DON'T CARE who the participants are, or what their orientation may be.

I don't get what's disgusting about public affection. Public space is filled with sexual/violent displays of disdain and hatred. At least in new york it is, tons of billboards and bus ads and such. So what if people are making out, they like each other, so what?
Public affection should be tempered, because YOU ARE IN PUBLIC!!
Others do NOT want to have to see that!
FFS, get a room!!
hand-holding, a quick kiss, hugs...these are okay. Tonsil-hockey is not. Obvious groping is not. I don't wanna fuckin' see it, and I don't CARE WHO is doing it...I don't want to see it.
FFS, I'm trying to EAT!!

yeah, i don't get it either. if it's in a movie theatre, and they are right in front of you, and they are making those slurpy noises, then maybe yeah i get how you would be annoyed. but if there's just two people on a bench necking in the park, what the hell do you care? they like each other, and they are enjoying their bodies...what's wrong with it?

what's wrong with having a little respect for others, and GETTING A GODDAMN ROOM?!?!?

thats why i suggest "romantic areas" where you can go and make out
I'm down with that. As long as it is a secluded, private place that you won't wander in unexpectedly, not knowing what you're going to see there!

There might be a cottage industry to be had here...first there were Porta-Johns. Now we can have something like that for people who wanna make out! Pay your damn fifty cents, go in the booth, close the door, and do whatever the fuck you want! But NOT where I have to see it!

To all the sarcastic (and too clever by half, it seems) people who seem to find a conflict in the statements:



Let me explain a concept to you called twisted logic. For example "From war comes peace, and peace is good - therefore, war is good". This is twisted logic. As is your erroneous assumption of hypocracy in my statements.

To give another example: I have "often" told my friends that I don't like them farting in my presence. That DOES NOT mean that when they do fart, they are "shoving it down my throat". (That conjures up an interesting mental image) ;)

Can you see the difference now?

Like I said earlier, no minority group has perfected the technique of unliaterally discrediting their detractors (and funnily enough, I'm not even a detractor) like the gay lobby, even if they must use pseudo-logic to do it :) Now quick, whip out your burning crosses and crucify me for that statement, too. :)

Let me explain another concept to you:
what is offensive to YOUR sensibilities is NOT the end-all, be-all of acceptable public behavior!
Who the fuck died and left YOUR ass in charge?

OK, so gay couples making out grosses you out, but straight couples making out does not.

Thus, the gay couple is "shoving their lifestyle down your throat" whereas the staright couple isn't.

Am I understanding your statement so far??

Well, how about the gay people, who, by your standards are not allowed to even hold fucking hands!!
dont you think that a straight, playing tonsil-hockey in front of them...offends THEM...every bit as much as it would offend YOU if THEY started playing tonsil-hockey?
So, are you not "shpving your lifestyle down THEIR throats?"

But, I suppose, in your world, that is perfectly okay...after all, it is only YOUR sensibilities that matter, right?

Anyway, I retire from this thread.

-----------

Farethewell - now you may rejoice in my departure and have your "victory" celebrations at my departure (who knows, maybe I am overestimating my own importance). ;)
Trust me...you ARE!
But, farethewell to you too, sir.

I don't get what's disgusting about public affection. Public space is filled with sexual/violent displays of disdain and hatred. At least in new york it is, tons of billboards and bus ads and such. So what if people are making out, they like each other, so what?In this harsh and cruel ... not to mention screwed up ... world there is far too much brutality and hatered around. In my typical day of watching the news and seeing all the death and such occuring around me, witnessing road rage, bullying, muggings, ect ect... seeing a couple making out in the park or somewhere is a welcome image. It reminds me that there is still something good and beautiful inside the people in this world. I think I would much rather (when I have children) my kids see this couple (of any gender) kissing instead of seeing 2 people beat eachother senseless because one of them stole the others parking space. :fluffle: <-- Instead Of --> :mp5:

Let me explain another concept to you:
what is offensive to YOUR sensibilities is NOT the end-all, be-all of acceptable public behavior!
Who the fuck died and left YOUR ass in charge?

OK, so gay couples making out grosses you out, but straight couples making out does not.

Thus, the gay couple is "shoving their lifestyle down your throat" whereas the staright couple isn't.

Am I understanding your statement so far??

Well, how about the gay people, who, by your standards are not allowed to even hold fucking hands!!
dont you think that a straight, playing tonsil-hockey in front of them...offends THEM...every bit as much as it would offend YOU if THEY started playing tonsil-hockey?
So, are you not "shpving your lifestyle down THEIR throats?"

But, I suppose, in your world, that is perfectly okay...after all, it is only YOUR sensibilities that matter, right?

OK, I am retired from this thread, but such a gross misunderstanding of my point deserves an answer...

I won't blame you entirely for the misunderstanding - I partially blame these forums. The quote system is screwed up - it automatically crops "quotes within quotes" (presumably to prevent the building of quote pyramids). Therefore, my quote that you in turn quoted was taken out of context - as it was really a reply to a quote of something I said earlier on... People were trying to fault my logic by saying that on the one hand I don't think straights were "shoving their lifestyles down others throats" but on the other hand "that I had often told straight couples making out to 'get a room'".

My point had absolutely nothing to do with gays or straights - I was merely defending my logic.

Now, you decided to whip yourself up into an anti-homophobic frenzy rather than actually make any attempt to understand my point, so I will address your points one by one, so I don't confuse you any further, mmmkay (I will try to do it calmly and without punctuating every second word with profanity :) ) -


OK, so gay couples making out grosses you out, but straight couples making out does not.

Thus, the gay couple is "shoving their lifestyle down your throat" whereas the staright couple isn't.

Er, no. That is in fact the exact opposite of my initial post. I said any over the top displays of public affection offend me, gay or hetero.

Am I understanding your statement so far??

No, not at all. ;)

Well, how about the gay people, who, by your standards are not allowed to even hold fucking hands!!
dont you think that a straight, playing tonsil-hockey in front of them...offends THEM...every bit as much as it would offend YOU if THEY started playing tonsil-hockey?
So, are you not "shpving your lifestyle down THEIR throats?"

Are we talking about me personally? If so, then your comments are completely erroneous - I NEVER engage in OTT public displays of affection, and I have made my stance on the issue abundantly clear to any girl I date. IMHO it is rude, arrogant and showboating. I never mentioned holding hands either - you did. I usually hold hands with my girlfriend when we are out. Again, IMHO, not OTT.

If we are talking generally, then who knows? I only speak for myself - which brings me to your next point (this one's a corker, i actually laughed out loud):

But, I suppose, in your world, that is perfectly okay...after all, it is only YOUR sensibilities that matter, right?

Oh yes, I think the whole world should live and die by my whim...do you disagree? I am the supreme overlord, and my word is law! LOL. How you could draw such an asinine conclusion (even allowing for your original misunderstanding of my post) is beyond me.

I wish you all the best in your life - although if you get so worked up over your own bungled interpretations of peoples comments and try your hardest to see homophobia even where none exists, then I suspect your life will be hard, unpleasant and ultimately end in ulcers or a heart attack. Chill out and enjoy life, like I do. :)

OK, I am retired from this thread, but such a gross misunderstanding of my point deserves an answer...

I won't blame you entirely for the misunderstanding - I partially blame these forums. The quote system is screwed up - it automatically crops "quotes within quotes" (presumably to prevent the building of quote pyramids). Therefore, my quote that you in turn quoted was taken out of context - as it was really a reply to a quote of something I said earlier on... People were trying to fault my logic by saying that on the one hand I don't think straights were "shoving their lifestyles down others throats" but on the other hand "that I had often told straight couples making out to 'get a room'".

My point had absolutely nothing to do with gays or straights - I was merely defending my logic.

Now, you decided to whip yourself up into an anti-homophobic frenzy rather than actually make any attempt to understand my point, so I will address your points one by one, so I don't confuse you any further, mmmkay (I will try to do it calmly and without punctuating every second word with profanity :) ) -




Er, no. That is in fact the exact opposite of my initial post. I said any over the top displays of public affection offend me, gay or hetero.



No, not at all. ;)



Are we talking about me personally? If so, then your comments are completely erroneous - I NEVER engage in OTT public displays of affection, and I have made my stance on the issue abundantly clear to any girl I date. IMHO it is rude, arrogant and showboating. I never mentioned holding hands either - you did. I usually hold hands with my girlfriend when we are out. Again, IMHO, not OTT.

If we are talking generally, then who knows? I only speak for myself - which brings me to your next point (this one's a corker, i actually laughed out loud):



Oh yes, I think the whole world should live and die by my whim...do you disagree? I am the supreme overlord, and my word is law! LOL. How you could draw such an asinine conclusion (even allowing for your original misunderstanding of my post) is beyond me.

I wish you all the best in your life - although if you get so worked up over your own bungled interpretations of peoples comments and try your hardest to see homophobia even where none exists, then I suspect your life will be hard, unpleasant and ultimately end in ulcers or a heart attack. Chill out and enjoy life, like I do. :)
Chill out? You ain't even SEEN me get really mad yet!! Trust me! Long-timers here can tell you that last was pretty tame.
Maybe, when me and my people get the same unquestioned rights and liberties YOU take for granted...maybe then I'll chill out, okay?

See how YOU like having YOUR freedom, your liberty, your right to pursue happiness...challenged, questioned, denied. And then see how you like having that done to you, while most of the people around you DO NOT have theirs taken from them, or questioned or challenged...you see them taking for granted the very things you are fighting to acquire for yiurself...the very things that were guaranteed us by the Constitution...and maybe you can understand why we GLBT people are so damn pissed off!

Until you walked a mile in OUR shoes, bub, you can't understand the rage, the anger, the indignation...we face on a daily basis.

Chill out? You ain't even SEEN me get really mad yet!! Trust me! Long-timers here can tell you that last was pretty tame.
Maybe, when me and my people get the same unquestioned rights and liberties YOU take for granted...maybe then I'll chill out, okay?

See how YOU like having YOUR freedom, your liberty, your right to pursue happiness...challenged, questioned, denied. And then see how you like having that done to you, while most of the people around you DO NOT have theirs taken from them, or questioned or challenged...you see them taking for granted the very things you are fighting to acquire for yiurself...the very things that were guaranteed us by the Constitution...and maybe you can understand why we GLBT people are so damn pissed off!

Until you walked a mile in OUR shoes, bub, you can't understand the rage, the anger, the indignation...we face on a daily basis.

...geez, you really don't get my point do you...

I HAVE been discriminated against - you think discrimination against gays is the only form of discrimination? Bah, forget it. Your persecution complex is so deep it's like some kind of armour - the "bullets" of reason just keep bouncing off you. ;)

Let me quote myself AGAIN, in one last, futile attempt for you to understand my position:

I am pro- gay marriage.
I am also for the fact that ANY minority group must learn to deal with the fact that some people don't accept them, and as long as this non-acceptance isn't causing fiscal losses or physical harm, you must just learn to deal with it. At the end of the day, every single human being on the face of the earth belongs to some form of minority or another, either by race, religion, physical attributes, sexuality or any other number of infinite parameters.

I bolded the most relevant parts for your convenience.

Anyway, sorry to waste your time - I see you'd rather be wallowing waist deep in your own self pity than actually debating or listening to another point of view. Each time you reply to me I get this mental image of Dr. Zachary Smith form Lost in Space whining "Oh, the pain, the pain!" ;)

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.
We are able to accomodate 10 billion maybe even more. I'm not sure if you notice but we seem to be taking space we don't need and that others do. Also we can create new technologies to get us into space and colonize the moon, mars, and beyond. So don't say there is no space.

i dont believe in gay marriage because the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. marrige is not the medium to unite two men or two women. thats not what the definition of marriage is. it would be like using the wrong tool for a certain job...(ie..using a hammer to try and cut a board in half...) marriage is a tool to unite a man and a woman. i do beleive however that they should be allowed to have civil unions as they do deserve the same rights as straight men or women afforded by the law.

i dont believe in gay marriage because the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. marrige is not the medium to unite two men or two women. thats not what the definition of marriage is. it would be like using the wrong tool for a certain job...(ie..using a hammer to try and cut a board in half...) marriage is a tool to unite a man and a woman. i do beleive however that they should be allowed to have civil unions as they do deserve the same rights as straight men or women afforded by the law.

Some religious organizations would disagree with you. Who are you to tell them that they're wrong?

Ok. Where are you getting that definition from? A dictionary? Dictionaries DESCRIBE the world, they don't PROSCRIBE the world (the dictionary will change to reflect the changes in society, so their definitions are a moot point in debates). Religious texts? Not relevant - many gays aren't religious, and you have no right to dictate what non-religious people do or do not do. The government? It actually *doesn't* say that. It's only just now changing, and that's because religious fanatics are freaking out that if they don't change the defintion NOW, gays will be allowed to marry.

Civil unions ARE NOT A VALID COMPROMISE. Not unless the term is used to describe *ALL* unions between two people. 'Equal but seperate' is NOT constitutional. The government tried to do the same thing with schools - one school for whites, one for blacks. They were supposedly the same in every way... but they were segregated, and it was ruled that this was unjust.

So that's two points that have been addressed at least a hundred times. Please read the whole thread next time.

Civil unions ARE NOT A VALID COMPROMISE. Not unless the term is used to describe *ALL* unions between two people. 'Equal but seperate' is NOT constitutional. The government tried to do the same thing with schools - one school for whites, one for blacks. They were supposedly the same in every way... but they were segregated, and it was ruled that this was unjust.You know, you're right in every way. But this battle will be more complicated because there are religious issues proscribing how things are.

i seem to remember another social hold-back by the Religious Right wherein "Seperate" was judged to be "Inherently Unequal."

Too bad it took so long then, and is taking so long now.

Courtesy.

here's the real issue...what is marriage?
i believe marriage to be a religious sacrament, and a good majority of religions say that homosexuality is wrong. i don't say that, but i do believe that a marriage is a religious thing, and should abide by the laws of the religion.
here's the thing...i think that homosexuals should be able to get a marriage license (although i think the name should be changed for ALL people) and have the rights of married people. just remember that a marriage ceremony and a marriage license are two entirely different things.

here's the real issue...what is marriage?
i believe marriage to be a religious sacrament, and a good majority of religions say that homosexuality is wrong. i don't say that, but i do believe that a marriage is a religious thing, and should abide by the laws of the religion.
here's the thing...i think that homosexuals should be able to get a marriage license (although i think the name should be changed for ALL people) and have the rights of married people. just remember that a marriage ceremony and a marriage license are two entirely different things.

Wouldn't binding someone legally by a religious ceremony violate the strictures seperating church and state? If we're to hold married individuals to religious law, which religion's laws are the "right" laws?

Courtesy.

Hello, I live in Holland and am not gay.
The question is here; what is true marriage? If it's the catholic understanding of the term, another question comes up: Why does the catholic God not allow gay people to get married if they love eachother and God too?
The difference could be that gay people cannot have children together. But they could, for instance, adopt one of God's children on this planet whose parents were killed in a war or something.

So tell me, what about gays do you think is unfit for marriage?

A long time ago a man stood up against the masses for what he believed in. This man was prosecuted and sentenced to death. The brilliant philosopher named Socrates stated he would not flee instead he died for what he believed in. Later another great man died for what he believed, sentenced to death by a cross. Jesus is now worshiped by almost a third of the world. Yet we continue to prosecute those that stand for what they believe, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., the list goes on and on.
The bible stands strongly against judgment of others, about loving your neighbor, and is filled with wisdom, yet we ignore it. We gossip, state our divine knowledge, and believe that we can actually say what God would say. Many things are stated in the bible, yet most Christians have not even read it let alone studied it.
The world is moving away from Christianity, in many countries the population has shifted dramatically to new age and recreations of old religions at a dramatically quick rate. Should we really merge religion and politics together knowing that in a few decades over half of the various Christian countries will not be Christian dominant anymore?
The only reason for going against gay marriage has always come back to Christianity, no one has proposed a reasonable reason against it, and always fall back on bogus and uneducated findings. No one has presented hard research or even reasonable hypotheses to indicate a negative effect.
So if it is only a religious one, why not just deal with the facts of religion. Jesus drew a line in the dirt and stated any man with out side to step over the line and throw the rock, yet none could come forward to stone the whore. Today people are so willing to throw stones, have they not listened to the teachings they preach? I state the same challenge as Jesus, if you have not sinned then please step forward and throw away.
We claim how it harms us, but really if you think about it there are two possibilities. One that gayness is genetic, by allowing them to be themselves; eventually the gay gene will fade instead of being mixed in with everyone else. Basic evolutionary concepts show us this. If it is even based meaning that it is from emotional issues usually associated with sexual assault as a youth, allowing them to express themselves will make them less likely to assault children, and thus reduce the number of gays. So why are straight people so concerned, by allowing them freedom they will reduce their numbers, by forcing your hand they will stay the same.
I have heard arguments like, they are promiscuous and therefore it will cost the tax payers in divorce. I for one don’t understand why we pay for anyone to get married, divorced, or otherwise, but in any even aren’t guys the same way anyhow, marriage will only reduce promiscuous acts.
I also find it hilarious that the most Christian European country, France, is one that many people consider sexually unrestrained. One of many facts I could easily point out about the Christian histories, religion, and beliefs, but this is not seminar.
The real question is if we allow the majority to rule, are you so sure that you’re willing to accept those laws? Look deep inside and see what you do that many people are against, watching violence on TV? Perhaps looking at the swimsuit issue? Who knows, perhaps you love to gamble, or smoke. Smoking is a great example, a few decades it was not only legal, but few people even cared, now it’s looked down on by many. What’s next, soda, meat, perhaps alcohol will be outlawed again. The fact is the world changes, if you fight it you may win, but odds are you will find yourself face down in the mud being trampled.
In quote, “United we stand, divided we fall.” A quote many throw around, yet no one knows what it means, simple words, simple structure, yet so illusive. It does not say we all agree and it does not say we are all the same, it says we stand together or we fall. If we push someone down for being different we are not united, if we cuss because someone thinks different we do not stand. When someone is down, lacking the basic freedom to stand tall, we should pick them up not hold them down. Gays are a minority, but so is everyone in this world in some way on some scale, at some time in their life, stand together knowing they are human, they are people, they will stand tall for you when your not part of the majority, and that will make us great.

I am not Christian, nor am I gay. Oddly I seem to know more about the bible than most Christians, and looking at it from the bible it states that God is the one to judge man’s sin. We stand behind our morals with conviction, knowing that we are acting as judges for our Gods, I call this blasphemy. I will never claim to be great enough to judge others, only hope to be wise enough to love them. I therefore accept gay people and hope for their acceptance. If God exists he will decide what to do with people and determine if being gay was wrong, forgivable, or accepted, not I.

We have blithering idiots like this

http://www.chickenhawkcards.com/4-spades.jpg

...to thank.

I would sum this whole debate down as.

What if you loved a girl, and the world wouldnt let you marry them?

we all have the same emotions.

Wow, this thread is gay :rolleyes:

Nah, not enough leather. :rolleyes:

Are you going to deny people their glasses because their eyes are brown?

Are you going to deny people their glasses because their eyes are brown?

No, only when their eyes are gray :P

...geez, you really don't get my point do you...

I HAVE been discriminated against - you think discrimination against gays is the only form of discrimination? Bah, forget it. Your persecution complex is so deep it's like some kind of armour - the "bullets" of reason just keep bouncing off you. ;)

Let me quote myself AGAIN, in one last, futile attempt for you to understand my position:



I bolded the most relevant parts for your convenience.

Anyway, sorry to waste your time - I see you'd rather be wallowing waist deep in your own self pity than actually debating or listening to another point of view. Each time you reply to me I get this mental image of Dr. Zachary Smith form Lost in Space whining "Oh, the pain, the pain!" ;)

Then let ME type my point, which YOU seem to be failing to get in ALL CAPS so you will see it...

THE NON-ACCEPTANCE IS HURTING US FISCALLY!!!

i dont believe in gay marriage because the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. marrige is not the medium to unite two men or two women. thats not what the definition of marriage is. it would be like using the wrong tool for a certain job...(ie..using a hammer to try and cut a board in half...) marriage is a tool to unite a man and a woman. i do beleive however that they should be allowed to have civil unions as they do deserve the same rights as straight men or women afforded by the law.
Semantics. I don't GIVE A SHIT WHAT you call it, so long as WE have the same legal rights and standing IN THE EYES OF THE LAW that you straight couples do.

I would sum this whole debate down as.

What if you loved a girl, and the world wouldnt let you marry them?

we all have the same emotions.
Well then to hell with the world if the two of us say I do (the answer to the do you ... take blank as you) if the government is against it then I ignore them, becasue frankly if they have the power to stop me from Considering I am married, then they are a tryyany.

Then let ME type my point, which YOU seem to be failing to get in ALL CAPS so you will see it...

THE NON-ACCEPTANCE IS HURTING US FISCALLY!!!

How so? Becuase you can't mary, or because you are being descrimiated aganist at job interviews?

If it is at job interviews, then you have ample cause to bring about legal action, don't you. If this rampant homophobia and discrimination is so prevalent, then you shouldn't have much trouble proving it... but do you really think in this modern day of "sue-at-the-drop-of-a-hat", employers or others in a position of financial responsibility would be stupid enough to knock back applicants because of their sexuality? Or could it be that you automatically assume at any job you don't get that it is because the interviewer is hompohobic...perhaps, just perhaps, other applicants were more qualified? I am just assuming (possible incorrectly) that you possibly see nonexistant homophobia in real world situations just like you are in my posts.

If you are talking about marriage, (allow me to follow your sterling example of all caps), THEN I HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED THAT I AM PRO- GAY MARRIAGE.

I really don't understand why you are so persistently attacking my statements when I haven't said anything remotely anti-gay...

Gay Marriage is not marriage. Marriage is between one man and one women.

Just because a person does not support gay marriage does not make them Homophobic. Homophobic means you are afraid of gays.

Ahem.

"According to the Gospels, Jesus did not devote any serious time or effort denouncing either "abortion" or "homosexuality" though he did devote serious time and effort denouncing the "rich" along with self-righteous religious hypocrites. Maybe today's Religious Right could learn a few things about "prioritizing" from Jesus?"
- E.T.B.

Does it really matter? I think we have more important problems facing our nation right now.

Just because a person does not support gay marriage does not make them Homophobic. Homophobic means you are afraid of gays.

No, that is incorrect. A phobia is a fear of or aversion to something, so stop parroting such tired falsehoods.

Just because a person does not support gay marriage does not make them Homophobic. Homophobic means you are afraid of gays.
NO IT DOESN'T. please, morons, read your dictionaries. Homophobia is defined as "the fear OR CONTEMPT FOR homosexuals and/or homosexuality."

if you do not respect homosexuality enough to support equal rights for all citizens then you are showing contempt. you are, thus, a homophobe. PLEASE LEARN ABOUT THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A ROOT WORD AND A CURRENT DEFINITION.

i must disagree with your post dark future. you said that the minority is discriminating against the majority? let's think about this...how often do you hear a gay person say that straight marriage is wrong and evil? how often do you year them say they are defying god? i'm guessing not very often. The other rediculous comment i read was that it would affect your children and grandchildren. how would it affect them? in no way should it affect them. and there is one last question i pose to you....why does it affect you so much? maybe if you just let them do what they want to do, you would find it doesn't bother you so much. you're wasting your time trying to stop gay marriage. it's only making you more and more annoyed. there will never be a constitutional ammendment against gay marriage, so you're going to have to adjust to the times or get out of the way. (keep in mind, i said nothing of christians in this response...only things about you)

Then let ME type my point, which YOU seem to be failing to get in ALL CAPS so you will see it...

THE NON-ACCEPTANCE IS HURTING US FISCALLY!!!
The word is physically, just to say. And what I think (not that anyone cares) is that gay people should be aloud to marry. Two guys can still feel the same way about each other as a man and a woman. The thing is though is nobody likes anyone different so that is why gay people get put down and harassed. I for one have a friend who is gay and he's cool. If they want to get married, let them. It's not bother anybody else. If you don't want your kids to see gay folks move somewhere else. I don't see why nobody understands that. If you don't like what your hearing, don't listen. If you don't like what your seeing, don't look. My opinion, don't send hate mail.

Um, fiscal is a word dude, it means financial... ;)

New Fubaria, the only one who seems to be going out of their way to drum up persecution is you. Whenever someone disagrees with your argument, you seem to be ready and eager to start complaining about how pro-gay people are so intolerant of dissenting opinions. So, who's trying to play the victim and find persecution again?

Here's a clue - most people find it repulsive to hear someone try to legitimize prejudice. You seem pretty unwilling to address my points about how your being fat doesn't measure up to the prejudice someone faces in being gay (indeed, what rights are you being denied?), nor most other points made contrary to what you said. I'm surprised Labrador is even bothering with you at all.

Quit whining when someone disagrees with you and start making your logic a little more coherent, then maybe people will get the point you insist is there.

New Fubaria, the only one who seems to be going out of their way to drum up persecution is you. Whenever someone disagrees with your argument, you seem to be ready and eager to start complaining about how pro-gay people are so intolerant of dissenting opinions. So, who's trying to play the victim and find persecution again?

Here's a clue - most people find it repulsive to hear someone try to legitimize prejudice. You seem pretty unwilling to address my points about how your being fat doesn't measure up to the prejudice someone faces in being gay (indeed, what rights are you being denied?), nor most other points made contrary to what you said. I'm surprised Labrador is even bothering with you at all.

Quit whining when someone disagrees with you and start making your logic a little more coherent, then maybe people will get the point you insist is there.

You think people who are fat don't suffer prejudice? What a rosy coloured little world you live in...

But I'm not here to whine about being part of a minority - if I was, I belive that would make me a hypocrite of the first order. In fact, my stance was, is, and always will be that unless your are being physically abused or denied basic rights such as employment, DEAL WITH IT. Does that mean I am legitimizing prejudice? I don't believe so. But to learning to deal with adverse situations is an essential survival skill for anyone. You will never, EVER, convert every ignoramous who chooses to hate you for no valid reason. So what do you do? Agonise and mope over it, or ignore it? Choice seems pretty clear cut to me.

As far as I'm concerned, my logic is perfectly coherent - just because my view differs from yours, it doesn't neccessarily mean that my logic is faulty. Please give an example, if you would be so kind.

I hardly think I have been whining, either. IMHO, my answers have been calm, logical and well worded. But you are most certainly entitled your opinion, that's what debate is all about. ;)

P.S. Sorry if I didn't address some specific point(s) you made earlier, perhaps I lost it in amongst the other 33 pages of replies, rather than deliberately ignoring it because I didn't have an answer. Strangely enough, I am not allseeing. :)

SUMMARY THUS FAR!

Anti#1 - I think that gay marriage is wrong because God says so!

Pro#1 - No, it's not wrong because everyone has equal rights

Anti#1 - YEs they do, but God says it's wrong, so it must be wrong

Anti#2 - *thumps the bible* It says right here that it's WRONG WRONG! Neener neener!

Pro#2 - how old are you? You're a child! Grow up or get out of here!

Pro#3 - The constution ensures equal rights for all.

Pro#1 - I agree!

Pro#2 - It also says that Church and State must be separated!

Anti#4 - Even so, it says right here than marriage is only between a man and a woman! Two men can't marry because that is wrong and my churchs says so too!

Anti #3 - It also says here in Mattrew #:# that "insert random biblical rambling stuff".

Anti#5 - Would you marry your sister? No because it's wrong! That's why you can't have gay marriage!

Anti#1 - because it will ruin the sacred instution of marriage!

Pro#4 - No, because if you look at Mass, where they have gay marriage, it has the lowest divorce rate of all the states! It makes it better!

Anti#5 - It affects my life! And all that evil sodomy! It's evil! IT'S THE WORK OF THE DEVIL!!! SINNERS!!! YOU SINNERS MUST DIE!!!!!111

Pro#5 - MODALERT ---> FLAMEBAITING!!

Pro#6 - Human rights! blah, blah, blah! Human rights! Everyone is victim of bias, except your white Christians who are the greatest evil in the world! The made us experience prohibition (insert more liberal whining)

Anti#6 - (insert religious bullshit)... but it affects my life~! Because I say it does!

et cetera...

In fact, my stance was, is, and always will be that unless your are being physically abused or denied basic rights such as employment, DEAL WITH IT.

So, I don't have to deal with it. I have friend who have lost their jobs shortly after being outed, and if you even bothered to read some of the links given in threads like this, you'd see stories about queers being beaten up and left for dead. There are several instances in a PDF of a leaflet released by soulforce.org under Biblical Evidence. People like me are denied jobs and persecuted, and most courts REFUSE to recognise discrimination on grounds of homosexuality.

You may well accuse us of looking at your situation through rosy-rimmed spectacles, but at least look at ours. Just because Will and Grace is on the prime time slots, it doesn't mean we have full legal protection.

You think people who are fat don't suffer prejudice? What a rosy coloured little world you live in...

But I'm not here to whine about being part of a minority - if I was, I belive that would make me a hypocrite of the first order.

Part of a minority! HAH! It's a damn good thing you aren't here to whine about being part of a minority cause I would laugh you out the door if you were. Fat people aren't a minority, they are the Majoity in the united states. 60% of this nation is overweight, we are the fattest laziest group of fucks of the planet. And if you're getting picked on because your fat, put down the bucket of fried fucking chicken and cry me a fuckin river sweetheart, I was a fat kid too, but guess what I stopped complaining and griping and feeling sorry for myself and I changed my life and lost a lot of weight. Gay people can't just will themselves to not be gay, the "discrimination" that fat people get isn't even in the same ballpark as the discrimination that gay people get. There is prejudice and then there is hate and sometimes hate hurts worse than getting your rights denied and being physically abused.

So, I don't have to deal with it. I have friend who have lost their jobs shortly after being outed, and if you even bothered to read some of the links given in threads like this, you'd see stories about queers being beaten up and left for dead. There are several instances in a PDF of a leaflet released by soulforce.org under Biblical Evidence. People like me are denied jobs and persecuted, and most courts REFUSE to recognise discrimination on grounds of homosexuality.

You may well accuse us of looking at your situation through rosy-rimmed spectacles, but at least look at ours. Just because Will and Grace is on the prime time slots, it doesn't mean we have full legal protection.

I think because people are still ignorant because the previous generation still has the bias, and they have control of most of the industry and until the newer generations start coming into power, there is still going to be such discrimination.

Once more open-minded people get into power, then the tides will turn.

You think people who are fat don't suffer prejudice? What a rosy coloured little world you live in...

But I'm not here to whine about being part of a minority - if I was, I belive that would make me a hypocrite of the first order.

64% of Americans are medically overweight. explain how being fat makes you a minority. i've got to side with Anbar on this...you seem to have a persecution complex. get over yourself.

I think because people are still ignorant because the previous generation still has the bias, and they have control of most of the industry and until the newer generations start coming into power, there is still going to be such discrimination.

Once more open-minded people get into power, then the tides will turn.

Heh, yeah, unfortunately people that are open-minded never tend to get power because they aren't taken seriously or they just don't have the back bone to get power. Though there are a few exceptions to the rule.

It's funny Marriage (the religious union of persons) has nothing to do with the law or with legal marriage. It is a religious experience between persons and their god. But the whole legal marriage debate I find offensive. Legal Marriage is a binding contract between persons. To suggest that because someone is gay that they cannot enter into certain legal contracts is simply discrimination. As why should it be allowed that is even more simple. If anything happens to someone and they are stuck in the hospital or put on a machine then there spouse who is hopefully the person who knows them best in the world has certain authorities/responsibilties but in a gay couple where they cannot be married those same things are not afforded and i could readily see how someone might want that. I shudder to think of being on a machine and having my relatives decide my fate rather than my wife. Further there are other benefits that a gay couple may desire. Shared tax credits, spousal benefits that may accompany insurance plans, and finally whatever bogus reason straight people have for getting married. In other words gay people want to get married for the same reason straight people do and dont ask what about kids because you dont need to be married to have kids. The big reason why is because it is wrong otherwise. Too many people confuse the issue, for too long now marriage the contract and marriage the religious union have been confused into one thing and it is a pain in the ass. Marriage is a legal contract and constitutionally no citizens may be barred from entering legal contracts so long as they are of legal age and free to give to consent to said contracts. The relgious marriage well heck thats different. If christianity says no to gay marriage then gay people should not be allowed to have christian weddings that is simply freedom of religion and I have no problem with it. Conversely if we afford persons the freedom of religion to marry and to bar marriages then we must allow others the freedom to enter into relgions that marry polygamously and religions that accept same sex marriages. Also the mindset of not wanting to explain homosexuality to ones children is ridiculous. Sheltering them from reality will not make their lifes better it just delays the confusion. Parents should be teaching there kids all about the world we live in and that includes homosexuality and it should be taught whether the kid has ever seen it or not.

It's funny Marriage (the religious union of persons) has nothing to do with the law or with legal marriage. It is a religious experience between persons and their god. But the whole legal marriage debate I find offensive. Legal Marriage is a binding contract between persons. To suggest that because someone is gay that they cannot enter into certain legal contracts is simply discrimination. As why should it be allowed that is even more simple. If anything happens to someone and they are stuck in the hospital or put on a machine then there spouse who is hopefully the person who knows them best in the world has certain authorities/responsibilties but in a gay couple where they cannot be married those same things are not afforded and i could readily see how someone might want that. I shudder to think of being on a machine and having my relatives decide my fate rather than my wife. Further there are other benefits that a gay couple may desire. Shared tax credits, spousal benefits that may accompany insurance plans, and finally whatever bogus reason straight people have for getting married. In other words gay people want to get married for the same reason straight people do and dont ask what about kids because you dont need to be married to have kids. The big reason why is because it is wrong otherwise. Too many people confuse the issue, for too long now marriage the contract and marriage the religious union have been confused into one thing and it is a pain in the ass. Marriage is a legal contract and constitutionally no citizens may be barred from entering legal contracts so long as they are of legal age and free to give to consent to said contracts. The relgious marriage well heck thats different. If christianity says no to gay marriage then gay people should not be allowed to have christian weddings that is simply freedom of religion and I have no problem with it. Conversely if we afford persons the freedom of religion to marry and to bar marriages then we must allow others the freedom to enter into relgions that marry polygamously and religions that accept same sex marriages. Also the mindset of not wanting to explain homosexuality to ones children is ridiculous. Sheltering them from reality will not make their lifes better it just delays the confusion. Parents should be teaching there kids all about the world we live in and that includes homosexuality and it should be taught whether the kid has ever seen it or not.

I've gotta say I haven't seen a more inteligent arguement all day.

Of, course, then people will ask why this contract should be only between two people, and why shouldn't you be able to have contracts with close relatives? Well, why not? I know a lot of fit guys, and my cousin is quite good looking.

Of, course, then people will ask why this contract should be only between two people, and why shouldn't you be able to have contracts with close relatives? Well, why not? I know a lot of fit guys, and my cousin is quite good looking.

Technically if I'm not mistaken if it is a cousin by more than 1 degree of separation, it is legal. So if it's not a first cousin, knock yourself out.

Technically if I'm not mistaken if it is a cousin by more than 1 degree of separation, it is legal. So if it's not a first cousin, knock yourself out.

Bugger. I'm British anyway, and a bloke, so I've got no chance. Actually, if the Conservative Amendment to the Civil Unions Bill sticks, close relatives and carers will be allowed to get Civil Unions, so it's all good. I'll have to ask him if he's queer.

Um, fiscal is a word dude, it means financial... ;)
fiscal adj 1:of or relating to taxation, public revenues, or public dept 2: of or relating to financial matters.
I know what it means, but if you look at what the chick wrote, fiscal doesn't make any sense.

You think people who are fat don't suffer prejudice? What a rosy coloured little world you live in...

Do you even bother reading things before you respond to them?! God, I am getting very tired of repeating myself...you actually responded directly to my last response, and that is why I grow more and more weary of your complaining. Now, as then, I wonder if you're a Type 3 - the debater who thinks he knows where the debate will go, and thus does not bother to actually read before responding. Type 3's are infuriating to argue with, because you have to see things their way or the debate goes nowhere (i.e. they keep insisting on things that no one cares about, such as their weight). I already acknowledged that yes, obese people are discriminated against frequently. I question the intelligence of anyone who thinks that anyone in this world would be ignorant of that, and it is quite tragic. And, as I said last time, it's in no way equivalent to the prejudice that homosexuals receive. Has a fat person ever been denied marriage because some people don't want to think about the intimacy which may result, or because God hates fat people? No. Are they denied the financial and social benefits which others receive in our society? No, in fact, many can receive disability for their condition (when was the last time a homosexual got compensation for being too gay? But let's not get sidetracked). Has a fat person ever been severely beaten, to death in some cases, for being fat (outside of adolescence, that is)? Nope.

The situations are not equivalent.

But I'm not here to whine about being part of a minority - if I was, I belive that would make me a hypocrite of the first order. In fact, my stance was, is, and always will be that unless your are being physically abused or denied basic rights such as employment, DEAL WITH IT. Does that mean I am legitimizing prejudice? I don't believe so. But to learning to deal with adverse situations is an essential survival skill for anyone. You will never, EVER, convert every ignoramous who chooses to hate you for no valid reason. So what do you do? Agonise and mope over it, or ignore it? Choice seems pretty clear cut to me.

Hmm, you seem to be wearing such a thing on your sleeve on this thread.

People are being physically abused, and they are being denied basic rights, and if you aren't aware of that, well, see your criticism above, Rosy. Are you even aware of the issues surrounding this, or are you under the ridiculous impression that this is about some simple name-calling?

Also, yes, that's exactly what legitimizing prejudice is - when it is inferred that prejudice is not wrong (and saying that someone should have to deal with it says just that), that is legitimizing prejudice.

As far as I'm concerned, my logic is perfectly coherent - just because my view differs from yours, it doesn't neccessarily mean that my logic is faulty. Please give an example, if you would be so kind.

Go back and reread the idea of "twisted logic" with which you tried to cover the holes in your argument. It seems to me that a more coherent explanation of would have been "My argument only works on a superficial level and in most ways fails, but it's 'twisted logic' so that's okay."

I hardly think I have been whining, either. IMHO, my answers have been calm, logical and well worded. But you are most certainly entitled your opinion, that's what debate is all about. ;)

Again, it seems to me that you have 2 ideas about who will respond to this thread, and categorize people when you respond accordingly:

A) People who will agree with me. These people are logical and rational.
B) People who disagree. These people are rabidly pro-gay and they must consider me a raving homophobe.

Maybe try actually reading peoples' arguments, think over their points and address them, and they won't be so angry with you.
[/QUOTE]

Gay Marriage is not marriage. Marriage is between one man and one women.

There can't really be one *women.* Are you advocating polygamy here?