NationStates Jolt Archive

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

There can be - perhaps he is arguing that marriage can only be between one man and one group of women. I guess I'll take the bisexuals, the alternative music crowd, and the women of Germany, if we have to stake our claim to a group now.

I imagine there'll be some trouble from all of this...

Hmm,

It seems that there are many on both sides of this issue that think the answer is simple, when it is decidely complicated. I will give you all a little background.

1. I am gay.

2. I do not believe there is a simple answer to this issue.

3. While I favor a partner law that grants the benefits of marriage, I am actually reluctant to buy into an institution that has been abused by heterosexuals for decades.

For those people who simply do not have the emotional maturity to accept who and what I am, I will not apologize and I could really care less about what they think. They are just as bad as certain gays who give the gay community a bad name. So I am going to talk to a narrow band of moderates gay and straight.

Let's examine this for a moment. The majority of the argument presented by those opposed to gay marriage is mostly ecclesiastical along with reproductionists who argue that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation and the raising of children. The former tend to simply label gays as wrong and evil, and the latter tend to split philosophical hairs while never truly answering that if marriage's main purpose is reproductive, then it is quite likely that those who marry who cannot conceive (sterility, women past menopause, hysterectomy, vasectomy) are outside of the mainstream of marriage in their opinion. I have even heard some say that the procreational element is the key and that marriages for any other reason are wrong/sinful/selfish/etc.

Those in the GLBT community who favor gay marriage cite constitutional reasons for gaining that right. While I might sympathize with such a position, I cannot help but think that buying into marriage is a bad idea. To me marriage is not that institution, but a state of mind, I am content to leave the word "marriage" to the churches and neoconservative evangelicals.

To be frank, all I care about is the fiscal equality.

Let's be clear, marriage has two connotations.

1. Religious connotation- This is the biblical, marriage is for a man and a woman viewpoint. Churches are free to express this point of view and I think it appropriate that churches be allowed to either marry gays or not marry gays as they choose.

2. Secular connotation- The legal, civil contract witnessed and entered into by a couple. It has no religious overtones and only controls certain rights, responsibilities and privileges that the couple become eligible for. Because of the seperation of church and state, governments have no business favoring or accepting the establishment of a religion within the government. If the government accepts one ecclesiastical definition of marriage over another, it is favoring and accepting one religion over the others.

You may or may not agree with my orientation, but frankly, I was born this way. This by no means renders me eligible for some rights, but not eligible for others. Since I was born here (The United States), I am entitled to those rights without exception and I am not apologising for that Our Founding Fathers were very much Lockean in their approach to establishing a US government.

Whether like John Locke you believe that we granted by God certain inalienable rights like our Founding Fathers, or you believe we are born into those rights like Frederic Bastiat (Author of "The Law," died in 1850, economist) or Adam Smith (Scots Economist), it is clear that all born into this world are entitled to certain rights by "Natural Law."

I served my country for 22.5 years in the US Air Force and I raised a son who followed me into the service. I am no better or worse than any of you, but it will be a cold day in Hades before I give any of my rights up just because I am gay. I fought too hard and bled too much real blood defending everyone else's rights to be denied mine.

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.



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.



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."



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.



See, now you're on the ball - let me respond to your points:

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).

Yes, I do read all of a person's reply before I respond, which is why I address each point raised, as I am doing with you now. Type 3? Are you pigeon holing me, that would be quite ironic - perhaps you are "type-3-phobic" ;) (That's a joke, BTW, just in case you didn't get it) Anyway, my replies:

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.

OK, you are acknowledging that fat people are discriminated against. That's a start. I'm afraid we are never going to agree on the "are gays or fat people discriminated against more". I have experienced it first hand for most of my life. I rose above it. You think noone has ever been beaten for being fat (outside of adolescence)? Utter rubbish - I would try to dredge up some examples from news archives for your edification, if I could be bothered. Not a common occurence, certainly, but it does happen. It's never happened to me personally (since early school), since I choose not to be a victim. Anyway, I think fat people face as much prejudice as gays, you disagree. Since these are both our respective opinions rather than incontrivertible facts, neither of us will prove the other "wrong".
As for fat people being denied marriage, and/or other social rights - I will repeat now for about the sixth time - (I will underline, as both bolding and all caps seem to have escaped your notice) I am pro-gay marriage. Gays should have the same legal and social rights as anyone else. I don't know where you think I said otherwise. Please give an example, if you will.

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.


I have to disagree, again. I never said the prejudice is right, or tried to legitimise it. I said people should rise above it as long as they are not being physically harmed or financially disadvantaged. PLease READ the underlined part, which I have expressed every time.

To give some brief examples:

> An employer doesn't hire you because he knows you are gay - this can, should and has been legislated against.
> A bunch of guys bash you in a bar because you are gay - this should be, and is, illegal.
> Some gaptoothed moron calls you a "fag" as you walk past on the street. Should this be illegal - proabbly. That isn't my issue. My issue is do you allow it to ruin your day/life, or do you ignore him as the obvious idiot that he is?

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."



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.

Well, for starters I did not used twisted logic to "cover holes in my argument", I used the example of twisted logic to show the holes in others arguments against my points.

Do I think everyoine who agrees with me is great and everyone who disagrees thinks I'm a raving homophobe? Not at all - the people who I have answered, based on their arguments, apparently seem to think I'm a closet homophobe. I never said unilterally that anyone who disagrees with me thinks I'm a homophobe - that is an assumption that you drew from my replies.

I also don't see where I haven't answered people's points - isn't that, in fact, what I am doing right now?

I'm not going to bother stating my stance on the issue again, I've done it multiple times already. Go back and read it for yourself, if you can be bothered.

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.
I agree.

Right now, because of the current trends, even if people are all about rights, they are still bound by the fear of too much liberalism ruling their lives and they take comfort in rules and order, even at the cost of rights.

Another reason open-minded individuals are not taken seriously is because they seem to lack a "base" for their beliefs, because they accept a lot of stuff, and people still expect their politicians to have firm beliefs and a firm stance on issues.

I have to disagree, again. I never said the prejudice is right, or tried to legitimise it. I said people should rise above it as long as they are not being physically harmed or financially disadvantaged. PLease READ the underlined part, which I have expressed every time.

Physically harmed: Like my close friend who was raped last December?

Financially disadvantaged: Like another friend of mine who lost her job sharpish after being outed?

Just because I myself am over 6 foot and study rather than work, it doesn't mean I have no reason to be indignant about the way society treats people like me. We are at risk.

> An employer doesn't hire you because he knows you are gay - this can, should and has been legislated against.

Where? What Bill? Which States? Does it also apply in the UK?

> A bunch of guys bash you in a bar because you are gay - this should be, and is, illegal.?

Yes, and it's not as rare as you seem to want to portray it.

> Some gaptoothed moron calls you a "fag" as you walk past on the street. Should this be illegal - proabbly. That isn't my issue. My issue is do you allow it to ruin your day/life, or do you ignore him as the obvious idiot that he is?

Er, that's not exactly high on my list of priorities- What gave the impression it was?

Yes, indeed, New Fubaria, I am pigeonholing you. No, there's no sarcasm there - I've posted here a long time, and I've argued with a lot of people.

Type 1: Opposed to my viewpoint, but respects it and puts together a respectable, rational argument. (Kholdstare, Parratoga)
Type 2: Opposed to my viewpoint, but does not put together a rational argument. (Christofi, Machus/Text People)
Type 3: Opposed to my viewpoint, and I have a fundamental problem communicating with this person/following their argument.

Of course, these work backwards as well, with -1 being people I agree with who put together a rational...etc, i.e. Bottle. A 0 is someone who has no position, no place in the debate, or whom I do not understand at all. These are guides, basically to keep me from getting warned for arguing excessively with Type 3s. If I can spot them, I'm less likely to get into inane arguments with this rare, particularly irksome type.

I'm well aware of your position - I challenge you to point to one place where I've suggested that I thought you were not for gay marriage (something you stated in your first, second, and most recent reply, if I recall). Quite frankly, I have no idea what your point is, then, in bringing up your obesity. It seems central to your argument, and yet, has nothing that I can see to do with the topic at hand. I will disagree with you about the severity of prejudice (unless I can compare the suicide/murder rates of the two groups, but I can't think of any fat people beaten to death), but that's really all I have to say beyond that. Not being gay, I have no personal examples, even if I did see such things as valid in debate.

Perhaps you're a type 0 then, since our disagreement is relatively minor. No matter, there's nothing more to say.

Agreed - I think neither of us quite understands the others point. ;)

@ Homocracy - you are coming in on the very end of a long, arduous and mutually misunderstood discussion. Before you draw (erroneous) conclusions from my last post, I would challenge you to read through the thread and see all of my posts.

Anbar: What about people who are 'on your side' so to say, yet are unable to put forth a coherent argument? Are they -0.5?

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...

Let me address what you have now turned into two separate issues, with two separate answers.
Let's first tackle Job Discrimination.
First, if you have been reading, you know I am TRANSGENDER.
This is something completely separate from, and not covered, under sexual orientation. In many places job discrimination based on sexual orientation is STILL LEGAL...and in many places where it has been outlawed, it is STILL legal to discriminate based on GENDER IDENTITY.
In fact, it has been illegal since 1975, in my current home of Austin, Texas...to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
would you like to know how long it has been illegal to discriminate based on GENDER IDENTITY, in Austin?
ONLY SINCE JUNE 10, 2004!!!

29 years later, we transgenders finally got the rights to not fear...or at least have legal recourse against, discrimination in the workplace!!

and an employer isn't usually going to be STUPID enough to TELL you that he's discriminating based on your real or percieved sexual orientation/gender identity anyway. The discrimination is generally more subtle, and more insidious.
It ranges from outright refusal of jobs...to missing out on promotions, poor performance reports, even if you HAVE done a good job...various means in which your workplace is made hostile...to the point where you want to quit.

Passing a law against discrimination does NOT stop discrimination...it just makes those who want to practice it find ways to violate the spirit of the law, and use back doors, loopholes, etc.

One of the most common ways now, is the hiring of temps. They do this also to avoid giving benefits. BUT, if your temp is a GLBT, you often find that, when the year or whatever term of temp is up, and you are about to go temp-to-hire...they cut you loose instead, and get another temp!

So don't tell me that, just because it isn't BLATANT...it means that discrimination doesn't happen! I call bullshit!

Now, I was involved in a case in New Jersey (when I lived in PA and worked in NJ) against an employer for discrimination. I used existing law, interpreted in a way it had not been used before...and set precedent on the Administrative Law level (this ruling was later used and re-inforced in a NJ Supreme Court case...setting official precedent) to prove my case. It took me FIVE YEARS to do this, and finally, my former employer and I settled out of court, for an amount I am not allowed to disclose, per the terms of the settlement. I also cannot disclose the name of the Respondent corporation, again, per the terms of the settlment. In fact, in the NJ Supreme Court case...my case was cited as PARTICIPANTS WITHHELD.

But, in my case, the discrimination WAS blatant...I was in possession of internal company memos which clearly stated the discrimination, the reason for my termination. The company never disputed it, either. They merely contended that their action was LEGAL...I contended it was not. Eventually, the law found in my favor in that case.

But for every case like the one I described, there are 50 or more cases of non-blantant, more insidious discrimination, including the passing over for hiring or raises, or promotions...the filing of unjustly negative performance reviews...and the creation of hostile work environments.

THEY DO EXIST!! THEY DO HAPPEN!! JUST BECAUSE IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU...JUST BECAUSE YOU THEREFORE, ARE ABLE TO TURN A BLIND EYE AND PRETEND IT DOESN'T HAPPEN...DOESN'T MEAN IT DOESN'T.

Now, onto the issue of marriage, once again. Some of the more OBVIOUS ways in which failure to recognize gay couples equal IN THE EYES OF THE LAW that affect gay couples ONLY IN A NEGATIVE FISCAL SENSE...

Inheretiances - A married hetero couple has "Rights of Survivorship." This means, when a husband, for example, dies...the wife now owns the house, and owes no taxes on that house. She also automatically inherts all his money, tax-free...even if they were married only 35 days! A gay couple, on the other hand, who has been together for 35 YEARS...does not have Rights of Survivorship. Often, the surviving partner winds up having to SELL the house they lived in together for years, just to pay the taxes on the other half of the house...because the government treats that as capital gains by inheritance, and taxes it. To say nothing of joint banking accounts!

Pensions - Widow's Pension...
A spouse often continues to collect some or ALL of the pension of his/her dead spouse, when they were a legally married hetero couple. Not so for a gay couple. and this carries over to Social Security, as well.

Health Insurance - For a nominal fee, in most cases, a man can put his legally married wife on his health insurance provided thru his employer. Thus, he makes more (in terms of slary and benefits) than a gay man, who cannot place his life partner on his health insurance at work.

these are just some of the more OBVIOUS ways in which the non-acceptance DOES hurt us FISCALLY.

Let me also bring up one more esoteric case, as it deals specifically with transgender people. And the law gets REAL fucked up where transgender people are concerned...

Look up the case of Littleton v. Prange, 2000, 4th Cir. Texas sometime. I'll give you the background.
Christie Littleton, a post-operative transsexual, married Johnathan Littleton, in the state of Kentucky. There was no problem. They moved to Christie's home of San Antonio, Texas. Johnathan knew before they were married, Christie's status, by the way.
They enjoyed seven years of marriage as husband and wife.
Then Johnathan became ill. His medical condition was severe. His doctor, a Dr. Prange, gave medicine to Johnathan that was contraindicated by Johnathan's medical condition, and Johnathan died as a result of that treatment.
Christie sued Dr. Prange for wrongful death.
During the trial, the insurance company never disputed the validity of christie's claims of medical malpractice. Instead, they dug up her history as a transsexual, and argued before the court that Christie was, in fact, a man (her surgery notwithstanding) and was therefore involved in an illegal same-sex marriage with Johnathan, and had the marrige anulled, and thus their contention Christie had no grounds to sue. The case was thrown out of court, and Christie lost her husband, their home...literally EVERYHING that she and Johnathan had shared...and was declared legally a man (even though she had gone thru sex-reassignment surgery.)

In a different case, from 1975, in NJ...the case of MT v JT...a man divorced a woman, because of her transsexual status. He claimed that, since she was "a man," he should not have to pay alimony. The court disagreed, stating that granting the plaintiff status as a woman was merely the court acknowledging what was already a fait accompli, and directed the defendant to pay alimony, and otherwise to support her as any ex-wife.

So, you see now...in Texas, Christie...a post-op transsexual, male-to-female...was legally declared a MAN...yet, in NJ, a post-operative transsexual, also male-to-female...was legally declared a WOMAN...

Do you see what we have to contend with?? And it is all basically due to intolerance and non-acceptance, and bigotry. And you STILL don't understand WHY we are so pissed off...and why we are pressing these issues??

OK, you are acknowledging that fat people are discriminated against. That's a start. I'm afraid we are never going to agree on the "are gays or fat people discriminated against more". I have experienced it first hand for most of my life. I rose above it. You think noone has ever been beaten for being fat (outside of adolescence)? Utter rubbish - I would try to dredge up some examples from news archives for your edification, if I could be bothered. Not a common occurence, certainly, but it does happen. It's never happened to me personally (since early school), since I choose not to be a victim. Anyway, I think fat people face as much prejudice as gays, you disagree. Since these are both our respective opinions rather than incontrivertible facts, neither of us will prove the other "wrong".
As for fat people being denied marriage, and/or other social rights - I will repeat now for about the sixth time - (I will underline, as both bolding and all caps seem to have escaped your notice) I am pro-gay marriage. Gays should have the same legal and social rights as anyone else. I don't know where you think I said otherwise. Please give an example, if you will.
this is foolish, you give me 1 example of where fat people are denied legal rights because of their weight and this conversation can end

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

A phobia can also be described as HAVING CONTEMPT FOR...the object of phobia.

I think the contempt is quite obvious in most of the detractors.

A phobia can also be described as HAVING CONTEMPT FOR...the object of phobia.

I think the contempt is quite obvious in most of the detractors.

A good example would be xenophobia - hatred, fear or contempt of that which is different; often used to describe people who fear foreigners or, say, people of a differing sexual preference.

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.

Actually, the post I was responding to...said PHYSICALLY OR FISCALLY!

I chose only to address the FISCAL aspect.

Hate crimes speak for themselves, I did not feel the need to address the PHYSICAL aspect...everyone has heard of gay-bashing incidents by now.

Hell, if nothing else, I'm sure the name Matthew Shepherd rings a litle bell, no??

Laramie, Wyoming??

You know...beaten to within an inch of his life, tied to a fence, and gagged so he could not call for help...and left to die a slow, agonising painful death alone in the bitter cold?

Ring a bell?

GODDAMN, this shit pisses me off!! HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES DO WE HAVE TO REPEAT OURSELVES BEFORE SOME PEOPLE "GET IT!!"

Violence...physical or economic...directed against someone just because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or race is FUCKING WRONG AND NEEDS TO BE STOPPED!!

DAMMIT, we are law-abiding, tax-paying hard-working citizens just like you, and we should feel like the government will stand behind US, too...that OUR LIVES...and OUR LIVLIHOODS are as valued in the eyes of the law...as anyone else's!!

HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES DO WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS?!!??

How many more of my dear friends...my brothers and sisters...will I have to watch suffer and die...watch them being denied the abillity to live full, happy lives...and reach their full potential...by a few assholes with mean motives??

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.
Well...so long as ALL PARTIES to the contract are in agreement to the terms of the contract, I would have to agree. Why the fuck NOT polygamy?
It's not hurting anyone, if all parties to the contract agree to the terms.

The cousin thing...well, it is shown that close relative "inbreeding" can produce a variety of very preventable birth defects...and such a union IS negatively impacting someone...the child created from that union. however, if both parties in the cousin case are infertile, and therefore, the chances of harm to a then-unconceived child are nil...I say, why the fuck NOT?

Government needs to get out of the business of social engineering and the selective enforcing of some people's moral code, ften dictated by a religion others may not share.

If some REAL HARM to another party can be proven...THEN the government needs to step in to prevent that harm from occurring.

And, no, REAL HARM is NOT defined as merely having one's sensibilities offended. You have no constitutional right to not having your sensibilities offended.

"Well...so long as ALL PARTIES to the contract are in agreement to the terms of the contract, I would have to agree. Why the fuck NOT polygamy?
It's not hurting anyone, if all parties to the contract agree to the terms."

The main reason polygamy is outlawed is not moral but fiscal. That simple. The whole issue of polygamous marriages has no bearing on this argument.

"The cousin thing...well, it is shown that close relative "inbreeding" can produce a variety of very preventable birth defects...and such a union IS negatively impacting someone..."

In most states, cousins may marry if the two parties are outside of the direct "first cousin" lineage. The reason direct cousin marriage is illegal is genetic, my family emigrated here two generations back from Spain, where diseases such as hemophilia (free bleeders, too little a concentration of platelets in the blood to properly clot), and mental retardation ran rampant because Royalty refused to marry outside of the 5 or 6 royal bloodlines worldwide. Most royals were directly related to each other even before that. It simply offers proof that spreading genetic material within the genepool is much better than keeping it close to your family tree. Is there a point to this?

"Government needs to get out of the business of social engineering and the selective enforcing of some people's moral code, ften dictated by a religion others may not share."

The government needs to take seriously the seperation of church and state. All of the countries in the Middle East who follow Islam are following a religion that is both Deen and Dawla (Church and State). Islam is the only major religion that has not gone through a religious reformation. The mullahs and ayatollahs run the governments through the secular leaders. Now seeing the evangelicals with their hand in the White House, and the appeal this President has made to the Roman Catholic church, and his urge to legislate religious belief into law...is it any wonder that moderates and liberals are pissed off at him?

"If some REAL HARM to another party can be proven...THEN the government needs to step in to prevent that harm from occurring."

Yes, that is called "proving vital state's interest." No argument.

"And, no, REAL HARM is NOT defined as merely having one's sensibilities offended. You have no constitutional right to not having your sensibilities offended."

That is correct. The hysterical arguments presented by those who do the bidding of evangelical christians do not meet any of the standards of legal scrutiny that any legitimate court must meet. The FMA is a bloody smokescreen, it was designed for maximum outrage so people would not pay attention to the hideously misguided policies of this administration. The current bill passed by the House that strips DOMA and itself from the consideration of the lower federal judiciary and the Supreme Court is unconstitutional as well. It violates the founding principle of the Judiciary. Judicial review. They slander judges for reviewing and striking down laws that they agree with that violate even the lowest standard of judicial scrutiny.

This issue is not resonating with the American people, and most conservatives and liberals alike are apalled by the issue. It will in part cost this President his reelection.

Who in hell cares! If you're not gay, then gay people don't effect you. And if they do then tell them off.

Who in hell cares! If you're not gay, then gay people don't effect you. And if they do then tell them off.
Gay people affect me...something like 25% of my friends are gay... (It was more in high school)

Anbar: What about people who are 'on your side' so to say, yet are unable to put forth a coherent argument? Are they -0.5?
I don't know about Anbar...but I come across a lot of these types (including myself many times) and they are probably the most frustrating...because they make you look bad.

FFS, the whole "fat people" part of my posts was over and done with 20 pages ago - it was an offhand remark. I just meant that gays are not the only group discriminated against - and even that was part of a broader example I was trying to make.

The crux of my argument is not and has never been "fat people are more persecuted than gays". read the rest of my post, and stop focusing in on that one aspect, and you may understand my point. I'm already regretting making the example in the first place...it was a poor example, OK? There, I admitted it! Now you can move on! ;)

OK, I'm outta here for good this time - maybe I've expressed myself badly, maybe people are to wrapped in their own self pity to want to understand. Either way, I give up. I have stated my case about 8 times now.

One last parting shot at getting my point accross in the simplest terms I can:

Gay marriage - good thing. Should be legalised. Gay people should have the same rights as anyone else.
Discrimination - bad thing. People shouldn't discrimiate. In a perfect world, everyone would accept people without prejudging them. Unfortuantely, this isn't a perfect world. People ARE going to prejudge you, and even hate you for things you have no control over. Sexuality is only ONE of those things, along with race, religion, physical characteristics etc etc etc. Is it right that these people prejudge you? Of course not. BUT - and this is the point I can't seem to get accross properly - the law really only needs to be brought into play if this discrimiation is taking a pulpible form. Simple namecalling, dirty looks, snide remarks etc IMHO are not of a pulpible form. Not being allowed to marry, being knocked back from jobs or being physically harmed are pulpible forms, again, IMHO.

The thing that annoys me is when people allow themselves to be victims, when the smart thing to do is rise above the petty forms of discrimination. Let homophobic comments go in one ear and out the other. You will NEVER cure all people of prejudice. NEVER. I admit, this is NOT the issue at hand in this thread, but I wished to address some of the posts here, as this is a pet peeve of mine.

On the primary issue of "Is gay marriage wrong" my answer is no. It should most definitely be legalised.

Over and out.

Who in hell cares! If you're not gay, then gay people don't effect you. And if they do then tell them off.

Frankly, I do care. Because the asshole in the White House and his good friends would all rather see me thrown up against a wall and shot.

Why?

I don't know, maybe I walk wrong...maybe I don't believe in his narrow minded view of America...but I will go to my grave defending the RIGHTS I WAS BORN WITH!

NO TO GAY MARRIAGE.

Marriage is to be between one man and one woman. That´s common law and aside of that that is also Roman law.

There is no difference between the US and Europe in that respect.

Gay marriage is wrong.
Marriage and family are linked close together. Therefore it must be possible for the partners to form a family with children and give them a father and a mother.

Family is the score scell of society and needed for its future.

Homosexuals can´t form such thing. That´s against nature. Equality doesn´t mean to threat everything the same way: It means to treat simular things the same way and different things HAVE TO be treated differently.
Therefore it would be unjustified and even illegal and illegitimate to establish gay marriage since it is a different and not important for society. It doesn´t deserve the same protection.


By the way: Nobody is banned from marriage. But it has to be between one man and one woman and not between two women or men or three, four, five, with children, dogs, animals or whatsoever. Thats the law and that is entirely justified and just.

infertile couples can't breed naturally. should they not be allowed to marry either?

So you're happy to stop us marrying and increasing the demand for adoption, reducing the need for abortion? You're happy to preserve your own personal and cultural idea of marriage and family at the cost of unborn babies' lives?

yes, please do tell us, o wise and moral law-maker:

if ability to produce offspring is the key, and no marriage is to be allowed without that possibility, then what of the infertile? what of women past menopause? what of people, like myself, who have chosen never to have children? are we to be denied the right to marry?

NO TO GAY MARRIAGE.
and some more stuff.
yawn

oh sorry....it's not you


it's just what you're saying

NO TO GAY MARRIAGE.

Marriage is to be between one man and one woman. That´s common law and aside of that that is also Roman law.

There is no difference between the US and Europe in that respect.

Can't really argue with that except to say that common laws change. Slavery was legal in many countries, but common law was changed to make it illegal. Why can't it go the other way?

Gay marriage is wrong.
Marriage and family are linked close together. Therefore it must be possible for the partners to form a family with children and give them a father and a mother.

It's true that marriage was developed to create a situation where children can grow and be cared for, but lately, the meaning of family has changed. Less than a quarter of US families are nuclear (mother, father, and child/ren). What about all the divorcees and single parents? Are they not considered a family? As far as I can tell, they survive just fine. If the families have changed, why can't the marriage?

Family is the score scell of society and needed for its future.

Homosexuals can´t form such thing. That´s against nature. Equality doesn´t mean to threat everything the same way: It means to treat simular things the same way and different things HAVE TO be treated differently.
Therefore it would be unjustified and even illegal and illegitimate to establish gay marriage since it is a different and not important for society. It doesn´t deserve the same protection.

Homosexuals cannot form families legally because no one has allowed them to. Studies have shown that children growing up in 2 parent straight homes are no different than children growing up in 2 parent gay homes. It is simply because 2 parents makes at least one parent available at all times to nurture the child.


By the way: Nobody is banned from marriage. But it has to be between one man and one woman and not between two women or men or three, four, five, with children, dogs, animals or whatsoever. Thats the law and that is entirely justified and just.

Slippery Slope. Simple solution: Marriage is between 2 consenting human adults.

Got anything else?

Marriage is to be between one man and one woman. That´s common law and aside of that that is also Roman law.


I take it you really don't know much about Rome given that same sex....affairs were perfectly acceptable. Then again according to Roman law it was okay for an older man (30's) to have a younger mistress (teens). So by Roman law you can't be married gay but you can be a pedophile...interesting law to abide by.

I totally agree with Kybernetia. I have friends who are gay and lesbian but, though i do respect them and treat just the same as my other friends, marriage is between a man and a woman. The soul purpose of marriage is to produce children, in the eyes of the church, the marriage is not real if the couple went into the marriage with no interest in having children. Gays and lesbians cannot produce children naturally for obvious reasons therfore it would go against the whole point of marriage if they did get married.
This is not discrimination or being unjust. It is quite the opposite because, gays and lesbians are different to straight people, they are not less human at all but because of who they are they cannot live their lives as straight people do. They have to do it differently, it's not their choice or ours it is simply the way they are, and everyone has to accept it. It is a very touchy subject, but no matter which way you put it, there is only one answer.

I totally agree with Kybernetia. I have friends who are gay and lesbian but, though i do respect them and treat just the same as my other friends, marriage is between a man and a woman. The soul purpose of marriage is to produce children, in the eyes of the church, the marriage is not real if the couple went into the marriage with no interest in having children. Gays and lesbians cannot produce children naturally for obvious reasons therfore it would go against the whole point of marriage if they did get married.
This is not discrimination or being unjust. It is quite the opposite because, gays and lesbians are different to straight people, they are not less human at all but because of who they are they cannot live their lives as straight people do. They have to do it differently, it's not their choice or ours it is simply the way they are, and everyone has to accept it. It is a very touchy subject, but no matter which way you put it, there is only one answer.
women with their tubes tied, barren, and other wise cant have kids either. and guys with similar problems cant. no marriage for them!

I totally agree with Kybernetia. I have friends who are gay and lesbian but, though i do respect them and treat just the same as my other friends, marriage is between a man and a woman. The soul purpose of marriage is to produce children, in the eyes of the church, the marriage is not real if the couple went into the marriage with no interest in having children. Gays and lesbians cannot produce children naturally for obvious reasons therfore it would go against the whole point of marriage if they did get married.
This is not discrimination or being unjust. It is quite the opposite because, gays and lesbians are different to straight people, they are not less human at all but because of who they are they cannot live their lives as straight people do. They have to do it differently, it's not their choice or ours it is simply the way they are, and everyone has to accept it. It is a very touchy subject, but no matter which way you put it, there is only one answer.

who cares what the church says? i'm straight and don't plan on getting married in a church. screw them.

and there is a lot more to marriage than having kids.
not only that, but if that was the only thing to marriage, then lesbian marriages should be perfectly alright soon enough. they've developped a way to create a baby mouse out of two mice eggs, it's only a matter of time before they can create a human from two human eggs, thus lesbians would be able to have children that are of their genetic makeup like any heterosexual couple.
and who knows, perhaps they'll get the same thing going with two sperm (perhaps a donor egg with the genetic material removed as well)

I totally agree with Kybernetia. I have friends who are gay and lesbian but, though i do respect them and treat just the same as my other friends, marriage is between a man and a woman. The soul purpose of marriage is to produce children, in the eyes of the church, the marriage is not real if the couple went into the marriage with no interest in having children. Gays and lesbians cannot produce children naturally for obvious reasons therfore it would go against the whole point of marriage if they did get married.
This is not discrimination or being unjust. It is quite the opposite because, gays and lesbians are different to straight people, they are not less human at all but because of who they are they cannot live their lives as straight people do. They have to do it differently, it's not their choice or ours it is simply the way they are, and everyone has to accept it. It is a very touchy subject, but no matter which way you put it, there is only one answer.


Actually the purpose of marriage (by the church as there is also common law marriage) was to prevent too much inbreeding in families. There was another form of marriage where the king would marry off his daughter and either give the son in law his kingdom or not. All this crap about marriage being to procreate is a farce at least and a lie at best.

Marriage is to be between one man and one woman. That´s common law and aside of that that is also Roman law.
Well, ok, but there's no reason that laws shouldn't change, so I don't see why "the law" is an excuse to make gay marriages illegal

Gay marriage is wrong. in what sense? I really can't see it and NO evidence has been provided to show that gay marriage is objectively wrong for gay people. Though I wouldn't argue that it's wrong for you. It probably is, you know, if you're not gay.

Marriage and family are linked close together. Therefore it must be possible for the partners to form a family with children and give them a father and a mother. Family is the score scell of society and needed for its future.
They can, it's adoption, and it's just as much a real family. You'd consider a man and a woman who adopt instead of giving birth a real family; therefore, this is clearly also a legitimate family.

Homosexuals can´t form such thing. That´s against nature. Equality doesn´t mean to threat everything the same way: It means to treat simular things the same way and different things HAVE TO be treated differently.
what's against nature? I must've missed it. Homosexuality is found in other animals, yadda, yadda, yadda...it's also found in our type of animal, you've heard it all before, why would you ever repeat that "it's against nature" (unless you were referring to something else and I just misunderstood)
As to equality meaning to treat the same thing the same way, I can agree with you there. However, it depends on how much "the same" it has to be. For example, I think gay marriages and straight marriages are "the same" because they're both (supposed to be) about people who are in love forming a life long pact to love and honor each other. note, I said people who are in love. I think that people who aren't in love are much more different when it comes to marriage than gay couples. Yet they are still allowed to get married, because it's not the government's place to tell you who you may and may not wed, assuming you are of opposite genders. You could easily say interracial marriages are "not the same" as intraracial marriages, but I would again disagree with you. As long as the parties involved are in love, let them be wed. (actually I don't even care if they're not "in love" in the traditional sense, because I really don't care who you marry as long as all parties are consenting adults- Two friends who don't sleep together wanting to have some of the benefits (and drawbacks) of marriage don't bother me a bit)

Therefore it would be unjustified and even illegal and illegitimate to establish gay marriage since it is a different and not important for society. It doesn´t deserve the same protection.
If you're counting everything that has 1 difference as being "different" enough to be bigoted and oppressive, then I concur. But then, why stop there, you don't have to accept interracial marriages because they are different. So I can't be married to the person I love (in fact, he wouldn't exist!), and then, hey, people with different hair colors can't be married. Well...only blond women can marry other blond men (cause anything else is different, and therefore needn't be protected by law) Well...Only white blonde women who are 5'9", 110, actors can marry white blonde men who are 6', 175, lawyers. Only Jenny can marry Herald.
I'm not suggesting a slippery slope, I'm just trying to point out that you're making an arbitrary distinction as to what is different and what isn't. Sure, there's a "difference" between a man marrying a woman and a man marrying another man, but there's also a difference between Jenny marrying Herald and Sara marrying Zak. We don't give them different rights

By the way: Nobody is banned from marriage. But it has to be between one man and one woman and not between two women or men or three, four, five, with children, dogs, animals or whatsoever. Thats the law and that is entirely justified and just.
no, they aren't banned from marrying someone of the opposite gender, but they are banned from marrying someone they love, which is what marriage is supposed to be about.
and...*coughCONSENTINGADULTScough*

I take it you really don't know much about Rome given that same sex....affairs were perfectly acceptable. Then again according to Roman law it was okay for an older man (30's) to have a younger mistress (teens). So by Roman law you can't be married gay but you can be a pedophile...interesting law to abide by.

hahaha, Sorry, but your comment was most amusing to me.
With Roman law I mean the other main legal system of the western world: there is Common law in the anglo-saxon countries and Roman law (based on Roman law) in continental Europe where I´m from.
And by the way pedophilia is of course illegal. And right: law can change.
For example there were no regulations regarding credit cards in the past. Now, they are of course. The difference is that Roman law is written law and it is orientated mainly on the law itself and not on precedents.
But both come to the same result here.
One man one woman. That´s the rule in both legal systems.
And if you want to change that you have to present an sufficient argument for the change. You haven´t done so.
And in Roman law countries you would actually need to change the law itself - so it is not enough to convince a court (which may be the case where you are). You need to convince the legislature which is elected by the people.
So it is the peoples opinion that matters. And that is opposed to gay marriage. You should accept the will of the people and that is clear: NO GAY MARRIAGE.

Well: I resign from debate for today since it is pretty late where I´m and I wish everybody a Good night, evening, afternoon, morning (well wherever you are from around the globe).

Why would they want marriage? It's a tradition of an Anti-Gay religion...by getting married they are supporting anti-themselves...besides every culture or religion has some sort of ritual to the effect of marriage...why not pick one that isn't anti-gay or even better supportive of the gays? All the other one's get the same legal benefits...so why pick marriage? Are they ignorant of other forms of religious or cultural cerimonies to create a legal bond? I'm sure some of the gays must be smart enough to figure this out...but because of all the discrimination against them they are probably too scared o say anything...

hahaha, Sorry, but your comment was most amusing to me.
With Roman law I mean the other main legal system of the western world: there is Common law in the anglo-saxon countries and Roman law (based on Roman law) in continental Europe where I´m from.
And by the way pedophilia is of course illegal. And right: law can change.
For example there were no regulations regarding credit cards in the past. Now, they are of course. The difference is that Roman law is written law and it is orientated mainly on the law itself and not on precedents.
But both come to the same result here.
One man one woman. That´s the rule in both legal systems.
And if you want to change that you have to present an sufficient argument for the change. You haven´t done so.
And in Roman law countries you would actually need to change the law itself - so it is not enough to convince a court (which may be the case where you are). You need to convince the legislature which is elected by the people.
So it is the peoples opinion that matters. And that is opposed to gay marriage. You should accept the will of the people and that is clear: NO GAY MARRIAGE.

Well: I resign from debate for today since it is pretty late where I´m and I wish everybody a Good night, evening, afternoon, morning (well wherever you are from around the globe).


I noticed you didn't respond to ANYTHING else that was put forth.

Oh, and it's not the people's opinions that matter. We elect judges, and they decide. Hey, what do you know, they were allowing people of the same sex to marry.


Here's an argument for the change: Why not? Or how about this argument: because they deserve the same rights as others. Or this argument: to do otherwise would be hateful and biast (I can never spell that damn word right).


Why would they want marriage? It's a tradition of an Anti-Gay religion...by getting married they are supporting anti-themselves...besides every culture or religion has some sort of ritual to the effect of marriage...why not pick one that isn't anti-gay or even better supportive of the gays? All the other one's get the same legal benefits...so why pick marriage? Are they ignorant of other forms of religious or cultural cerimonies to create a legal bond? I'm sure some of the gays must be smart enough to figure this out...but because of all the discrimination against them they are probably too scared o say anything...

Christianity DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY ON MARRIGE. GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS. AND, even if it DID, churches were marrying gay and lesbian couples!

Oh, and out of curiosity, WHAT other ritual should they perform then? Last I checked there's NO GOD DAMN ALTERNATIVE.


Idiots...

Well if you don't want Homosexuals getting married in you Christan churches, thats your deal. I'm sorry but not all of us are Christian, or a variant. There are many religions that support same sex marriage, who well... Have been around a hell of a lot longer. Christians did not invent marriage, its done in many religions and many cultures all over the world. So by outlawing gay marriage you out law a part of religious freedom. And oh, thats kinda not what the US was founded on now. ^_^

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

hahahahaha, the majority of Americans are against full gay marriage rights. Any politician who stands up for full gay marriage is in fact, hurting their reputation with the majority of Americans because of this. It heightens my opinion of anyone when they can stand up for what they believe in. My opinion of Bush went up when he said he wanted a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. I think it's a completly ignorant opinion, but the fact that he can get up there and try and gain support for this when the majority of americans are against that amendment shows he's not afraid to stand up for what he believes.

Okay, I've got one thing to say.

WHO CARES if gays get married. Personally, as a strongly un-religious person, I don't see any reason why two men or two women should not be married. I will agree that it's highly unlikely churches would perform the marriage... but that's why you have a marriage that isn't religiously performed. If the marriage isn't a "traditional marriage," then so be it.

There's no way that gay marriages harm anyone; in fact, far to the opposite. They BENEFIT the married couple. But agreed, tax benefits to married couples are absurd. Tax deductions per child, I agree with. But honestly.

In any case, it's none of your business. If someone is gay, that's their own situation. You should at least be able to keep an open mind about it, and not discriminate against people who were born that way. Yes, it's weird to see a gay couple together, but I'm not going to call them puffs and other discriminative slurs because of it.

That was a bit more than one thing =p

Why would they want marriage? It's a tradition of an Anti-Gay religion...by getting married they are supporting anti-themselves...besides every culture or religion has some sort of ritual to the effect of marriage...why not pick one that isn't anti-gay or even better supportive of the gays? All the other one's get the same legal benefits...so why pick marriage? Are they ignorant of other forms of religious or cultural cerimonies to create a legal bond? I'm sure some of the gays must be smart enough to figure this out...but because of all the discrimination against them they are probably too scared o say anything...

Well, that's an interesting point. People are brought up in religious traditions, generally, and the acceptance of those religions becomes important to them. They're a peer group. Not to mention the implication that, along with a religious identity, comes a search for an acceptance by whatever divinity that religion espouses. So, if a homosexual couple embrace a religion, given that many of them are hostile to homosexuality, it seems to indicate that their basic desire for the acceptance of this peer group outweighs any hostility that peer group may have for them on general principles. Not exactly healthy, but understandable. The desire for a "sanctified" marriage, recognized by this peer group and blessed by this divinity, is an outgrowth of that.

Of course, there are religions that recognize same-sex couplings, although this tends to be more on a group by group basis and not as part of a set doctrine. However, if a particular religion is important enough for a person to seek acceptance by it even though it is officially hostile, it's probably not a workable solution to suggest they "find another God." That's not what they're after. They want acceptance by THIS God and THIS community, just the same as all others in that community receive. This is questionable, however, because any given religious community has the fundamental right, within reason, to determine their own beliefs and acceptance criteria. The government should not and can not step in and advocate one way or the other (again, so long as those acceptances don't require the abridgement of the freedoms of others).

This is the fundamental problem with the idea that "marriage", at least in a religious sense, is under governmental control and the reason that the recent Amendment debate was so fundamentally wrong. Regardless of it's implications for states rights (which is an entirely different reason this thing was misguided), the federal government has no business interfering with religious doctrine, one way or the other. A church that does not accept homosexual marriage should not be forced, at gunpoint, to do so just as a church that does accept homosexual marriage should be forbidden to do so.

However, somehow there has been an assimilation of religious "marriage" into governmental practice, which should have never happened in the first place. Now, to be married, carries a host of benefits and responsibilities granted by the government, which should never base policy on religious doctrine lest it become a theocracy which is most certainly not the intent of the founding fathers of this country. So, the question is, should a same-sex partnership be equally as valid under the eyes of the government (in the abscence of any religious doctrine) as a mixed-sex parternship and, therefore, be granted the same sort of governmental benefits? Once you remove religious connotations, it becomes much harder to justify why one is different from the other.

The government's got itself into quite a pickle here because it's sought too much control and now no choice it makes will be "right." If it says that same-sex partnerships are "less than" mixed-sex ones and offers no justification for it, then it's basically admitted that democracy is dead and we now live in a theocracy and that all rules, henceforth, will be based upon an arbitrarily chosen religion that not all citizens of this country follow. This implies that those who do not follow the religion are also somehow "less than" in the eyes of the government and this won't sit well with many people. If it does nothing, at least for this particular administration, it will be seen as week and "immoral", even though for it to step in would be to violate not only the scope of it's mandate, but also the very principle of religious freedom within this country.

hahahahaha, the majority of Americans are against full gay marriage rights.
I'm sorry gone to popular vote via the people, not the government, people are for them by a medium majority.

hahahahaha, the majority of Americans are against full gay marriage rights. Any politician who stands up for full gay marriage is in fact, hurting their reputation with the majority of Americans because of this. It heightens my opinion of anyone when they can stand up for what they believe in. My opinion of Bush went up when he said he wanted a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. I think it's a completly ignorant opinion, but the fact that he can get up there and try and gain support for this when the majority of americans are against that amendment shows he's not afraid to stand up for what he believes.

Well, true, the ability to stand up for what you believe is admirable, however that doesn't make it right or legal.

Goed's point hits the nail on the head: Whether you're Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Satanist or whatever, the piece of paper the government gives you to sign is the same. If they were to legally recognise Commitment Ceremonies with equal rights and responsibilities, maybe, but Civil Unions in most cases aren't effectively equal, there's always some vagueness about pension rights or prohibition on registration in any religious building. The easiest and hopefully most fool-proof (perhaps it's best Bush is against) is to give us marriage, and the whole "seperate but equal" debate is done away with.

Now, there is also the valid point that it isn't part of our culture(Surely we could just perform the ceremony in Polari?), and to be sure, some of us will go on cohabiting without it, but for those of us who are religious and want to start a family through the myriad options available, marriage is very neccessary in today's society to forming the stable family unit and setting out rights and responsibilities.

I totally agree with Kybernetia. I have friends who are gay and lesbian but, though i do respect them and treat just the same as my other friends, marriage is between a man and a woman. The soul purpose of marriage is to produce children, in the eyes of the church, the marriage is not real if the couple went into the marriage with no interest in having children. Gays and lesbians cannot produce children naturally for obvious reasons therfore it would go against the whole point of marriage if they did get married.

So, also, infertile people. So also post-menopausl women. If you will not stop THEM from marrying (even hetero) because, after all, THEY can't have kids....then you are discriminating, whether or not you want to own up to it. your argument fails to hold water.
Lastly.."The soul (should be SOLE) purpose of marriage is to produce children, in the eyes of the church..."
HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES DO WE HAVE TO SAY THIS??
WHO GIVES A FUCK WHAT THE CHURCH, YOUR CHURCH, HAS TO SAY ABOUT IT??
NO ONE IS SAYING YOUR CHURCH HAS TO RECOGNIZE IT, OR PERFORM CEREMONIES IF IT SO CHOOSES NOT TO!
WHAT FUCKING PART OF "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW WITH REGARDS TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RELIGION..."
AND
WHAT FUCKING PART OF ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL
AND
WHAT FUCKING PART OF EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW
DO YOU NOT FUCKING UNDERSTAND??

All we are saying is we wish our relationships, and our lives, to have the same standing before the EYES OF THE FUCKING LAW, as yours do!! What is so fucking difficult for you to understand?!?!
Or are you deliberately being stupid in order to piss me the fuck off?!?!

If people want to get married, no matter what sex they are, let them do it. I think people should stay out of other peoples business. If everybody solved their own problems instead of worrying about other peoples' problems, the world would be a much better place. It is a good thing as far as spousal benifits from work, etc. A partner is a partner, as far as I am concerned. Oh and by the way... I'm not gay, just open minded.

hahahahaha, the majority of Americans are against full gay marriage rights. Any politician who stands up for full gay marriage is in fact, hurting their reputation with the majority of Americans because of this. It heightens my opinion of anyone when they can stand up for what they believe in. My opinion of Bush went up when he said he wanted a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. I think it's a completly ignorant opinion, but the fact that he can get up there and try and gain support for this when the majority of americans are against that amendment shows he's not afraid to stand up for what he believes.

hahahahaha, I just sent your ass to Ignore Island! You are a flamebaiter.

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

erm...not really. my best friend is straight as an arrow and he's very for it, so is his older brother, also straight, so is my best female friend, who is straight, so are any number of other people who aren't gay.

Goed's point hits the nail on the head: Whether you're Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Satanist or whatever, the piece of paper the government gives you to sign is the same. If they were to legally recognise Commitment Ceremonies with equal rights and responsibilities, maybe, but Civil Unions in most cases aren't effectively equal, there's always some vagueness about pension rights or prohibition on registration in any religious building. The easiest and hopefully most fool-proof (perhaps it's best Bush is against) is to give us marriage, and the whole "seperate but equal" debate is done away with.


But that's not fair either, or, indeed, feasable under the Constitution and separation of church and state. It is just as wrong to force a religious institution to accept same-sex marriage as it is to deny them the option and the government has no business doing either.

What needs to happen is the government needs to keep it's big, blundery nose out of marriage completely. If it still wants to recognize partnerships, then it should create a different institution from a purely legal standpoint to do so, not based on religious terms or definitions. It could grandfather in all currently existant marriages to this new institution (I hesitate to use the term "civil union" because it's been poisoned already) and then set up clear and objective standards for granting the title from here on that all couples whould have to abide by, regardless of gender. It's perfectly capable of doing this and has done it in other cases (for example, just because the Jewish tradition of manhood being bestowed at 13 is respected, that doesn't mean 13 year olds get drivers licenses, can vote or be drafted).

Marriage is a religious institution and forcing a religion to accept a stance on it contrary to thier belief is not correct, regardless of what that belief is. However, to base governmental policy on the tenants of one religion is also incorrect and should be stopped immediately.

But that's not fair either, or, indeed, feasable under the Constitution and separation of church and state. It is just as wrong to force a religious institution to accept same-sex marriage as it is to deny them the option and the government has no business doing either.
you have no idea whats ghoing on if you presume we are forcing anything on a religion. the churches do NOT have to recognize same sex marriages, they do NOT have to give the mfrilly pointless ceremonies. the STATES have to recognize the marriages and give the couple the rights of a married couple




Marriage is a religious institution and forcing a religion to accept a stance on it contrary to thier belief is not correct, regardless of what that belief is. However, to base governmental policy on the tenants of one religion is also incorrect and should be stopped immediately.
see above

There have been many arguments against gay marriage, some of them actually logical.

For example, 'Gay individuals have the same rights as heterosexual individuals - they can marry any member of the opposite gender they want.'

However, I'd like to point out that heterosexuals also marry for love - that is a right accorded to them within marriage. They can marry someone they love, if they want. But gay people cannot, under current American law. They cannot marry someone they love. Only someone of the opposite gender.

Also, I saw an argument mentioning 'Well, what if I wanted to marry my cousin? Or sister?'

I'd like to point out that obviously, those two family members are related. Whereas two gay males wanting to get married, are not.

Some people relate it to beastiality, or various other things of the sort.

Frankly, they need to do some reevaluation, because a man having sex with a dog is not legal for good reasons: the dog cannot legally consent. The dog is not mentally developed enough to agree to sexual intercourse, and even if it was, it has no method of communicating this. (Humping a leg does /not/ count. :P)

Also, I'd like to point out that while some religions dislike the idea of gay marriage, others do. So claiming that it's 'against my religion' is just as flimsy as a Buddhist claiming that it should be legal because it /not/ against /theirs/.

A gay couple is different, only in tiny ways, from a straight couple. Sure, the method with which they have sex is different, and they may not be able to have children without the help of modern science, but then again, neither of those really much matter. A heterosexual couple who frequently engages in anal sex isn't looked down upon by society, just like a heterosexual couple who isn't able to reproduce naturally.

But these are just my opinions... I personally prefer to mind my own business and only speak up on what personally affects me. Unfortunately, most 'Christians' don't seem to have the same courtesy for the rest of the world.

(I put 'Christians' in quotes because if they feel the need to make the majority conform to their will, they're not Christian. They're just nosy and inconsiderate. They're closer to Puritans in their behavior; Puritans considered the Native Americans to be disgusting heathens, too... unfortunately, a good many of them were killed or enslaved by the Puritans. And I suspect that if you put a firearm into the hands of one of these 'Christians', and removed the restrictions society has imposed upon them against killing people, they probably /would/ kill people... which is the antithesis of loving Christ - because by loving Christ, you have no choice but to love those around you for all their flaws. The trick is learning to keep your mouth /shut/ when you find a flaw.)

Personally, I think that 'marriage' should have no legal standing. It should just be the Church saying 'we think this civil union is A-OK'. The government should make Civil Unions into a copy of marriage, transfer every current marriage into a Civil Union, and then abandon marriage altogether. That's the only way things will work. Unless the US adapts, as Canada has.

But that's not fair either, or, indeed, feasable under the Constitution and separation of church and state. It is just as wrong to force a religious institution to accept same-sex marriage as it is to deny them the option and the government has no business doing either.

If some beach bum and a stripper stroll into a mosque demanding marriage, which is their legal right if they're an straight couple, what's going to be said? Don't answer that, I don't expect you to know the Arabic for "Get the fuck out!". Legalising gay marriage gives people the right, it doesn't give religious organisations the obligation.

If some beach bum and a stripper stroll into a mosque demanding marriage, which is their legal right if they're an straight couple, what's going to be said? Don't answer that, I don't expect you to know the Arabic for "Get the fuck out!". Legalising gay marriage gives people the right, it doesn't give religious organisations the obligation.
you realise a marriage in a church is nothing more than a frilyl cover? you are not legally married by having a church ceremony

you realise a marriage in a church is nothing more than a frilyl cover? you are not legally married by having a church ceremony

Um... yes, you are.

If the priest can legally marry you in the state that you're in, then you're legally married if you have a church ceremony.

you realise a marriage in a church is nothing more than a frilyl cover? you are not legally married by having a church ceremony

No, but after the ceremony the legal documents are signed. The right to sign the document is the thing. It doesn't affect any religious organisation that doesn't want to do it.

Um... yes, you are.

If the priest can legally marry you in the state that you're in, then you're legally married if you have a church ceremony.
but you dont have to be
you people are pretending you have to have a church wedding to be legally married

gay peopel are gay

Wise words.

but you dont have to be
you people are pretending you have to have a church wedding to be legally married

No, we're not. Heterosexual couples have the legal right to sign a marriage contract together, homosexual couples don't have that right. The ceremony would be nice(I wanna wear white!), but the ceremony is all we can have at the moment. I'm sure plenty of liberal churches have been performing commitment ceremonies which don't legally exist, it's the legal marriage we want and need to ground our families securely.

If some beach bum and a stripper stroll into a mosque demanding marriage, which is their legal right if they're an straight couple, what's going to be said? Don't answer that, I don't expect you to know the Arabic for "Get the fuck out!". Legalising gay marriage gives people the right, it doesn't give religious organisations the obligation.

Of course it does. If gay marriage is legal and a gay couple walks into a church and says, "Marry us" and the church representative says, "No, that's against our beliefs," then that's discrimination predicated on a clear violation of church and state.

I'm all for gay marriage. If two people feel that strongly about one another and are proud enough of their relationship to declare that in front of God and everyone, I say more power to them, regardless of their sex. There's not enough of that these days. However, I'm also for respecting religious difference and tolerance and the fact that the insitution of marriage is indeed religious institution, it should not be mandated by the government one way or the other.

Actually, they can say no.

You can't have a wedding in a Catholic church without going through Confirmation.


It's their building, they make the rules for it.

Of course it does. If gay marriage is legal and a gay couple walks into a church and says, "Marry us" and the church representative says, "No, that's against our beliefs," then that's discrimination predicated on a clear violation of church and state.

So the beach bum and stripper can sue for racist discrimination? No, religious organisations marry people who follow their faith within the bounds they set. Don't be stupid and say I'll be able to walk into Westminster Abbey and demand a marriage or sue.

So the beach bum and stripper can sue for racist discrimination? No, religious organisations marry people who follow their faith within the bounds they set. Don't be stupid and say I'll be able to walk into Westminster Abbey and demand a marriage or sue.

First off, don't call me stupid because we disagree on this point. Second off, I have no idea if under UK law you could sue for discrimination in that case. Third off, yes, they can say no, but the question is can they do it legally. If a mixed race couple walked into a church and asked for a wedding and were refused on the grounds that the church did not accept mixed race couples, it's undoubtedly stupid just as it's undoubtable that there would be a lawsuit.

First off, don't call me stupid because we disagree on this point. Second off, I have no idea if under UK law you could sue for discrimination in that case. Third off, yes, they can say no, but the question is can they do it legally. If a mixed race couple walked into a church and asked for a wedding and were refused on the grounds that the church did not accept mixed race couples, it's undoubtedly stupid just as it's undoubtable that there would be a lawsuit.

in canada, the government is talking about making gay marriage a national thing. and they're putting in the law that religious institutions have the right to refuse marrying a couple.

in canada, the government is talking about making gay marriage a national thing. and they're putting in the law that religious institutions have the right to refuse marrying a couple.

Well, that's one thing. Even still, it is uncomfortably close to allowing government to dictate the beliefs of private citizens.

The very idea that people will be able to dictate faith to Churches by suing is ridiculous. You don't here about people suing for being refused marriage on racial grounds, the same as you don't hear about people being refused an audience with a rabbi because they're eating a bacon cheeseburger when they ask. If you know of a case where someone has sued for racial discrimination against a Church, please link it, so I know which faiths are further back than the Dark Ages.

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

Hmmm...lemme try and square up Dark Future's comment...

First, we are a despicable disgusting minority worhty of no rights...
Second, only gay people are for gay marriage, others just try to get elected off it...
BUT...why would ANYONE support it just trying to get elected if ONLY gay people support it...since we are, of course, such a dispicable disgusting minority???
WTF?

Well, that's one thing. Even still, it is uncomfortably close to allowing government to dictate the beliefs of private citizens.

how are they dictating anyone's beliefs?

they're saying "ok, we want to protect the rights of this minority group and we don't want to step on the toes of those who believe otherwise"
they're not saying "ok, so we want to protect the rights of the minority group and force the majority to go along with it"

i mean, they're accepting homosexual marriage offically. perhaps the families of those who marry in such unions will not consider it valid, perhaps their friends will not consider it valid, it doesn't matter. they can think whatever they want about it, but it doesn't matter, because officially, it's a marriage.

how are they dictating anyone's beliefs?

they're saying "ok, we want to protect the rights of this minority group and we don't want to step on the toes of those who believe otherwise"
they're not saying "ok, so we want to protect the rights of the minority group and force the majority to go along with it"

i mean, they're accepting homosexual marriage offically. perhaps the families of those who marry in such unions will not consider it valid, perhaps their friends will not consider it valid, it doesn't matter. they can think whatever they want about it, but it doesn't matter, because officially, it's a marriage.

Because the government, particularly the federal government, has no business being involved in marriage in the first place. Look, I'm not saying it's going to happen. I could be wrong. I've been wrong in the past and I will most likely be wrong in the future. What I'm saying is that it opens a very dangerous door. For the government to rule on marriage, one way or the other, implies that it has the right to do so when it clearly does not.

Furthermore, I believe that eventually gay marriage will indeed be ratified into federal law (even though I don't believe it is the most pressing issue facing us at this time and probably not even in the top ten) and I'm well aware that I'm advocating for a pipe dream that would be cleaner if a bit more cumbersome.

Because the government, particularly the federal government, has no business being involved in marriage in the first place. Look, I'm not saying it's going to happen. I could be wrong. I've been wrong in the past and I will most likely be wrong in the future. What I'm saying is that it opens a very dangerous door. For the government to rule on marriage, one way or the other, implies that it has the right to do so when it clearly does not.

the federal government already has a ruling on marriage. they did it to stop the polygamists.

the federal government already has a ruling on marriage. they did it to stop the polygamists.

And my concern still stands. The federal government has no business involving itself in the religious institution of marriage in any scope or in any reason. First, it's traditionally a states rights issue and should jolly well be left there if it's going to be left anywhere. Second, it represents a dangerous blend of religion and politics because the institution itself is indeed religious.

And my concern still stands. The federal government has no business involving itself in the religious institution of marriage in any scope or in any reason. First, it's traditionally a states rights issue and should jolly well be left there if it's going to be left anywhere. Second, it represents a dangerous blend of religion and politics because the institution itself is indeed religious.

marriage isn't strictly a religious institution, it never was. it was a social one before then and will probably remain a social instiution long after. religion just took over the business of arranging the ceremony and policing it. and the only province or territory that objected to the proposed legislation is alberta, everyone else is in agreement.

Well, Ive read parts of the thread. Woah, a large amount of you ppl are truely insane. Why make such a big frigging deal outta two guys or two girls getting married? They are in love, right? Wont they treat eachother just like John Doe and Susie Doe do? Besides, dosent the Catholic church have something better to do? Like say some medevil crap like AIDS is a curse from god because ppl have too much sex or something? I belive that it is not within the best interests of a government to back any religion anyway. Remember that good old thing known as "seperation of church and state"? Bush backing the church and its beliefs in such a trivial issue is just a waste of air, and could possibly damage his "look" to more moderate voters. In short, ppl can do a crapload of other stuff (divorce anyone?) but not get in nearly as much trouble with the church. Well, I say just forget about it (unless your gay). If gays can marry, they can. If they cant, then our "great democracy" is failing in one of its biggest missions. DEFEND THE MINORITY! Thank you.

Why would they want marriage? It's a tradition of an Anti-Gay religion...by getting married they are supporting anti-themselves...besides every culture or religion has some sort of ritual to the effect of marriage...why not pick one that isn't anti-gay or even better supportive of the gays? All the other one's get the same legal benefits...so why pick marriage? Are they ignorant of other forms of religious or cultural cerimonies to create a legal bond? I'm sure some of the gays must be smart enough to figure this out...but because of all the discrimination against them they are probably too scared o say anything...It's also the legal recognition of the joining of two people together. Tax benefits, legal opportunities, and public recognition of a bond together.

I am utterly appalled that there are people who are so ignorant in this world. I am so sorry I got involved in this discussion.

It is apparent that people in the United States have not advanced socially since before the Revolution. Before people accuse me of being Euro trash bear something in mind. I live in the United States and was born here.

There are some very good hearted people in this country, but most of them allow themselves to be led along by their noses by either their Church or political party. Right now a very loud minority is monopolizing the discussion on gay marriage, many of them do not have the IQ of a Q-tip. The sad part is many of these people know or associate with gays and lesbians and don't have a clue.

This nation has a love of McCarthyism, talk about another blatantly ignorant political movement that "conservatives" were responsible for, you know what? Most of these folks who call themselves conservatives are lying hacks.

You see, a true conservative is for less government intrusion in people's lives, fiscal responsibility, and when they say "family values" it is not with capital letters. Just one small shining example of that is Pat Buchanan, who personally I cannot stand, but he dislikes this President and the neoconservatives he surrounds himself with as much as I do. Bob Barr, another guy whose politics makes me shiver, is against both the FMA and the MPA, calls them both unconstitutional and makes a call for sanity in his own party. This is the guy who went after Clinton with all four feet. So I would think he would have some credentials in his own party.

Example after example of solid conservatives abandoning the policies this President calls "mainstream." Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, General Anthony Zinni, General Tony McPeak, John Dean...and many others. All solid conservatives...and the funny thing...all of them along with many others have been character assassinated by this fine, upstanding President and his cronies.

I doubt if I open a single eye here, but this nation is in for a hard fall if push does not come to shove.

We have genuinely lost our moral center.

The equal treatment of gays and lesbians is not going to bring the wrath of God down on this country. God loves all of us, with no exceptions. We all have equal rights, no exceptions. This nation is not for a privileged few, it is for all of us. I will be damned if the 22 years I spent in the US Military is going to be for nought. I am ashamed of what I have seen here.

It is uncharitable, un-Christian, and un-American.

Shame on you all.

Don't bother putting me on ignore. This is my last post here anyway.

I'd like to point out to the Americans in this debate that in Canada, marriage /is/ within federal jurisdiction. It prevents stupid things like marriages suddenly ceasing to exist when a couple goes cross-country driving.

And frankly, marriage means different things to different people. For Muslim women, one hundred years ago, marriage was slavery. Same deal in the UK in the Dark Ages. A woman was chattel to be traded by her father to another man for increases in status. Fifty years ago, in the US, a black man and a white woman could not get married, because it was seen as dirty, and impure.

Marriage has changed over the years, because society, not religion, has dictated that it must. Therefore, it's a social institution.

There is no sane reason to consider marriage a /Christian/ institution, even if it /is/ a religious institution. Just because religions have been marrying people for centuries doesn't mean that Christians have a monopoly on it.

For hypothetical purposes only, lets speculate that it is, in fact, a religious institution. Who's to tell my friend's Buddhist mentor with a legal ability to marry two people that he isn't allowed to marry my friend and his partner? After all, it's a religious institution. Religious people are free to dictate what marriage is and is not, correct?

Well, Christians are constantly bitching that secular humanism is a religion, as well...

*thinks*

I guess that means that governments can dictate what marriage is, after all.

And my concern still stands. The federal government has no business involving itself in the religious institution of marriage in any scope or in any reason. First, it's traditionally a states rights issue and should jolly well be left there if it's going to be left anywhere. Second, it represents a dangerous blend of religion and politics because the institution itself is indeed religious.

You are forgetting the simple fact that there are now two separate institutions of marriage. One of them is religious and is the other is legal. They are (although maybe not in certain people's minds) *separate* institutions. The religious institution is ruled over by that religion's god(s) and the rules and regulations they have. The *legal* institution, at least in the US, cannot be discriminatory without the government showing a compelling reason for it (which no one has). The *religious* institution can kick out whoever the hell they want to.

Maybe there is no separation of church and state in the country where you live, but there is in the US. As long as a church is not receiving money from the government to do whatever it is that they are doing, they can discriminate against whoever they want. If a church out there declared that they only viewed white blonde people as being married, then they would only marry white blonde people. And if a white brunette man walked in and wanted to be married to a black woman, the church could tell them to leave. These two would have no legal recourse because the government does not regulate the church However, if that same couple walked into a justice of the peace and met all the requirements for marriage in that state (legal consenting age, not already married, blood tests, etc), they could not be turned away.

Thus, legalizing gay marriage does not in any way force any church to recognize or perform such marriages.

well.. if you think about it.. why do people actually get married? .. because they love eachother.
therefore i find that not allowing sum people to marry and not others, is like saying they dont love eachother. no?
religion and marrage is all good and well for christians, but many people who arn't christian marry, no1 complains about them, they arn't doing everything 'god' says, but they still get to marry to show they are llegaly commited and bound to the person they love. homosexuals such as myself should be aloud to show this kind of devotion to their partner as well.
marriage isnt about money and religion, it is about love. right..?

I am utterly appalled that there are people who are so ignorant in this world. I am so sorry I got involved in this discussion.

It is apparent that people in the United States have not advanced socially since before the Revolution. Before people accuse me of being Euro trash bear something in mind. I live in the United States and was born here.

There are some very good hearted people in this country, but most of them allow themselves to be led along by their noses by either their Church or political party. Right now a very loud minority is monopolizing the discussion on gay marriage, many of them do not have the IQ of a Q-tip. The sad part is many of these people know or associate with gays and lesbians and don't have a clue.

This nation has a love of McCarthyism, talk about another blatantly ignorant political movement that "conservatives" were responsible for, you know what? Most of these folks who call themselves conservatives are lying hacks.

You see, a true conservative is for less government intrusion in people's lives, fiscal responsibility, and when they say "family values" it is not with capital letters. Just one small shining example of that is Pat Buchanan, who personally I cannot stand, but he dislikes this President and the neoconservatives he surrounds himself with as much as I do. Bob Barr, another guy whose politics makes me shiver, is against both the FMA and the MPA, calls them both unconstitutional and makes a call for sanity in his own party. This is the guy who went after Clinton with all four feet. So I would think he would have some credentials in his own party.

Example after example of solid conservatives abandoning the policies this President calls "mainstream." Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, General Anthony Zinni, General Tony McPeak, John Dean...and many others. All solid conservatives...and the funny thing...all of them along with many others have been character assassinated by this fine, upstanding President and his cronies.

I doubt if I open a single eye here, but this nation is in for a hard fall if push does not come to shove.

We have genuinely lost our moral center.

The equal treatment of gays and lesbians is not going to bring the wrath of God down on this country. God loves all of us, with no exceptions. We all have equal rights, no exceptions. This nation is not for a privileged few, it is for all of us. I will be damned if the 22 years I spent in the US Military is going to be for nought. I am ashamed of what I have seen here.

It is uncharitable, un-Christian, and un-American.

Shame on you all.

Don't bother putting me on ignore. This is my last post here anyway.

BRAVO!!
You don't pull any ounches, do you?
You are the LAST person I'd put on ignore!! GREAT POST!!!

it's fine but they cant forse any one else to be gay

it's fine but they cant forse any one else to be gay
why do you think they would?

I have long loved the song from which this bit of petry comes...and I thought it was very topical to the subject at hand...

Baby, can you tell me
Just where we fit in?

I call it love
They call it "living in sin."

Is it you and me
Or just this world we live in?

We're living our love
They say we're "living in sin."

I don't know where to begin,
I don't know where we fit in
Are we living our love
Or are we "living in sin?"

Adapted from "Living In Sin" by the great Jon Bon Jovi (this song appears on the "New Jersey" album, by the way)

marriage isnt about money and religion, it is about love. right..?

It depends on what point of view you're coming from. According to the individuals, yes, it is generally about love. According to the church, is about religion. And as far as the governemnt is concerned, it is about money (unless you are trying to bring your spouse from another country and then it is also about love).

The point in this discussion is getting the people who think it is all about religion to but out of the government side of things. Unfortunately, the idea of love can get lost in the argument even though, in my opinion, it is the most important part. However, no one is denying homosexuals the right to love each other (although there are those that would like to) or to bind themselves together for life, it is the monetary and legal ramifications of marriage that they (or I guess you) are being denied.

You are forgetting the simple fact that there are now two separate institutions of marriage. One of them is religious and is the other is legal. They are (although maybe not in certain people's minds) *separate* institutions. The religious institution is ruled over by that religion's god(s) and the rules and regulations they have. The *legal* institution, at least in the US, cannot be discriminatory without the government showing a compelling reason for it (which no one has). The *religious* institution can kick out whoever the hell they want to.

I'm not forgetting this fact at all, I'm simply demanding that it be acknowledged and each separate distinction of marriage be seen as what it is. The government has no business involving itself in issues of marriage under the religious sense at all. But it has and for it to continue to do so is a continuation of the breakdown of separation of church and state, which is something I firmly believe in. The separation between a governmental view of marriage (as you said in a later post, money) should be the same for all people, heterosexual and homosexual, and should be upheld by it's own set of standards. The religious institution of marriage should be firmly left up to individual churches to decide upon as their faith dictates.


Maybe there is no separation of church and state in the country where you live, but there is in the US.

I live in the US. Missouri. We're voting on this issue in early August, amending our state constitution to include a narrow definition of marriage. I intend to vote against this amendment, because, while I believe this is an unsatisfactory solution (to have the government interfere on either side), I feel the alternative is worse and I'm concerned that it will probably pass.


As long as a church is not receiving money from the government to do whatever it is that they are doing, they can discriminate against whoever they want. If a church out there declared that they only viewed white blonde people as being married, then they would only marry white blonde people. And if a white brunette man walked in and wanted to be married to a black woman, the church could tell them to leave. These two would have no legal recourse because the government does not regulate the church However, if that same couple walked into a justice of the peace and met all the requirements for marriage in that state (legal consenting age, not already married, blood tests, etc), they could not be turned away.

Again, my point is that for the government to continue to step into this situation in any capacity is a further erosion of separation of church and state, a line which, in the Bush administraiton, is becoming decidedly blurry.


Thus, legalizing gay marriage does not in any way force any church to recognize or perform such marriages.

But it does involve the government in the regulation of a religious institution, by their arbitrary rules which may or may not be accepted by a particular church or religious group. This is always a mistake, regardless of the situation, be it marriage, captial punishment, conscription or any other issue that has a clear governmental parallel that may be different from religious faith.

marriage isn't strictly a religious institution, it never was. it was a social one before then and will probably remain a social instiution long after. religion just took over the business of arranging the ceremony and policing it. and the only province or territory that objected to the proposed legislation is alberta, everyone else is in agreement.

But it is at least partly a religious institution that the government has adopted and based it's own programs and laws on. This is the mistake, in my opinion. Like I've said before, if the government wishes to reward or compensate domestic partnerships, that's fine and dandy, but it shouldn't do it under the guise of religion, which is exactly what's happening. On the other hand, though, it should not continue to muddle this already drastically thin separation of faith and societal law by ruling either way on the subject of "marriage". The point is that there are two institutions here that should have no bearing on one another because they have different connotations, one is in faith and one is in money. The two should not be considered to be the same thing and further legislation, either way, does indeed do this.

I have long loved the song from which this bit of petry comes...and I thought it was very topical to the subject at hand...

Baby, can you tell me
Just where we fit in?

I call it love
They call it "living in sin."

Is it you and me
Or just this world we live in?

We're living our love
They say we're "living in sin."

I don't know where to begin,
I don't know where we fit in
Are we living our love
Or are we "living in sin?"

Adapted from "Living In Sin" by the great Jon Bon Jovi (this song appears on the "New Jersey" album, by the way)

I haven't heard that song, but when I started reading it, the first thing that went through my mind was Bon Jovi

The topic of gay marriage isn't -- well, shouldn't be -- a political issue. The president shouldn't have any more say in the gay marriage issue than I do, because it has nothing to do with the presidency. Gay marriage, whether you think it is right or wrong, should still be legal. The case against gay marriage is a religious one, it is that gay marriage wrong because it goes against the bible, against God. While that may be, I don't think the White House needs to tell us what is right by the bible. That's the church's job, and the church should have a say in whether they marry gay couples, not the government. People say that it should be illegal because it is unchristian -- well, sorry to break it to you, but in case you hadn't heard, there are quite a few people out there who, amazingly, don't believe in the same things that you do. That means that a large part of the population is (gasp!) not christian. I don't know of too many atheists who worry about whether what they are doing is OK with God, and they shouldn't have to, because religion is a choice. You say gay marriage isn't Christian, well neither are a lot of people. Even if I thought gay marriage was wrong, unholy, (which I don't) I would still believe that it should be legal.

But it is at least partly a religious institution that the government has adopted and based it's own programs and laws on. This is the mistake, in my opinion. Like I've said before, if the government wishes to reward or compensate domestic partnerships, that's fine and dandy, but it shouldn't do it under the guise of religion, which is exactly what's happening. On the other hand, though, it should not continue to muddle this already drastically thin separation of faith and societal law by ruling either way on the subject of "marriage". The point is that there are two institutions here that should have no bearing on one another because they have different connotations, one is in faith and one is in money. The two should not be considered to be the same thing and further legislation, either way, does indeed do this.

So, what you're saying is that the law should not be changed to recognize domestic partnerships because this would further blur the separation of church and state line? I must respectfully disagree, as I believe it would unblur that line by demonstrating that the legal institution of marriage cannot be discriminatory.

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

Your quote has nothing to do with your following statements, since the quote states Jesus Christ, while the ten commandments predate him. Maybe you should try understanding the Bible before you try to throw it at people.

So, what you're saying is that the law should not be changed to recognize domestic partnerships because this would further blur the separation of church and state line? I must respectfully disagree, as I believe it would unblur that line by demonstrating that the legal institution of marriage cannot be discriminatory.

With all due respect (and I generally do respect your posts), this is not what I'm saying. Perhaps I'm not explaining it well. My contention is that the federal government has no business ruling either way on marriage because of the exact problem we are seeing now. The federal government should have never gotten involved in "marriage" in the first place. It was always a states rights issue and the federal government has never offered anything resembling a rational justification to take it out of that context.

However, it shouldn't even be a states rights issue, as the institution is religious in origin. Therefore, if the government wishes to grant special status to domestic partnership arrangements of any kind, be they man/woman, man/man or woman/woman, it should develop a clear and separate standard and nomenclature for that status, completely devoid of any religious connotation. Not only does this then allow churches to marry whomever they please under whatever criteria they choose, but it makes it a whole lot harder to provide any rational reason why a male/male domestic partnership is "less than" a male/female one.

For the government to simply legalize marriage ad hoc further blurs the lines between church and state and implies that the government not only has the scope to determine which marriages are sanctioned and which ones aren't, but further implies that it shall do so on religious terms.

With all due respect (and I generally do respect your posts), this is not what I'm saying. Perhaps I'm not explaining it well. My contention is that the federal government has no business ruling either way on marriage because of the exact problem we are seeing now. The federal government should have never gotten involved in "marriage" in the first place. It was always a states rights issue and the federal government has never offered anything resembling a rational justification to take it out of that context.

However, it shouldn't even be a states rights issue, as the institution is religious in origin. Therefore, if the government wishes to grant special status to domestic partnership arrangements of any kind, be they man/woman, man/man or woman/woman, it should develop a clear and separate standard and nomenclature for that status, completely devoid of any religious connotation. Not only does this then allow churches to marry whomever they please under whatever criteria they choose, but it makes it a whole lot harder to provide any rational reason why a male/male domestic partnership is "less than" a male/female one.

For the government to simply legalize marriage ad hoc further blurs the lines between church and state and implies that the government not only has the scope to determine which marriages are sanctioned and which ones aren't, but further implies that it shall do so on religious terms.

My apologies. I wasn't understanding what you were saying correctly and had the impression you thought that the government should not recognize *any* type of partnership. I actually agree with you on this issue, that the government should change their nomenclature in order to avoid confusion. This may end up being difficult to do, but it would certainly help end the whole "my church doesn't agree with x" part of the debate. I'm a big proponent of the "civil unions for everyone and let the government butt out of marriage" viewpoint. I do, however, find it sad that people can't move past nomenclature and just view the legal and religious viewpoints differently.

The topic of gay marriage isn't -- well, shouldn't be -- a political issue. The president shouldn't have any more say in the gay marriage issue than I do, because it has nothing to do with the presidency. Gay marriage, whether you think it is right or wrong, should still be legal. The case against gay marriage is a religious one, it is that gay marriage wrong because it goes against the bible, against God. While that may be, I don't think the White House needs to tell us what is right by the bible. That's the church's job, and the church should have a say in whether they marry gay couples, not the government. People say that it should be illegal because it is unchristian -- well, sorry to break it to you, but in case you hadn't heard, there are quite a few people out there who, amazingly, don't believe in the same things that you do. That means that a large part of the population is (gasp!) not christian. I don't know of too many atheists who worry about whether what they are doing is OK with God, and they shouldn't have to, because religion is a choice. You say gay marriage isn't Christian, well neither are a lot of people. Even if I thought gay marriage was wrong, unholy, (which I don't) I would still believe that it should be legal.

Here is a really easy way to establish yourself in politics:
1. Find out what people want you do do in office.
2. Tell the people that you will do these things. (this will make them elect you).
3. When you realize all of those things that you said actually take effort to accomplish, make up some huge thing that everyone should care about so they don't notice what you are doing. Broadcasting on the television helps.
4. Spend this time while they are distracted to cut all education and cultural activities budgets. Put this money into television advertisements for yourself.
5. Make fun of people who are educated enough be able to form their own opinions. Broadcast this as well.
6. By this point, you will have dumbed down your country enough so that they will listen to whatever you say. You can now use arguements that have nothing to do with your original set of laws that were agreed upon. You can win any election, just by saying bad things about your opponents, and don't have to make any promises.
7. Once reelected, sit back and relax, live off of tax money, and, since it didn't take you any promises to get elected, you have nothing to do and nothing to hide.
8. Make laws to increase your own paycheck.
9. Get fat.
10. Kill children for sport.

My apologies. I wasn't understanding what you were saying correctly and had the impression you thought that the government should not recognize *any* type of partnership. I actually agree with you on this issue, that the government should change their nomenclature in order to avoid confusion. This may end up being difficult to do, but it would certainly help end the whole "my church doesn't agree with x" part of the debate. I'm a big proponent of the "civil unions for everyone and let the government butt out of marriage" viewpoint. I do, however, find it sad that people can't move past nomenclature and just view the legal and religious viewpoints differently.

See, I thought we agreed more than we disagreed. I apologize for not being able to articulate my point more clearly. I also agree that what I advocate for is pretty much a policy pipe dream, that's why I fully intend to vote against my state's constitutional amendment that narrowly defines marriage. Even though I don't think it's the best solution, I'm not about to let them vote stupidity and bigotry into documents that are supposed to embody freedom and liberty without a fight.

As for the power of names, yes, it is sad that people get so hung up on them and begin to take them for the thing itself instead of the spirit that they represent. However, there is an undeniable power in the naming of things. No matter how advanced we become as a species, there will always be people who will refuse to accept a same-sex "marriage". To this day, there are still people who refuse to accept mixed-race marriages. By clearly defining the difference between the religious concept of marriage and the governmental concept of "domestic partnership", you would allow them their small-minded bigotry (which, unfortunately, is part and parcle with allowing liberty and freedom for all) while removing a dangerous connection between church and state which is currently allowing religious institutions to dictate governmental policy. Should a governmental "domestic partnership" institution be formed, then the government could say with a clear conscience, "Marry whoever you want, but we decide who gets the tax breaks, beneficiary designation rights and the whole host of other governmental benefits to a domestic partnership."

Ooookay. i'll be honest, i skipped most of the posts, (stopped reading at after page 2) but i'll put my 2 cents here.

ok, first off, i'll cast my vote for apathy on this "issue" followed by i think it should be allowed. Why should it be allowed? because I can't think, and haven't heard of any reason on why it shouldn't be allowed. here's some of the stuff i've heard against it:

"it will damage the institution of marrage" as opposed to the spectacularly high divorce rate, 55 hour quicky vegas marrages that there are now? as opposed to the marrages that include abusive spouses. If someone is a known abuser, they can still get married!! i don't know.. i'd want to ban spouse or children abusers from getting married before i'd ban gays. And as long as the abusers are marrying someone of the opposite gender, they can still marry.

"it's not natural" this is about the dumbest argument i've heard. Ok, if it's not natural, tell me, are people doing it, or is it just artificial life forms that are? hmmm.. what's that, actual people... then it's bloody natural now isn't it?!?

"The bible is against it" Let's review what some of the other stuff the bible is for and against.
Slavory: Bible supports it
poligamy: Bible supports it
genicide: God does this in several spots.
Captial Punishment: depending on the chapter, it's both for and against this
Sex based discrimination: Bible supports this
With this track record, do you really want to base your moral judments on this more then a millenia ago on this book writian by pedophiliac prists?
Final thought on the bible: do you ever hear about Jesus being with a chick? NO! he's a 30 something year old man who has 12 other men following him around doing whatever he wanted. Think about it.

"marrige is for a man and a woman to have kids" by this thinking we should ban anyone who's infertile, or anyone impotent.

That's all the reasons against. Which sums up to none! so, no reason it should be illegal, why not make it legal then?

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

I still love how you can say this without the slightest bit of irony considering your name.

I will admit that there is no definite basis for my reason for gay marriage. It is not a reality, so there could be no data/facts/research showing that allowing gay marriage would cause a decrease in promiscuity and disease.

However, when one has lived his or her life knowing they cannot be married, they are more likely to see their relationship as more unstable and vows as reversible. When you think you can take something back (reversible decision), you are less likely to be satisfied with your decision. (see Swarthmore College's Professor's book, "The Paradox of Choice" -- not a book on gay marriage). Even married couples who see their decision as reversible are more likely to cheat or divorce (id ) If gay marriage was allowed, I believe that eventually we would see more relationships in the gay and lesbian community. Marriage in many people's mind is and should be seen as a life-time commitment. Of course if we follow this line of thought, gay AND straight marriages would need to be seen as irreversible in order to strengthen marriage as a whole. In this day of no-fault divorce (something I have mixed feelings on), no reason for a divorce is needed and divorce is subjectively easily given out.

Doesn't matter if the bible condemns it on every damn page, our constitution doesn't need to be based upon the bible. There are plenty of non-christians in the U.S.A., why should they follow christian rules? Gay atheists are out there who can't get married because God says it's wrong.

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

The only thing I can really make out with your original post is that you're gay and want to get married. Your grammar is horrible, I haven't seen comma splices as bad as your use of parenthetical expressions, and you clearly haven't thought about the reasons for your position on the subject. If you had, your argument would be clear and intelligible.

That aside, perhaps you should focus on how marriage has been viewed and how it has been applied. It has been viewed as a religious institution. It has been applied primarily (in some cases, exclusively) to property and possesions. Start there and branch. But, please, think before you type or you will defeat your idea before it can be expressed.

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.

Very well said. Even though you may give no allegance to God Or Jesus, you seem to understand the what it means to be Christian more than anyone else i have encountered on this message board who wears their religion on their sleeve.

Ok look, I should probably let this thing die to the pit of wherever these things go when no one reads them anymore but I felt it my place to say something. And to start out I am gay so I'm sure you'll know where this is going.
Because of the legal benefits of heterosexual marriage (being allowed into an emergency room, adoption, taxes, etc) gays should be allowed to marry for the same reason. It really comes down to Civil Rights. When black people wanted the right to eat in white restaurants or sit at the front of the bus like normal human beings they were part of the minority and the majority was 'hurt' by it. There were plenty of white people who were just as outraged at the idea of African-Americans being treated just like their lily white selves, but today most people, (note I say most, not all) look back on that decision as ridiculous that it even had to take place. Today it goes without saying that people of all races and creeds deserve the same respect and rights as everyone else because we are all connected by the same moniker; we are people. Why should gay people be denied the rights heterosexuals have when they too love each other? There is no denying that America is a Christian nation built of Christian beliefs, however we are different from an extremist nation (and I would say blessed) in that our government is completely secular, which for the idiot among us means that government has no place in religion and religion no place in government, which is a very hard fact for Christian fundamentalists to accept. The government does not tax you or set up national parks or protect you out of Christian goodness but rather because of it's underlying mission, to serve and protect which you might say was formed out of Christian goodness. Government isn't there just to protect and serve the majority, but mainly it's there to protect the unpopular minority from a majority that would crush it. Lastly I would mention that people are free to practice whatever religion they believe in and our nation hasn't crumbled yet (God willing) so why if we allow loving couples to marry should it happen then either? There's really nothing to be afraid of Bible beaters (whom I totally respect fyi. Your own beliefs are yours and mine are mine. I respect you all the more for having them)
I realize that very few people will read this because it is long and drawn out and I'm pretty sure that they people on the first couple of pages proved the original poster a homophobe and a complete idiot (grammar not included) at the very first, but I do hope that it makes at least one person think about the issues a little bit more.

Susa your answer was the most simple one I have ever seen... Does your knowledge of algebra explain WHY you oppose gay mariage? I what way could it? You think your knowledge of algebra justifies your opinion about gay mariage, but I don't really think anyone would agree more with me that emotions are not defined by some simple formula...
Me, myself, I'm not gay, but why would one ever want to ignore, rather underestimate, another ones feelings?! Just because you were raised with the simple idea that people of the same sex shouldn't or can't, are prohibited, to express them in day to day life doesn't mean this is and forever will be the way our parents stated it... being, say, age nine years old... One can't and shouldn't ignore an emotion, not if it's there, ever so present... and even worse... people telling you your feeling is just something that's not done; ignoring you can lead to utmost depression of those that are told, that what they feel is not the person they SHOULD be... that ther's something wrong with them... How could that not screw YOU up SUSA? If someone told you, (in a world where there'd be just algebra) you were using some form of demonic algebra and everytime you would use it to express yourself, people would not even interpret your solutions, people ignoring you, even though you'd be "using" something so comon to you, so natural; would you understand...would you try to convince... I think you've never tried giving it a thought and that's what makes you weak...so unstable...

Wait, wait, wait Mutterkuchen... Are you calling gay people a race?!
That's what you're implying in your post...

And if so... please define why; why; and where is the analogie with segragation, I personally dont think it should even be anagolized.

I think, personally, the question is in the secular vs. religious definitions of marriage.

The United States, as a secular nation, must seperate its own definition of marriage from that of the conventional religious idea of marriage. Whether Christianity can accept gay marriage is not my business, as a deist, and it isn't the place of the federal or state governments to legislate on what is a 'Christian' marriage. But the government's secular definition of marriage cannot accept biblical sources as law and must follow its own set of 'sacred' documents, the constitution and the bill of rights, in which any time freedoms are in doubt, we must always err on the side of having more freedoms. Therefore, the United States must accept gay marriage regardless of whether it conforms to the Christian belief or not. However, it cannot tell Christians that they must accept those marriages as Christian.

no, i'm not calling gay people a race at all, but the fact remains that we are still a minority, just like every non-white person in this country is a minority to the majority known collectively as white people. now, we don't discriminate people based on their skin color, why should we discriminate based on their sexual orientation? race, sexual orientation, religion, they all have their different minorities and in my opinion it's the government's job to protect them from the majority's reckless use of majority vs. minority.
this also brings into play the idea of the courts vs. the legislature. for the longest time it's been the court's responsibility to defend the rights of the minority against the will of the majority, take Brown vs. Board of Education for instance. the courts defend the constitution which states that all men are created equal, which is more than i would say for our current executive branch.

And Brown vs. Board of Education is also a good precedent in the whole gay marriage arena because of the statement, "seperate but equal". Never in American history have people ever been considered "seperate but equal". A good way to examine this in the gay marriage debate is if gay people were given Civil Unions. What then is to stop a primarily heterosexual Legislature (as the majority is primarily heterosexual, even in places like San Francisco)from pushing legislation that strips Civil Unions of all the rights of Marriage, or from giving married people extra benefits that do not apply to Civil Unions? This could happen very easily as one of the arguments against gay marriage is that heterosexuals have children and married people need those tax benefits in order to raise their children. Then what happens to the homosexuals who've adopted, as many states (but not all) allow us to? Don't they deserve the tax help too? "Seperate but equal" in America always turns into seperate and unequal.

I want someone to make some sense out of this for me ... what is the definition of marriage?

I was raised to think it was a legal union between a loving couple - binding themselves in such a way that is recognised by the world. Apparently that is not true (at least that’s what I can draw as a conclusion based on the fact that 'religion' and governments say gay couples cant get married) ... so, what is the religious definition of marriage?

Is it the union between 2 bible following heterosexuals who wish to do nothing but make babies for the next n years of their life? If so, when are we going to start enforcing this definition properly by stopping all people who do not believe in God and that do not intend or can not have children?

We have a very screwy world here. Everyone saying "sex is for procreation only" and "marriage is strictly a religious institution" - don’t be selective, if this is your true belief of the definition of marriage and such, stop all people who don’t fit into the bracket - not just the ones that make you feel 'icky' or cause the most political/religious outcry/publicity.

Religion is an excuse for self-imposed ignorance.
(some) religious people need to learn the following word: ECUMENICISM.

I want someone to make some sense out of this for me ... what is the definition of marriage?

I was raised to think it was a legal union between a loving couple - binding themselves in such a way that is recognised by the world. Apparently that is not true (at least that’s what I can draw as a conclusion based on the fact that 'religion' and governments say gay couples cant get married) ... so, what is the religious definition of marriage?

Is it the union between 2 bible following heterosexuals who wish to do nothing but make babies for the next n years of their life? If so, when are we going to start enforcing this definition properly by stopping all people who do not believe in God and that do not intend or can not have children?

We have a very screwy world here. Everyone saying "sex is for procreation only" and "marriage is strictly a religious institution" - don’t be selective, if this is your true belief of the definition of marriage and such, stop all people who don’t fit into the bracket - not just the ones that make you feel 'icky' or cause the most political/religious outcry/publicity.

Exactly!!!!!

if people are going to be jackasses about marriage then they need to at least be consistent jackasses. i want them to look me in the eye and tell me that my heterosexual union isn't okay because my partner and i are agnostics who aren't going to have children. i want them to stand up for the claims they are making, and hold ALL PEOPLE to the same silly standards that they want to hold gay people to.

i want them to require babies be produced within the first year of a union, otherwise that union is desolved. after all, if the man and woman can't have kids without medical assistence or artificial means then they aren't ever going to be a family...they won't be a REAL married couple, so they don't get to stay married.

i want them to tell post-menopausal women that they have no purpose in life, since they can no longer produce babies, and that their marriages aren't legally binding any more because they don't have the potential to produce children.

when they do that i will grant them a small measure of respect, because at least they will be sticking by their warped principles. until then, they are just a bunch of scared little hypocrites.

i don't really see the problem

gay marriage has been legal for a while now in belgium
and their don't seem to be a problem

they marrie
they are happy
hetero's are happy

everyone is happy

Alas my friend, the United States has never been as progressive as other countries.

Massachusetts legalised gay marriage and no buildings fell down, God did not order the Archangel Gabriel to blow the trump, no fires, no plagues, no pesitilence was visited upon the State in sin...

This is all about a bunch of frightened people who are afraid to genuinely hold all of their fellows as equals. Someone always has to feel bloody superior in this country.

They want their churches supported by the state. Fine.

But, if they want to collect money to involve themselves in politics, then they should be properly taxed and lose their protected, tax-exempt status. That is part of the rules of how a church gets tax exempt status, non-involvement in the political process.

Oh, and a quick word to George W. Bush and the current person who is controlling the Roman Catholic Church from a Roman Catholic.

Asking the church to put pressure on Roman Catholic politicians is a gross violation of the seperation of Church and State. Allowing a Nation's leader to influence ecclesiatical policy is a violation of Holy Canon and violations of this nature are covered in part of the 12 special excommunications reserved for the Pope himself. What part of the word "collusion" do either of you NOT understand?

Poor Pope John Paul II, Parkinson's and gone round the bend. Propped up by the Church until he eventually dies. His life must be a living hell.

Bloody idiots.

Nothing is beyond the pale with them.

"The bible is against it" Let's review what some of the other stuff the bible is for and against.
Slavory: Bible supports it
poligamy: Bible supports it
genicide: God does this in several spots.
Captial Punishment: depending on the chapter, it's both for and against this
Sex based discrimination: Bible supports this
With this track record, do you really want to base your moral judments on this more then a millenia ago on this book writian by pedophiliac prists?
Final thought on the bible: do you ever hear about Jesus being with a chick? NO! he's a 30 something year old man who has 12 other men following him around doing whatever he wanted. Think about it.


I agree with all of your points Foxtopia except those refering to the bible. These can open a can of worms.
For all of them before the last, i will not dispute, because i don't feel like typing that much. All i can say is that times and language were different back then. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, but what he said is still cool. And, alot of these stories were written long after the y happened and had been passed down via oral tradition. Also, a lot of the stuff you refer to is all from the Old Testiment, which although it has some good stories, has a completely different tone than the New Testiment. Since it was based on the stories of many people, and none recorded directly, it makes me think that some things got missed or misinterpretted. Think about it -- if some amazing event happened today, do you think that the fundimentalists would record it fairly without adding in some bias?
Also, through translation, even the New Testiment has been edited. This gets me to discussing your last point, about Jesus never being with a girl. Supposedly, Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers. This was all edited out of the translation after a long debate in "the church" as to whether Jesus was God Himself, or if he was man, which (unfortunately in my opinion) went in favor of Jesus being God. There was even a Gospel of Mary, which was removed, believed mostly because of sexism. Many of Peters comments are also considered to be sexist. I suggest looking this up, as well as many other things that were edited out during translation or for political reasons. There are plenty of resourses about it on the internet. It is important stuff to consider for anyone interested in discussing the Bible.

Doesn't matter if the bible condemns it on every damn page, our constitution doesn't need to be based upon the bible. There are plenty of non-christians in the U.S.A., why should they follow christian rules? Gay atheists are out there who can't get married because God says it's wrong.

This is very true. Another reason why argueing against it based on religious opinion is unconstitutional. It denies the basic freedom of religion. I think it comes down to the fact that there are alot of ignorant people our there -- ignorant about the constitution they believe they are defending, ignorant as to what other people in this country think and believe, and from what i am reading, ignorant of the religion they are using as grounds for their argument. And the funny thing is, most of them wouldn't want an increase of taxes to spend more money on education.

i don't really see the problem

gay marriage has been legal for a while now in belgium
and their don't seem to be a problem

they marrie
they are happy
hetero's are happy

everyone is happy

The problem which you don't see is, Americans don't want to be happy, they want to be right. I don't even think most of us know what happiness is.

i don't really see the problem

gay marriage has been legal for a while now in belgium
and their don't seem to be a problem

they marrie
they are happy
hetero's are happy

everyone is happy

Yes! Something to be learned from Belgium! (Even if it's not grammar. lol) What's the big f-ing deal people? Gay people are people too and entitled to all the same rights and privelages that all people are entitled to. Non-homosexual people marry, let homosexual people marry too! The key word here is PEOPLE. Stop trying to force the world into conformity and grant everyone the same rights you reserve for yourselves. People are all unique anad different with different opinions and ideas, and that difference is our strength.

Let all marry or let none marry.

I believe that this thread has made every point possible to supoort gay marriage constitutionally, and not a single vaid point against it. Before saying anythign to try and refute this, go back and read the whole thing. There's some good stuff in there. Of course, i bet some of you are going to type "GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG" with no support or reasons anyway. All i can say is that for the sake of all of us, i hope that you can someday find yourself enlightened on the subject.
Really though, i don't understand why gay marriage is such a big issue. If a bunch of kids discussing online in their free time can come to a solid conclusion, why can't our highly paid representatives who are supposed to do this stuff for their jobs? Could it be that our entire political system has gone off it's tracks, so now we are stuck bickering about what we each want, instead of deciding what is best for the country as a whole? I think this is a topic worth discussing now that this whole gay marriage thing is pretty much wrapped up. I think i will start a thread about that tomorrow. For now though, i must go see my girlfriend who has been waiting for me while i have been posting here. Good night everyone.

When will Doctors and Lawyers learn that religion has no place in politics hence the separation of church and state. Religious blathering will not keep gay folk from trying to be happy. Ignorance however, will. Starbuck's is a prime example already flourishing in human rights. As an employee(I am not) a person can get health benefits under the "partner" clause. Ie meaning that if you are not married and yet wish to have medical benefits you CAN!!! whether your "partner" is of same or opposite sex matters not to that fortune 500 company. And look at how successful they are. In essance, ignorance doesn't pay.

Also, through translation, even the New Testiment has been edited. This gets me to discussing your last point, about Jesus never being with a girl. Supposedly, Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers. This was all edited out of the translation after a long debate in "the church" as to whether Jesus was God Himself, or if he was man, which (unfortunately in my opinion) went in favor of Jesus being God. There was even a Gospel of Mary, which was removed, believed mostly because of sexism. Many of Peters comments are also considered to be sexist. I suggest looking this up, as well as many other things that were edited out during translation or for political reasons. There are plenty of resourses about it on the internet. It is important stuff to consider for anyone interested in discussing the Bible.Which is why you can't take it for a word for word proscription of a way to live life. It's a tool for guidance, not for restriction.

And if it matters, it's also theorized that Jesus got pretty mad at some Jews and wrecked a synagogue as well, but that's not proven either.

:confused: Lets see: Legalize Gay marriage, then why not :rolleyes: legalize bestiality......Its unnatural also. Why not legalize :rolleyes: Adults marriage to a minor. Why not legalize :rolleyes: Being married to more than one woman. why not legalize :eek: Marriage between any and all blood related family......Doors become wide open.....No holds bars....... :headbang: If people want to do unnatural things, they have that right but don't ask for our acceptance by asking us to make it legal.....its wrong.......its unnatural......it harms the body......and even leads to a life threatening disease. Its just the thing for our children to grow up with at day cares and educational institutes. I guess we should drink and do all sorts of drugs and beat down our women so our future generations learn this is acceptable and ok. Then they might legalize more trash. After all they would have grown up with no morals. It would become a world of EXTREME LIBERALISM at its finest. :sniper: against it 100% :mad:

:confused: Lets see: Legalize Gay marriage, then why not :rolleyes: legalize bestiality......Its unnatural also. Why not legalize :rolleyes: Adults marriage to a minor. Why not legalize :rolleyes: Being married to more than one woman. why not legalize :eek: Marriage between any and all blood related family......Doors become wide open.....No holds bars....... :headbang: If people want to do unnatural things, they have that right but don't ask for our acceptance by asking us to make it legal.....its wrong.......its unnatural......it harms the body......and even leads to a life threatening disease. Its just the thing for our children to grow up with at day cares and educational institutes. I guess we should drink and do all sorts of drugs and beat down our women so our future generations learn this is acceptable and ok. Then they might legalize more trash. After all they would have grown up with no morals. It would become a world of EXTREME LIBERALISM at its finest. :sniper: against it 100% :mad:
I'm not....sure...with all the emoticons if you're actually for or against giving all people equal rights...
How does homosexuality harm the body or lead to a life threatening disease?
You may have been misinformed...Two STD-free men having anal sex will not suddenly produce AIDS...ever.
Meanwhile, a heterosexual partner with AIDS can spread it to you just as easily as a homosexual partner
Lastly, a subset of homosexuals- many of whom want the right to marry their love- actually has the smallest likelihood of contracting AIDS. (or at least they did last I heard, stats sometimes change)

This is NOT a democracy, nor was it EVER intended to be. This is a Representative Republic, governed by THE RULE OF LAW. This was done to ensure that the majority did not run roughshod over the rights of minorities. Exactly what the Founding Fathers feared most about democracy.

THANK YOU! Finally someone who actually knows History!

I will still have to weed my way through the rest of this post and the thread before I make my reply (after all if every tihng I have to point out is already said then why say it again), but I had to congradulate you on this. (Get off the spelling, it's too damn late at night to bother with the spell checker!)

I'm not....sure...with all the emoticons if you're actually for or against giving all people equal rights...
How does homosexuality harm the body or lead to a life threatening disease?
You may have been misinformed...Two STD-free men having anal sex will not suddenly produce AIDS...ever.
Meanwhile, a heterosexual partner with AIDS can spread it to you just as easily as a homosexual partner
Lastly, a subset of homosexuals- many of whom want the right to marry their love- actually has the smallest likelihood of contracting AIDS. (or at least they did last I heard, stats sometimes change)


Um, slippery slope argument doesn't work.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=consent

What the hell are you Goed an English teacher?

No he is simply showing that adult humans are the ONLY people who can consent. Therefore toasters, pigs and children will never be granted marriage.

How about apes that have been taught sign language?

No he is simply showing that adult humans are the ONLY people who can consent. Therefore toasters, pigs and children will never be granted marriage.

Thank you :D

Bah, nobody gets my jokes...

Thank you :D

Bah, nobody gets my jokes...

No problem. I kinda found it funny...

alright... let me get this strait... you are gay (against God's wishes) and you wish to get married, which is a system God himself made. Isnt that bit of a slap in the face?

alright... let me get this strait... you are gay (against God's wishes) and you wish to get married, which is a system God himself made. Isnt that bit of a slap in the face?

*Buzz* WRONG! Marriage was a system invented by mankind. Also what your religious beliefs are are irrelivent to whether LEGALY homosexual marriages should be allowed.

*Buzz* WRONG! Marriage was a system invented by mankind. Also what your religious beliefs are are irrelivent to whether LEGALY homosexual marriages should be allowed.Hurrah! People are using my *Buzz* Wrong! thing. :)

Even if you didnt get it from me, I'm still happy. *Dances*

Hurrah! People are using my *Buzz* Wrong! thing. :)

Even if you didnt get it from me, I'm still happy. *Dances*

Heehee, sorry got it from those crappy game shows...Glad to hear I am not the only one using it, I do not like being a freak.

gay peopel are gay


hey, that's name calling ;)

I still don't get what Mankind has to do with all of this...

http://www.tuttowrestling.com/mankind.jpg

HAVE A NICE DAY :)

Wait, wait, wait Mutterkuchen... Are you calling gay people a race?!
That's what you're implying in your post...

And if so... please define why; why; and where is the analogie with segragation, I personally dont think it should even be anagolized.

No, I think Mutterkuchen is calling gay people HUMAN...and thus worthy of the same rights and dignities as other humans. I think the comparison is being made to a time when OTHER humans (African-Americans) were treated as less than human, and denied basic rights and dignities by a narrow-minded, bigoted, oppressive white majority.
and I think the comparison id valid. It was not right to deny African-Americans THEIR basic rights and dignities forty years ago...and it is NOT right today, to be denying gays lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people THEIR rights and dignities TODAY.

So, Phoog...how about you stop muddying up the waters, and dragging red herrings across the issue, and answer this simple question: why should any one group of HUMANS be denied the same basic rights and dignities that all other groups of humans take for granted?

I want someone to make some sense out of this for me ... what is the definition of marriage?

I was raised to think it was a legal union between a loving couple - binding themselves in such a way that is recognised by the world. Apparently that is not true (at least that’s what I can draw as a conclusion based on the fact that 'religion' and governments say gay couples cant get married) ... so, what is the religious definition of marriage?

Is it the union between 2 bible following heterosexuals who wish to do nothing but make babies for the next n years of their life? If so, when are we going to start enforcing this definition properly by stopping all people who do not believe in God and that do not intend or can not have children?

We have a very screwy world here. Everyone saying "sex is for procreation only" and "marriage is strictly a religious institution" - don’t be selective, if this is your true belief of the definition of marriage and such, stop all people who don’t fit into the bracket - not just the ones that make you feel 'icky' or cause the most political/religious outcry/publicity.

BRAVO!! Exactly what us GLBT people have been arguing all along, but they don't want to acknowledge the validity of our arguments...and how their own argument falls down like a house of cards, and fails to hold water, when they selectively target only those that "make them feel icky" rather than applying the concepts they use to bolster their argument ACROSS THE BOARD.

Exactly!!!!!

if people are going to be jackasses about marriage then they need to at least be consistent jackasses. i want them to look me in the eye and tell me that my heterosexual union isn't okay because my partner and i are agnostics who aren't going to have children. i want them to stand up for the claims they are making, and hold ALL PEOPLE to the same silly standards that they want to hold gay people to.

i want them to require babies be produced within the first year of a union, otherwise that union is desolved. after all, if the man and woman can't have kids without medical assistence or artificial means then they aren't ever going to be a family...they won't be a REAL married couple, so they don't get to stay married.

i want them to tell post-menopausal women that they have no purpose in life, since they can no longer produce babies, and that their marriages aren't legally binding any more because they don't have the potential to produce children.

when they do that i will grant them a small measure of respect, because at least they will be sticking by their warped principles. until then, they are just a bunch of scared little hypocrites.

Hey, let's take that a step further...since post-menopausal women can no longer produce babies, and thus, have no purpose in life...why not round them up and execute them??
WTF??

I agree with all of your points Foxtopia except those refering to the bible. These can open a can of worms.
For all of them before the last, i will not dispute, because i don't feel like typing that much. All i can say is that times and language were different back then. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, but what he said is still cool. And, alot of these stories were written long after the y happened and had been passed down via oral tradition. Also, a lot of the stuff you refer to is all from the Old Testiment, which although it has some good stories, has a completely different tone than the New Testiment. Since it was based on the stories of many people, and none recorded directly, it makes me think that some things got missed or misinterpretted. Think about it -- if some amazing event happened today, do you think that the fundimentalists would record it fairly without adding in some bias?
Also, through translation, even the New Testiment has been edited. This gets me to discussing your last point, about Jesus never being with a girl. Supposedly, Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers. This was all edited out of the translation after a long debate in "the church" as to whether Jesus was God Himself, or if he was man, which (unfortunately in my opinion) went in favor of Jesus being God. There was even a Gospel of Mary, which was removed, believed mostly because of sexism. Many of Peters comments are also considered to be sexist. I suggest looking this up, as well as many other things that were edited out during translation or for political reasons. There are plenty of resourses about it on the internet. It is important stuff to consider for anyone interested in discussing the Bible.

The Gospel of Thomas was also removed...and is said to have been quite mysogynistic (anti-woman.)

alright... let me get this strait... you are gay (against God's wishes) and you wish to get married, which is a system God himself made. Isnt that bit of a slap in the face?
Nope.

"God" didn't make the system, contrary to what Mommy and Daddy were always telling you. In fact, "God" didn't make marriage either. And the most shocking of all, "God" is a concept invented by humans, in order to have a simple answer when life was most difficult; when they needed something to believe in.

Hey, let's take that a step further...since post-menopausal women can no longer produce babies, and thus, have no purpose in life...why not round them up and execute them??
WTF??
You have to read between the lines.

Bottle is just foaming at the mouth.

Oh mercy...over 7000 posts...are you people still arguing this issue?..Listen..the two sides are so polarized no compromise is possible..

Heterosexuals - deal with the fact that gays want some sort of legal recognition of their choice in mates. If you truly wish the issue to go away, then endorse the concept of "civil unions".

Homosexuals - don't be so selfish in trying to prove a point in an institution which for millenia has been recognized by both civil and religous entities as being between man and a woman....if you are truly wanting the legal rights and benefits that "married" heterosexuals have...then you'll endorse and accept a "civil union" concept..only the activists trying to prove a point (and this is a very small minority in the gay community I'm told) are holding you back from gaining the rights you so rightly deserve to have.

:confused: Lets see: Legalize Gay marriage, then why not :rolleyes: legalize bestiality......Its unnatural also. Why not legalize :rolleyes: Adults marriage to a minor. Why not legalize :rolleyes: Being married to more than one woman. why not legalize :eek: Marriage between any and all blood related family......Doors become wide open.....No holds bars....... :headbang: If people want to do unnatural things, they have that right but don't ask for our acceptance by asking us to make it legal.....its wrong.......its unnatural......it harms the body......and even leads to a life threatening disease. Its just the thing for our children to grow up with at day cares and educational institutes. I guess we should drink and do all sorts of drugs and beat down our women so our future generations learn this is acceptable and ok. Then they might legalize more trash. After all they would have grown up with no morals. It would become a world of EXTREME LIBERALISM at its finest. :sniper: against it 100% :mad:

Can you smell a bunch of Red Herrings here?
Well,not that this is DESERVING of an answer, but I'll go point by point all the same...
Bestiality - No comparison. An animal does NOT have the mental capacity to consent. As to bestiality being unnatural, I'd concur. However, I do NOT concur with the idea that homosexuality is unnatural. It may be "unnatural" FOR SOME PEOPLE...while being perfectly natural for others. If homosexuality isn't natural for you, my advice then, is to not engage in a homosexual lifestyle. Hey, if it ain't your cup of tea...fine, then have some coffee. We won't try to make you drink the tea. So why not let US enjoy our tea...and YOU quit trying to force your coffee on us?

Adults marriage to minor - see bestiality above. A minor does not have the mental capacity to give legally recognized consent.

Being married to more than one woman (polygamy) - Why not? As long as all parties in such an arragement are legally and metally able to give consent to the arrangement...and do so...why should they not be allowed to? Assuming of course, that a woman, who so desired it...could also have several husbands...so long as, once again, all parties to the arrangement were of legal and metal ability to consent, and did, in fact, consent to the arrangement.

Marriage between any and all blood family - It has been proven that children produced from inbreeding have a much higher risk of many preventable birth defects. thus, by outlawing such unions, the government is fulfilling it's role in protecting someone from harm through the actions of others. In this case, a yet-unborn baby is being protected from a possible life of hell with preventable birth defects. However, if children being produced by such a union is an impossibility (one or both members of said union being infertile) then there is no need for protection, and the government ought to butt out.

Again, you are using a spurious definition of "unnatural," assuming that, jst because such things are unnatural TO YOU...that they are "unnatural" for everyone. In cases where no actual harm comes to any party, the government just needs to butt out. And, no, having your sensibilities offended does NOT qualify as actual harm. Sorry, there's no Constitutional guarantee against having your sensibilities offended.

I think that covers it.

Boy, oh boy...the extent some people will go to justify bigotry, hatred, prejudice, and noarrow mindedness is flabbergating!! At the very least, if you're going to oppose gay marriage, give a VALID reason for your opposition, and quit dragging red herrings across the issue, okay?

Your arguments have already been shot down in over ten places on this thread...but I posted this so that they could ALL be shot down in the same place...one-stop shopping for the lazy, as it were.

Oh, yeah...almost forgot...deadly disease? By this I assume you are referring to AIDS?
Well, then, explain to me why more heteros than homosexuals are contracting AIDS? AIDS is not a gay disease...get you head outta your sandbox, and join the 21st Century, okay?
Let me state this one in all caps, just so there can be no doubt you see it...
AIDS IS CAUSED BY A VIRUS NOT BY HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY.
TWO HIV-NEGATIVE GAY MEN WHO REMAIN MONOGAMOUS TO EACH OTHER WILL NEVER CONTRACT AIDS, OR HIV, NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO WITH EACH OTHER!!

THANK YOU! Finally someone who actually knows History!

I will still have to weed my way through the rest of this post and the thread before I make my reply (after all if every tihng I have to point out is already said then why say it again), but I had to congradulate you on this. (Get off the spelling, it's too damn late at night to bother with the spell checker!)

This quote was in reply to this:
Originally Posted by Labrador
This is NOT a democracy, nor was it EVER intended to be. This is a Representative Republic, governed by THE RULE OF LAW. This was done to ensure that the majority did not run roughshod over the rights of minorities. Exactly what the Founding Fathers feared most about democracy. (end of original quote)

You're quite welcome, by the way. I am forever a student of history. I have carried a 4.0 GPA in junior college, double-majoring in Paralegal Studies and Political Science, and took a course specifically dealing with Constitutional Law...as well as a class on American History. And, hate to bust the bubble of so many so-called Christians, but the Founding Fathers were NOT Christians. Washington and Jefferson were Diests. John Adams was as close to Atheist as one could get, safely, in those times...and he mostly attended Unitarian services. Ben Franklin was a Quaker.

Can you smell a bunch of Red Herrings here?
Well,not that this is DESERVING of an answer, but I'll go point by point all the same...
Bestiality - No comparison. An animal does NOT have the mental capacity to consent. As to bestiality being unnatural, I'd concur. However, I do NOT concur with the idea that homosexuality is unnatural. It may be "unnatural" FOR SOME PEOPLE...while being perfectly natural for others. If homosexuality isn't natural for you, my advice then, is to not engage in a homosexual lifestyle. Hey, if it ain't your cup of tea...fine, then have some coffee. We won't try to make you drink the tea. So why not let US enjoy our tea...and YOU quit trying to force your coffee on us?

Adults marriage to minor - see bestiality above. A minor does not have the mental capacity to give legally recognized consent.

Being married to more than one woman (polygamy) - Why not? As long as all parties in such an arragement are legally and metally able to give consent to the arrangement...and do so...why should they not be allowed to? Assuming of course, that a woman, who so desired it...could also have several husbands...so long as, once again, all parties to the arrangement were of legal and metal ability to consent, and did, in fact, consent to the arrangement.

Marriage between any and all blood family - It has been proven that children produced from inbreeding have a much higher risk of many preventable birth defects. thus, by outlawing such unions, the government is fulfilling it's role in protecting someone from harm through the actions of others. In this case, a yet-unborn baby is being protected from a possible life of hell with preventable birth defects. However, if children being produced by such a union is an impossibility (one or both members of said union being infertile) then there is no need for protection, and the government ought to butt out.

Again, you are using a spurious definition of "unnatural," assuming that, jst because such things are unnatural TO YOU...that they are "unnatural" for everyone. In cases where no actual harm comes to any party, the government just needs to butt out. And, no, having your sensibilities offended does NOT qualify as actual harm. Sorry, there's no Constitutional guarantee against having your sensibilities offended.

I think that covers it.

Boy, oh boy...the extent some people will go to justify bigotry, hatred, prejudice, and noarrow mindedness is flabbergating!! At the very least, if you're going to oppose gay marriage, give a VALID reason for your opposition, and quit dragging red herrings across the issue, okay?

Your arguments have already been shot down in over ten places on this thread...but I posted this so that they could ALL be shot down in the same place...one-stop shopping for the lazy, as it were.

Oh, yeah...almost forgot...deadly disease? By this I assume you are referring to AIDS?
Well, then, explain to me why more heteros than homosexuals are contracting AIDS? AIDS is not a gay disease...get you head outta your sandbox, and join the 21st Century, okay?
Let me state this one in all caps, just so there can be no doubt you see it...
AIDS IS CAUSED BY A VIRUS NOT BY HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY.
TWO HIV-NEGATIVE GAY MEN WHO REMAIN MONOGAMOUS TO EACH OTHER WILL NEVER CONTRACT AIDS, OR HIV, NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO WITH EACH OTHER!!

Ahmm...here is where I have to disagree...yes..AIDS has made rapid gains in the heterosexual community...but the deal is...the disease did originate within the gay community..the problem began with the heterosexual community when you had bisexual men and women who had committed homosexual actions and then slept with members of the opposite gender, thus transferring the disease to heterosexuals who would then sleep with other heterosexuals..in fact..tracing the lineage of the AIDS in the States it was confirmed brought here years ago by a Bisexual male Canadian airline steward. This was confirmed by the Center for Disease Control.

alright... let me get this strait... you are gay (against God's wishes) and you wish to get married, which is a system God himself made. Isnt that bit of a slap in the face?

Again, you are juxtaposing the concepts of SECULAR, GOVERNMENT-RECOGNIZED "marriage" with the religious institution of marriage.

No gay person is recommending, or even suggesting, that any church be forced, against it's will, to recognize or perform any union it finds objectionable. What we ARE advocating for is EQUAL STANDING IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. Who gives a FUCK what your church, or any church thinks? It has no place in the civil law of this country.

You have to read between the lines.

Bottle is just foaming at the mouth.

no...YOU are foaming at the mouth. Bottle's comments are perfectly valid.

I took YOUR suggestion that "post-menopausal women are no longer capable of producing babies and thus have no usefulness in life" and advanced it to the next level, to demonstrate what an assinine statement it was.

Don't you DARE take my words out of context, when you know DAMN WELL what my intent was.
Since you are pretending to be stupid, so that you don't have to acknowledge the truth of my words...I spelled them out for you in this post...in a way you cannot fail to understand, and leave you no room to squirm out from under the weight of your most assinine statement!

Oh mercy...over 7000 posts...are you people still arguing this issue?..Listen..the two sides are so polarized no compromise is possible..

Heterosexuals - deal with the fact that gays want some sort of legal recognition of their choice in mates. If you truly wish the issue to go away, then endorse the concept of "civil unions".

Homosexuals - don't be so selfish in trying to prove a point in an institution which for millenia has been recognized by both civil and religous entities as being between man and a woman....if you are truly wanting the legal rights and benefits that "married" heterosexuals have...then you'll endorse and accept a "civil union" concept..only the activists trying to prove a point (and this is a very small minority in the gay community I'm told) are holding you back from gaining the rights you so rightly deserve to have.

I give a FUCK what they call it. that's just semantics. so long as there is an iron-clad GUARANTEE that all rights accorded currently to hetero marraiges are ALSO applied to gay "civil unions" and are irrevocale and incontrovertible...then let 'em call it civil union. I give a shit less...so long as we are granted the SAME LEGAL RIGHTS...now and forever...with no possibility that rights could later be taken away from "civil unions" and left in place in "marriages."
Separate but equal does not work. It always becomes separate and unenqual. If they really want to establish a SEPARATE thing...then I would accept it, as long as it came with an IRON-CLAD guarantee that it would be equal...and that it would FOREVER REMAIN equal!

the disease did originate within the gay community

it was confirmed brought here years ago by a Bisexual male Canadian airline steward

See, those things don't make sense together. If it was brought in by a bi-sexual, then presumably it had equal chance of being spread to *both* sexes.

The reason it was so prevelent amongst gays was because gays tend to be more promiscuous (as a group, not individuals); mainly due to SOCIETIES unwillingness to accept their long-term relationships as valid.

Nowadays there are just as many uninformed, promiscuous heterosexuals (proportionally) as there are homosexuals - so we see AIDs cases rising in heterosexuals.


Oh, and don't forget that the view that 'AIDs = gay disease' was *very* widespread not 20 years ago (and hell, there are still people that have no knowledge about it now). Hence, what respecting heterosexual would ever admit to having it? I bet there were hundreds who remained undiagnosed until they died. (A similar pattern can be seen with most STDs - the numbers of reported cases have been rising annually for most, but this can partially be attributed to societies slow acceptance of them - no longer does it bring shame upon your entire family if you end up getting genital herpes).

Ahmm...here is where I have to disagree...yes..AIDS has made rapid gains in the heterosexual community...but the deal is...the disease did originate within the gay community..the problem began with the heterosexual community when you had bisexual men and women who had committed homosexual actions and then slept with members of the opposite gender, thus transferring the disease to heterosexuals who would then sleep with other heterosexuals..in fact..tracing the lineage of the AIDS in the States it was confirmed brought here years ago by a Bisexual male Canadian airline steward. This was confirmed by the Center for Disease Control.

Ahem...I must disagree with you. The AIDS epidemic IN THE UNITED STATES...was first noted in the homosexual community. however, it was brought here from AFRICA...where it was already rampant in the HETERO Community in Sub-Saharan Africa...and it's roots have been traced back to acts of bestility with green monkeys. (no, the monkeys aren't REALLY green...that is just what they call the specific species of monkey that the AIDS virus made the jump from, to manifest itself in humans.)

I give a FUCK what they call it. that's just semantics. so long as there is an iron-clad GUARANTEE that all rights accorded currently to hetero marraiges are ALSO applied to gay "civil unions" and are irrevocale and incontrovertible...then let 'em call it civil union. I give a shit less...so long as we are granted the SAME LEGAL RIGHTS...now and forever...with no possibility that rights could later be taken away from "civil unions" and left in place in "marriages."
Separate but equal does not work. It always becomes separate and unenqual. If they really want to establish a SEPARATE thing...then I would accept it, as long as it came with an IRON-CLAD guarantee that it would be equal...and that it would FOREVER REMAIN equal!

Well, I'd agree, but the term 'civil unions' for gay marriage is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Now, before you hit me, I'm PRO gay marriages - but they cannot be called civil unions if you want true equality. It's been ruled in the past that 'Seperate is inherently unequal'. It doesn't matter if it's exactly the same rights - the fact that there is the 'need' for it to have a different name makes it discrimination.

Now - All you Anti's - I want replies to this:
The term 'marriage' should apply to the religious ceremony ONLY. Civil unions (that is the part supported by the government) should be applied to BOTH types of union (gay *and* straight).
Thus, after you heterosexuals fill out the forms at the registry office for your non-discriminatory civil union, you can trot off to the church of your choosing and get 'married', officially in the eyes of your god. Gays can do the same thing; *provided* they can find a church willing to marry them. NO CHURCH SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO RECOGNISE A UNION OR A MARRIAGE PERFORMED BY ANOTHER CHURCH, but the government must recognise ALL the civil unions.

Fair compromise? Any intelligent comments from the anti's are welcome and awaited with eagerness.

See, those things don't make sense together. If it was brought in by a bi-sexual, then presumably it had equal chance of being spread to *both* sexes.

The reason it was so prevelent amongst gays was because gays tend to be more promiscuous (as a group, not individuals); mainly due to SOCIETIES unwillingness to accept their long-term relationships as valid.

Nowadays there are just as many uninformed, promiscuous heterosexuals (proportionally) as there are homosexuals - so we see AIDs cases rising in heterosexuals.


Oh, and don't forget that the view that 'AIDs = gay disease' was *very* widespread not 20 years ago (and hell, there are still people that have no knowledge about it now). Hence, what respecting heterosexual would ever admit to having it? I bet there were hundreds who remained undiagnosed until they died. (A similar pattern can be seen with most STDs - the numbers of reported cases have been rising annually for most, but this can partially be attributed to societies slow acceptance of them - no longer does it bring shame upon your entire family if you end up getting genital herpes).

You missed my point..I acknowledged that AIDS has been rising in the heterosexual community...but I reiterate..it did not begin in the heterosexual community...one the genie was out of the bottle then it spread to the heterosexual community thru primarily blood sources (a small source), and thru bisexuals who would sleep with both genders, thus transferring the virus to the heterosexual who previously had not been in danger of contacting the virus.

Labrador..I acknowledge the disease may have been in the hetero community in Africa..I have no prior information with which to base a reply on...but it's entry into the United States was confirmed by the CDC years ago by a bisexual Canadian male.

Ahem...I must disagree with you. The AIDS epidemic IN THE UNITED STATES...was first noted in the homosexual community. however, it was brought here from AFRICA...where it was already rampant in the HETERO Community in Sub-Saharan Africa...and it's roots have been traced back to acts of bestility with green monkeys. (no, the monkeys aren't REALLY green...that is just what they call the specific species of monkey that the AIDS virus made the jump from, to manifest itself in humans.)

Oooh, I'm glad someone knew the details of that. I was *going* to say something along those lines, but I knew I'd make some sort of mistake. Glad *someone* hear knows what they're talking about (I sure wouldn't have :p)

...then it spread to the heterosexual community thru primarily blood sources (a small source), and thru bisexuals who would sleep with both genders, thus transferring the virus to the heterosexual who previously had not been in danger of contacting the virus....


And you missed my point.

The original entry into the US was, from your own quote, via a BISEXUAL.

So right from the start, both homosexuals and heterosexuals were at equal risk.

alright... let me get this strait... you are gay (against God's wishes) and you wish to get married, which is a system God himself made. Isnt that bit of a slap in the face?

....

:headbang:

....

Um... "marriage" as you put it is not an system that god himself made, it was an institution that man himself made, and if you want to get technical about it, god is also an institution that man himself made :D . And besides um here in this little country I like to call home, the USA, we have this lovely precedent that there is a SEPARATION between church and state. Thatway the dumbass ideas of the Church can't be force on the state, and the rational ideas of the state can't be forced on the church. People really need to start forgetting about the institution of marriage in churches, cause that has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the issue. The issue is that gay people are being denied the right to enter into a legal contract of marriage so that they can have full rights and benefits under the law, the whole church marriage thing is completely arbitrary.

And you missed my point.

The original entry into the US was, from your own quote, via a BISEXUAL.

So right from the start, both homosexuals and heterosexuals were at equal risk.

No..I didn't miss your point...but as far as the entry into the US, he contacted his AIDS not thru sex with a woman, but thru a homosexual male. The disease did not originate between heterosexual sex, otherwise this virus would have been around for millenia..

:confused: Lets see: Legalize Gay marriage, then why not :rolleyes: legalize bestiality......Its unnatural also. Why not legalize :rolleyes: Adults marriage to a minor. Why not legalize :rolleyes: Being married to more than one woman. why not legalize :eek: Marriage between any and all blood related family......Doors become wide open.....No holds bars....... :headbang: If people want to do unnatural things, they have that right but don't ask for our acceptance by asking us to make it legal.....its wrong.......its unnatural......it harms the body......and even leads to a life threatening disease. Its just the thing for our children to grow up with at day cares and educational institutes. I guess we should drink and do all sorts of drugs and beat down our women so our future generations learn this is acceptable and ok. Then they might legalize more trash. After all they would have grown up with no morals. It would become a world of EXTREME LIBERALISM at its finest. :sniper: against it 100% :mad:

I quoted your entire post just so I could enshrine it in the "Idiot's Hall of Fame."

1. Legalize gay marriage- two consenting adults.

2. Legalize bestiality- an animal, which cannot consent and a stupid human who gets his/her jollies abusing an animal.

Hmmm, I might be stretching thsi just a tad, but two adults may consent. Yep, I think that's the point.

Marriage to minors....hmmm...each state has a law defining the AGE OF CONSENT. Wow, what a wonderful, elementary concept which escapes your mind. There are also laws that cover emancipated minors. Neither bestiality nor statutory rape are relevant to the discussion of gay unions. In case you haven't checked, I will give you a hint. The VAST MAJORITY of pedophiles are....(wait for it)...THAT'S RIGHT, HETEROSEXUALS!

Marriage inside the first cousin zone is banned for MEDICAL REASONS, Einstein. But, I gather since you live in a dream world of your own concoction, I will have to wake you up with some of those lovely side effects of not spreading the genetic material out. Hemophilia (free bleeding, no clotting of the blood) and mental retardation (yup, yup, yup).

I particularly love how you try to tie all of these things into a cogent argument against gays getting unions. I will address your laundry list of "concerns."

a. "It's wrong"- Non sequitur, you present an irrational, non-logical argument.

b. "It's unnatural"- Do you have a post bacculareate degree in any of the following fields? Biology (includes all relevant subcategories), Zoology (includes all relevant subcategories), Psychiatry, Ecology, etc? No? You have zero clue as to what is natural and what is not.

c. "It harms the body"- Look out, here comes the veiled AIDS reference. AIDS does not care if you are gay or straight. Or are you perhaps referring to anal sex? If you are, then I gather you are a medical expert on what harms and what does not harm the body. So let me get this straight, you can shtup your wife in the old browneye, and that's all fine and dandy, but a gay man can't do the same to his lover? There is no medical evidence that proves that oral or anal sex causes harm to anyone, unless it is FORCED or done in an UNSAFE manner (no condom or proper precautions being taken). Certain types of forcible sex are also known as RAPE, jagoff. Consensual anal sex is just as safe as vaginal intercourse (which means, as long as proper precautions are taken, the risk of disease is minimal). Straight sex and gay sex hold many of the same risks. That is why medical experts always advocate the use of condoms. Oh, and one last note. The AIDS virus is passed in blood, semen, and vaginal secretions....genius.

d. You go into some incoherent diatribe about spousal or partner abuse. How this is connected in any meaningful way into gay unions is beyond me. We all can safely agree that beating the crap out of your girlfriend and/or boyfriend is a pretty bad thing. But allowing gay folks to have unions won't change this statistic in any way.

e. Point the final. Extreme liberalism is no worse than extreme reactionism. It is fairly obvious that you claim to be a conservative. Congratulations, liberals and conservatives have both brought some pretty good ideas to the table in this Democratic Republic. I will never shy away from the term "liberal" in any way. I think you need to understand that liberals and conservatives are much closer to the center than REACTIONISTS (Extreme archconservatives, examples: Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, or Adolf Hitler) or RADICALS (Extreme archliberals, example: Dr. Timothy Leary, Hunter S. Thompson, or Neville Chamberlain)

Extremes of either political stripe can cause immoral and evil things. Hitler and his cronies wanted to "purify" the world for the Aryan Master Race and the Thousand Year Reich.

Your argument is thoroughly unpersuasive, short-sighted, and frankly...ignorant. Come to the table when you have some life experience and you are free from the control of your prejudices.

Until then, return from whence ye came.

NO TO GAY MARRIAGE.

Marriage is to be between one man and one woman. That´s common law and aside of that that is also Roman law.

There is no difference between the US and Europe in that respect.

Gay marriage is wrong.
Marriage and family are linked close together. Therefore it must be possible for the partners to form a family with children and give them a father and a mother.

Family is the score scell of society and needed for its future.

Homosexuals can´t form such thing. That´s against nature. Equality doesn´t mean to threat everything the same way: It means to treat simular things the same way and different things HAVE TO be treated differently.
Therefore it would be unjustified and even illegal and illegitimate to establish gay marriage since it is a different and not important for society. It doesn´t deserve the same protection.


By the way: Nobody is banned from marriage. But it has to be between one man and one woman and not between two women or men or three, four, five, with children, dogs, animals or whatsoever. Thats the law and that is entirely justified and just.

NO TO GAY MARRIAGE.

Marriage is to be between one man and one woman. That´s common law and aside of that that is also Roman law.

Marriage and family are linked close together. Therefore it must be possible for the partners to form a family with children and give them a father and a mother.

Homosexuals can´t form such thing. That´s against nature. Equality doesn´t mean to threat everything the same way: It means to treat simular things the same way and different things HAVE TO be treated differently.
Therefore it would be unjustified and even illegal and illegitimate to establish gay marriage since it is a different and not important for society. It doesn´t deserve the same protection.

:o another child of the christian propaghanda machine. Um, who gives a shit if it's roman law? This is the US, not Italy. They can form a family, through either adoption or a surrogate (if both parties are male), or even through artificial insemination if bot parties are female. Now as for the mother and father thing, that is completely arbitrary, who the hell can say that two men or two women couldn't raise a child as good or better than a man and a woman, especially since statistically gay couples are less violent, less likely to split up and more stable than straight couples are, have a shot your argument full of enough holes yet? And your defining gay couples as something completely different than heterosexual couples, come on now, that's just ignorance talking. And to suggest that it is illigitimate and not important for society is the most hate filled statement I have seen in quite a while, I dunno what faith you were raised in but it must not have been a christian one cause I was raised a christian and we were taught not to be biggoted and taught that hate against others was sinful. It's this kind of hypocracy that made me into the agnostic that I have become.

No..I didn't miss your point...but as far as the entry into the US, he contacted his AIDS not thru sex with a woman, but thru a homosexual male. The disease did not originate between heterosexual sex, otherwise this virus would have been around for millenia..

You're right it didn't originate between heterosexual sex it originated with screwing a monkey, and note, just because the first case was ound in a homosexual doesn't mean that it hadn't already infected straight people.

You're right it didn't originate between heterosexual sex it originated with screwing a monkey, and note, just because the first case was ound in a homosexual doesn't mean that it hadn't already infected straight people.

Granted..there is no way we could confirm that assertion..then again it can not be disproved..in the absence of any evidence that indicates it traveled to the heterosexual community first I must concur that it originated within the homosexual community via the original bestiality communication.

burn time
Marriage is to be between one man and one woman. That´s common law and aside of that that is also Roman law.
common law should be updated with the times and last i checked this is neither italy or biblical times

Gay marriage is wrong.
Marriage and family are linked close together. Therefore it must be possible for the partners to form a family with children and give them a father and a mother.
50% of children live in single parent households, that doesnt even count the ones living on their own, in orphanages, or with grandparents
homosexuals can either adopt or, by science, have a baby grown for a male couple or have a female artificially inseminated

Family is the score scell of society and needed for its future.
and?

Homosexuals can´t form such thing. That´s against nature. Equality doesn´t mean to threat everything the same way: It means to treat simular things the same way and different things HAVE TO be treated differently.
are you saying homosexuals cant form a family because they are uncapable of producing children with one another, even though in actuality they can. then by your very argument women who are barren and men who are impotent or otherwise cant have children cannot form a family and should be treated differently from other people

oh and thats a whole nother point KKK grand dragon. equality means EQUALITY. not equality for some then a different but lesser equality for others. refer to Brown v Board of Education: seperate is inherently not equal.
your argument is ignorant, intolerant and was invalidated 50 years ago

Therefore it would be unjustified and even illegal and illegitimate to establish gay marriage since it is a different and not important for society. It doesn´t deserve the same protection.
marriage in and of itself is not important to society, a family can be formed without marriage.


By the way: Nobody is banned from marriage. But it has to be between one man and one woman and not between two women or men or three, four, five, with children, dogs, animals or whatsoever. Thats the law and that is entirely justified and just.

1) animals cant consent
2) children can be married if they are a certain age and their parents agree
3) what the hell is wrong with poly- marriages? nothing, people are just whining. if you want to be married to 5 people, good luck, just dont give them extra tax breaks for it

NO TO GAY MARRIAGE.

Marriage is to be between one man and one woman. That´s common law and aside of that that is also Roman law.

There is no difference between the US and Europe in that respect.

Gay marriage is wrong.
Marriage and family are linked close together. Therefore it must be possible for the partners to form a family with children and give them a father and a mother.

Family is the score scell of society and needed for its future.

Homosexuals can´t form such thing. That´s against nature. Equality doesn´t mean to threat everything the same way: It means to treat simular things the same way and different things HAVE TO be treated differently.
Therefore it would be unjustified and even illegal and illegitimate to establish gay marriage since it is a different and not important for society. It doesn´t deserve the same protection.


By the way: Nobody is banned from marriage. But it has to be between one man and one woman and not between two women or men or three, four, five, with children, dogs, animals or whatsoever. Thats the law and that is entirely justified and just.

This is all opinion. And, unfortunately, it is a particularly uneducated opinion.

Common law? Then, surely, you know that common law is an institution that has evolved, partly because, for most of the last 2000 years, almost no-one was married?

Only in the modern era has the marriage of the masses become reality, and shown itself to be a fad. Look at modern divorce rates.

In Europe, marriage has, for centuries, been primarily the domain of the wealthy, and is a contractual arrangement to pass on titles and property.

Also, vis-a-vis Roman Law... what about it? Our laws are not Roman? And most of those ridiculous concepts (like the owning of slaves) have already been excised from the western consciousness.

I disagree with you entirely on your version of family. For many, the nuclear family is an urban legend. Most families are not the divine cell you seem to imagine. Most people now find their 'family' among the people they meet, rather than the people that chance threw them together with.

Look back a hundred years and you will see that your 'nuclear' family ideal is ridiculous anyway. Most western nations had a 'family unit' that you would probably not condone - in that the average man had a wife and a mistress, and possibly some whores that he would frequent. Obviously you choose not to acknowledge that aspect of culture.

I have known homosexuals that were profound in their commitment to each other. Two of the best parents I have ever met were a lesbian couple with a twelve year old son. If family has any redeeming character, it is love - and they had love.

Get used to it. Polyamoury and homosexuality are part of the human condition, and they are here to stay. You might as well just accept it.

With the bitter attitude you seem to exhibit, I would have thought you'd be in FAVOUR of any form of marriage... hoping that someone might take pity on you...

alright... let me get this strait... you are gay (against God's wishes) and you wish to get married, which is a system God himself made. Isnt that bit of a slap in the face?

And if you don't believe in 'God'?

And anyhow, the Christian Churches have only been involved in marriage for a few hundred years. We have buildings older than that in the UK. You're entitled to your beliefs. Just don't force them onto others.

:o another child of the christian propaghanda machine. Um, who gives a shit if it's roman law? This is the US, not Italy. They can form a family, through either adoption or a surrogate (if both parties are male), or even through artificial insemination if bot parties are female. Now as for the mother and father thing, that is completely arbitrary, who the hell can say that two men or two women couldn't raise a child as good or better than a man and a woman, especially since statistically gay couples are less violent, less likely to split up and more stable than straight couples are, have a shot your argument full of enough holes yet? And your defining gay couples as something completely different than heterosexual couples, come on now, that's just ignorance talking. And to suggest that it is illigitimate and not important for society is the most hate filled statement I have seen in quite a while, I dunno what faith you were raised in but it must not have been a christian one cause I was raised a christian and we were taught not to be biggoted and taught that hate against others was sinful. It's this kind of hypocracy that made me into the agnostic that I have become.
First of all: I´m not religious and not a child of any propaganda machine. I´m from Continental Europe, so Roman law (which is the basis for our legal system) matters to me.
To your other statements: You have no evidence for your claims. On the conterary: Homosexuals have on average more promisque life styles and more often change their sex partner. The high number of HIV/AIDS infections proves and underlines this fact.
And a child needs a father and a mother. Said enough that this isn´t always the case. But two fathers and two mothers??? That is just unnatural. A child needs a person from both sexes and not just from one. Males and females have different abilities.
A child certainly doesn´t need to have two fathers who have sex which each other and are presented as a role-model to the child.
So: of course: I´m against gay marriage as well as against gays adopting children.

And just because I don´t agree with you, you don´t have the right to attack me personally.

And if you don't believe in 'God'?

And anyhow, the Christian Churches have only been involved in marriage for a few hundred years. We have buildings older than that in the UK. You're entitled to your beliefs. Just don't force them onto others.

Actually..it's not just Christian Churches, you'll not find one major civilization thruout recording history that endorsed homosexual marriages...even my own Pagan beliefs, which go back bout 20,000 yrs don't indicate homosexual marriage was ever endorsed..now...homosexuality was a different matter, we call them "Two-Spirit people"...but marriage..nope...

No..I didn't miss your point...but as far as the entry into the US, he contacted his AIDS not thru sex with a woman, but thru a homosexual male. The disease did not originate between heterosexual sex, otherwise this virus would have been around for millenia..

A) So - you think homosexuality is new? Interesting point... what about Shakespeare? Da Vinci? Alexander the Great?

B) Prove that AIDS hasn't been around for millenia! People have been dying of unexplained diseases for thousands of years... how long ago is the EARLIEST that an immuno-deficiency disease could have been identified? People don't die of AIDS, remember, they die of disease that their immune system lets in.

C) Coincidence... it could just as easily have been a woman bringing back the disease from sex with an infected partner. In fact, it might have been. The only evidence we have is the commonly identified Patient Zero... which doesn't MEAN he was the first victim... just the first to be identified.

Granted..there is no way we could confirm that assertion..then again it can not be disproved..in the absence of any evidence that indicates it traveled to the heterosexual community first I must concur that it originated within the homosexual community via the original bestiality communication.

Actually, it was transmitted through eating Jungle Meat - that's monkey - in West Africa. It's very popular there, and it's still being imported illegally into the UK.

Homosexuals have on average more promisque life styles and more often change their sex partner.
thats what happens when the lifestyle is shunned and must be kept quiet and you cant form life time relationships with people
The high number of HIV/AIDS infections proves and underlines this fact.
the fastest growing group of HIV/AIDS infections is heterosexuals, mainly women

And a child needs a father and a mother. Said enough that this isn´t always the case. But two fathers and two mothers??? That is just unnatural. A child needs a person from both sexes and not just from one. Males and females have different abilities.
how is it unnatural? god forbid they be raised in a two person home instead of a one person home or in an abusive home. males and emales ahve different abilities? you want to outline this?

A child certainly doesn´t need to have two fathers who have sex which each other and are presented as a role-model to the child.
and they dont need parents who are drug addicts, alcoholics, abusive to the children and their mother, parents who arnt even there and left htem when they were born. why dotn we just put all children in an orphanage and fix the whoel thing?

So: of course: I´m against gay marriage as well as against gays adopting children.
so you agree with putting any and all children in orphanages to keep them from being exposed to bad parents, but wait, if they are in an orphanage they dotn have parents. so you suggest keeping children from having parents becaues you dont agree with how their parents live.

INTOLERANCE ALERT

A) So - you think homosexuality is new? Interesting point... what about Shakespeare? Da Vinci? Alexander the Great?

B) Prove that AIDS hasn't been around for millenia! People have been dying of unexplained diseases for thousands of years... how long ago is the EARLIEST that an immuno-deficiency disease could have been identified? People don't die of AIDS, remember, they die of disease that their immune system lets in.

C) Coincidence... it could just as easily have been a woman bringing back the disease from sex with an infected partner. In fact, it might have been. The only evidence we have is the commonly identified Patient Zero... which doesn't MEAN he was the first victim... just the first to be identified.

No..actually..it was confirmed..Patient Zero..as far as bringing it into the States was a bisexual male..a French-Canadian airline steward...

And since you can offer up no evidence to prove it originated in the heterosexual community..once again..I must go with what I know...that it orignated thru acts of bestiality,and from there to the homosexual..barring evidence presented to me indicating otherwise..not saying it couldn't..but I've seen no evidence to contradict this widely held medical viewpoint.

First of all: I´m not religious and not a child of any propaganda machine. I´m from Continental Europe, so Roman law (which is the basis for our legal system) matters to me.
To your other statements: You have no evidence for your claims. On the conterary: Homosexuals have on average more promisque life styles and more often change their sex partner. The high number of HIV/AIDS infections proves and underlines this fact.
And a child needs a father and a mother. Said enough that this isn´t always the case. But two fathers and two mothers??? That is just unnatural. A child needs a person from both sexes and not just from one. Males and females have different abilities.
A child certainly doesn´t need to have two fathers who have sex which each other and are presented as a role-model to the child.
So: of course: I´m against gay marriage as well as against gays adopting children.

And just because I don´t agree with you, you don´t have the right to attack me personally.

First of all, it's hard to believe the lack of education on these threads... the Mechanism of law is Roman, but the laws themselves are the product of Judeo-Christianity.

Second: You have no evidence for YOUR claims... I have known many monogamous homosexuals, and one or two promiscuous ones... which makes heterosexuals FAR MORE promiscuous in my experience.

And your point about HIV/AIDS is both misinformed and irrelevent - since homosexuals are not the highest profile vector of the AIDS virus, even in Europe. Both IV drug use, and unprotected sex by females top homosexual transmission.

Third: Role models don't have to be your parents. Not all heterosexual parents make good role models, and the children of these unions find their own role models outside of their family. Children of homosexual unions can do the same.

Oh, and by the way... you have given people the right to attack you personally, by attacking THEM personally. Deal with it.

No..actually..it was confirmed..Patient Zero..as far as bringing it into the States was a bisexual male..a French-Canadian airline steward...

And since you can offer up no evidence to prove it originated in the heterosexual community..once again..I must go with what I know...that it orignated thru acts of bestiality,and from there to the homosexual..barring evidence presented to me indicating otherwise..not saying it couldn't..but I've seen no evidence to contradict this widely held medical viewpoint.

So you're going to condemn all homosexuals from now until eternity because of something that one homosexual did?

i just got an account with nationstates and i was browsing through the forum and saw this thread. I haven't actually read 45 pages of posts, but I have a strong position on the issue. I think that gay people should be allowed to marry. The issue of their right to adoption is stiil open for me and I lean towards no.

However, since I don't want to repeat previous arguments, maybe someone from the against-gay-marriage side can sum up the unanswered arguments they have so that I can try to contribute to the debate.

I've seen that ocasionally matters like the bush administration (lowercase 'b' intentional :) ) and the Church were brought in the debate. I think that the answer has to come reagrdles of thi issues or similar ones.

Waiting for your replies...

And since you can offer up no evidence to prove it originated in the heterosexual community..once again..I must go with what I know...that it orignated thru acts of bestiality,and from there to the homosexual..barring evidence presented to me indicating otherwise..not saying it couldn't..but I've seen no evidence to contradict this widely held medical viewpoint.
you do realise there wouldnt have to be beatilaity involved, unless your dumb enoguh to think sdiseases only spread through sex

No..actually..it was confirmed..Patient Zero..as far as bringing it into the States was a bisexual male..a French-Canadian airline steward...

And since you can offer up no evidence to prove it originated in the heterosexual community..once again..I must go with what I know...that it orignated thru acts of bestiality,and from there to the homosexual..barring evidence presented to me indicating otherwise..not saying it couldn't..but I've seen no evidence to contradict this widely held medical viewpoint.

Don't make yourself look any more stupid than you already do. Patient Zero is (and let me make this real clear for you) .... the first IDENTIFIED carrier of the disease in the US. That doesn't mean that he was the first person to have the disease. That doesn't even mean that he was the first person to have the disease in the US. Considering he was 'located' during a huge witch-hunt, in the middle of what was being viewed as an 'epidemic', and when there was a HUGE amount of public pressure to find a carrier - you can attach no real significance to his Patient Zero status.

(Remember, at this point, it wasn't even called AIDS yet).

You probably also think there has only been one case of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy in the US?

And, re: your bestiality/homosexuality link... what is your evidence for that link? Do you believe homosexuals are more likely to have sex with animals? I don't suppose you have ANY evidence at all, do you.

"I must go with what I know"... that's got to be about the most dangerous set of words you could say... don't you think?

so you agree with putting any and all children in orphanages to keep them from being exposed to bad parents, but wait, if they are in an orphanage they dotn have parents. so you suggest keeping children from having parents becaues you dont agree with how their parents live.
INTOLERANCE ALERT
You are polemic. But of course there can be situations where the state has to take the children away from the parents because they are not able to care for them: for example if they are drug addicts in a progressed stage, e.g.
May be a relative can take custody then. But if that isn´t possible an orphanage is better than leaving the children under this conditions.


thats what happens when the lifestyle is shunned and must be kept quiet and you cant form life time relationships with people
That´s not true. Also in countries where homosexuals are openly showing their sexuality there are more living a very promisque lifestyle. The high number of HIV/AIDS infections proves that fact. Almost half of HIV patiences in my country are homosexuals.

I am opposed to gay marriage for one reason. It allows a gay couple to adopt children if they are given FULL benefits of marriage. If they weren't allowed to adopt kids, I would be for it.

Actually..it's not just Christian Churches, you'll not find one major civilization thruout recording history that endorsed homosexual marriages...even my own Pagan beliefs, which go back bout 20,000 yrs don't indicate homosexual marriage was ever endorsed..now...homosexuality was a different matter, we call them "Two-Spirit people"...but marriage..nope...

Never heard of Thessaly, then? Honestly, all these wanna-blessed-bes.

If you know nothing about the pagan beliefs.... (by the way, you say you are 'pagan'... what do you mean by that???) then don't bring them into the conversation.

I personally know three Wiccans closely, and they would all say that you are talking crap. Wiccans wed by 'handfasting' and there is no formalised restriction on the genders of those involved, although some specified ONLY homosexuals (Dianic). Some Wiccans even encouraged multiple spouse arrangements.

Never heard of Thessaly, then? Honestly, all these wanna-blessed-bes.

If you know nothing about the pagan beliefs.... (by the way, you say you are 'pagan'... what do you mean by that???) then don't bring them into the conversation.

I personally know three Wiccans closely, and they would all say that you are talking crap. Wiccans wed by 'handfasting' and there is no formalised restriction on the genders of those involved, although some specified ONLY homosexuals (Dianic). Some Wiccans even encouraged multiple spouse arrangements.


Pagan technically means any religion that doesn't recognize Jesus. So that means that I am a pagan, along with Jews and Muslims.

I am opposed to gay marriage for one reason. It allows a gay couple to adopt children if they are given FULL benefits of marriage. If they weren't allowed to adopt kids, I would be for it.
What si wrong with that?

I am opposed to gay marriage for one reason. It allows a gay couple to adopt children if they are given FULL benefits of marriage. If they weren't allowed to adopt kids, I would be for it.

Actually, not all heterosexual couples are approved for adoption, so why would all homosexual couples be? Full benefits of marriage don't AUTOMATICALLY give you the right to adopt.

But, personally - since most child-abuse occurs between a child and a 'heterosexual' parent, I don't see why that should be all that scary - it would actually be putting children into a lower risk grouping.

Don't make yourself look any more stupid than you already do. Patient Zero is (and let me make this real clear for you) .... the first IDENTIFIED carrier of the disease in the US. That doesn't mean that he was the first person to have the disease. That doesn't even mean that he was the first person to have the disease in the US. Considering he was 'located' during a huge witch-hunt, in the middle of what was being viewed as an 'epidemic', and when there was a HUGE amount of public pressure to find a carrier - you can attach no real significance to his Patient Zero status.

(Remember, at this point, it wasn't even called AIDS yet).

You probably also think there has only been one case of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy in the US?

And, re: your bestiality/homosexuality link... what is your evidence for that link? Do you believe homosexuals are more likely to have sex with animals? I don't suppose you have ANY evidence at all, do you.

"I must go with what I know"... that's got to be about the most dangerous set of words you could say... don't you think?

Stupid now am I??.I don't recall usage of name-calling to prove a point? I understand perfectly clear the difference between first identified individual and potentially who might have infected first.

Witchhunt..on the contary..the CDC went to extraoridary lengths to avoid that....yes..I remember when it was called GRID too..but you can't prove it originated with a heterosexual..while I at least have some evidence to point otherwise..please..do all the wishful thinking you want..but just don't try to snow me..just because it wasn't politically correct to point fingers initially at the homosexual community...Yes...I remember all too well..how the community in San Francisco fought with the CDC on everything from blood tests to shutting down the bath houses.

You are polemic. But of course there can be situations where the state has to take the children away from the parents because they are not able to care for them: for example if they are drug addicts in a progressed stage, e.g.
May be a relative can take custody then. But if that isn´t possible an orphanage is better than leaving the children under this conditions.
so lets put all children in orphanages


That´s not true. Also in countries where homosexuals are openly showing their sexuality there are more living a very promisque lifestyle. The high number of HIV/AIDS infections proves that fact. Almost half of HIV patiences in my country are homosexuals.
of course its true, NO country openly accepts homosexuality. and show me which countries, i want to see

and the high number of hiv and aids cases proves shit.the fastest growing number of infected people are heterosexuals and the fastest of them are females. 75%+ of new hiv/aids cases this year are female
and lets not forget the effect of reagan pretending it didnt exist when he was in office, and oh yeah the problems in africa and asia and the unwillingness for america to help its own people

you are just ignroring me

First of all, it's hard to believe the lack of education on these threads... the Mechanism of law is Roman, but the laws themselves are the product of Judeo-Christianity.
Oh, and by the way... you have given people the right to attack you personally, by attacking THEM personally. Deal with it.
It is called Roman law and it is based on the legal principles of Roman law. And by the way: The Romans became christians: In the fourth century AC christianty became the religion of the majority of the people. It had already grown much in the second and third century AC. It even became state religion of the Roman Empire at the end of the fourth century. The West Roman Empire ended in 476, the East Roman Empire (Byzantine) in 1453.
The germanic tribes who took over took over a lot of things of the Romans. That was the confrontative transformation of germanic tribal traditions with roman-christian culture.
In 800 the pope crowned the king of the Francs to be the emperor of the "Holy Roman Empire". A title an position which existed till 1806, when it was destroyed by Napoleon.
So: the roman tradition always existed. And christianty is a part of it.
And by the way: I expect an apology from you for calling me Nazi.
That is unacceptable. I admitt that I was a bit personal as well: but I reacted after you called me "bad dog" which I felt heavily insulted by. But my counter-insult to suggest you are fond of bestiality was inapropiate. I apologize for that.

Never heard of Thessaly, then? Honestly, all these wanna-blessed-bes.

If you know nothing about the pagan beliefs.... (by the way, you say you are 'pagan'... what do you mean by that???) then don't bring them into the conversation.

I personally know three Wiccans closely, and they would all say that you are talking crap. Wiccans wed by 'handfasting' and there is no formalised restriction on the genders of those involved, although some specified ONLY homosexuals (Dianic). Some Wiccans even encouraged multiple spouse arrangements.

Not a Wiccan...I am a Cherokee Indian who faithfully has kept his people's culture and ways...our ways date back on the North American continent as far back as 20,000 yrs ago..at no time did we endorse homosexual marriage. None of the tribes have.

And while a religous group..the Wiccans (who btw are a relatively renewed interests in it)....it still is not a civilization..As far as Thessaly goes..I can't refute that because frankly I haven't read up on it..but since you brought it up...I shall attempt to review what material I have found on it.

Actually, not all heterosexual couples are approved for adoption, so why would all homosexual couples be? Full benefits of marriage don't AUTOMATICALLY give you the right to adopt.

But, personally - since most child-abuse occurs between a child and a 'heterosexual' parent, I don't see why that should be all that scary - it would actually be putting children into a lower risk grouping.


I agree with you partly. I know that many hetero couples are not even mentally capable of handling a kid and may abuse them. But I stand by my opinion that allowing gays to adopt AUTOMATICALLY just by being married is wrong. If there was some kind of test given to see if they're fit, then i would be in favor of gay marriage, (and this test could be universal, for hetero couples too.)

Gay Marriage doesn't hurt the economy. It doesn't hurt human rights. It doesn't start wars. Only religious people are complaining.

(Apologies to Kybernetia if it seems like I am picking solely on you; I just don't have the time to read every page, and your post was at the top of this one.)

Homosexuals have on average more promisque life styles and more often change their sex partner. The high number of HIV/AIDS infections proves and underlines this fact.
...No it doesn't. The high number of HIV/AIDS infections amongst homosexual people just proves what is already simple fact; the method of sexual interaction between two males simply makes them more susceptible to the virus. The skin in the anus is far weaker than the skin in the genitalia of either sex, thus providing the virii with a simpler route into the body. The higher amount of HIV and AIDS sufferers amongst the homosexual community is simply a result of this - it is not proof of any promiscuity on their part, as you suggest here.

And a child needs a father and a mother.......a child needs a person from both sexes and not just from one.
...As the child of a single parent (and a friend to numerous people who are in the same situation) I find this point of view somewhat insulting. I am male, and have been raised solely by a mother - I have never so much as met my father - and I'm fairly sure that I've turned out all right. I didn't have the 'male' point of view at all in my upbringing, and aside from a more feminine mind than most males, I'm a perfectly normal and respectable individual (not wanting to 'toot my own horn', so to speak). I'm fairly positive that if I'd had two mothers rather than just one, I wouldn't have turned out much differently.

Now, I realise that this point has probably already been raised throughout this topic, but homophobia (the dislike of homosexuals and the concept of homosexuality) is very much akin to racism. Nay, these days I don't draw a line between the two; much in the same way as a black person doesn't choose his or her skin colour, a homosexual person doesn't choose his or her sexual orientation. I haven't heard of a form which anybody has to fill out, with ticky-boxes marked "Homosexual", "Heterosexual" and "bisexual" and I certainly never received one. Nor do I recall having woken up one morning and saying "Hey, I think I'm straight! Gosh!" Homosexual people can't help being attracted to members of their own sex, and thus those who are against them are in so many ways racist. Sorry.

Let's extend this point to compare racist people with homophobic people. Racist people (biggest example = the KKK) have, on many occasions, defended their beliefs by referring to the Bible. Apparently something in the Old testament backs up their small-minded point of view...of course, as they are so fixed in their small-minded ways, they ignore the New Testament (which teaches you to love your neighbours as equals and all that malarkey). Homophobic people all too often use this exact same method.

Briefly, the 'law' point of view. Well, it may indeed be the law, but in Los Angeles there's a similarly outdated law which states (and I quote);

"A man is legally entitled to beat his wife with a leather belt or strap, but the belt can't be wider than two inches, unless he has consent to beat her with a wider strap."
...So, let's all go back to the days when husbands were legally entitled to beat their wives, and women had no voice in society. After all, it's the law.

Finally, let's view this all from the Logic point of view. If someone is homosexual...what the heck does it matter to you? I mean, honestly? What difference could it possibly make?

gay peopel are gay
Talk about stating the obvious :sniper: :headbang: :headbang: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Gay Marriage doesn't hurt the economy. It doesn't hurt human rights. It doesn't start wars. Only religious people are complaining.


I agree that religious people need to shut up and keep their ill-founded beliefs to their own kind. I have no problem with religious people, but when they preach to you and make you sound inferior for having a different theological background, it just pisses me off.

so lets put all children in orphanages

Hello: do you read my posts??? Obviously not. I´ve said that there can be situations where the state has to take the children away from their parents- for example if they abuse them. That are rare cases. But if they happen the state has the duty to do so if there is no relative who can take care of them.



of course its true, NO country openly accepts homosexuality. and show me which countries, i want to see
and the high number of hiv and aids cases proves shit.
The Netherlands for example.

There's no test, but they do a background check on everyone who wants to adopt... your point makes no sense whatsoever.

(Apologies to Kybernetia if it seems like I am picking solely on you; I just don't have the time to read every page, and your post was at the top of this one.)


...No it doesn't. The high number of HIV/AIDS infections amongst homosexual people just proves what is already simple fact; the method of sexual interaction between two males simply makes them more susceptible to the virus. The skin in the anus is far weaker than the skin in the genitalia of either sex, thus providing the virii with a simpler route into the body. The higher amount of HIV and AIDS sufferers amongst the homosexual community is simply a result of this - it is not proof of any promiscuity on their part, as you suggest here.


...As the child of a single parent (and a friend to numerous people who are in the same situation) I find this point of view somewhat insulting. I am male, and have been raised solely by a mother - I have never so much as met my father - and I'm fairly sure that I've turned out all right. I didn't have the 'male' point of view at all in my upbringing, and aside from a more feminine mind than most males, I'm a perfectly normal and respectable individual (not wanting to 'toot my own horn', so to speak). I'm fairly positive that if I'd had two mothers rather than just one, I wouldn't have turned out much differently.

Now, I realise that this point has probably already been raised throughout this topic, but homophobia (the dislike of homosexuals and the concept of homosexuality) is very much akin to racism. Nay, these days I don't draw a line between the two; much in the same way as a black person doesn't choose his or her skin colour, a homosexual person doesn't choose his or her sexual orientation. I haven't heard of a form which anybody has to fill out, with ticky-boxes marked "Homosexual", "Heterosexual" and "bisexual" and I certainly never received one. Nor do I recall having woken up one morning and saying "Hey, I think I'm straight! Gosh!" Homosexual people can't help being attracted to members of their own sex, and thus those who are against them are in so many ways racist. Sorry.

Let's extend this point to compare racist people with homophobic people. Racist people (biggest example = the KKK) have, on many occasions, defended their beliefs by referring to the Bible. Apparently something in the Old testament backs up their small-minded point of view...of course, as they are so fixed in their small-minded ways, they ignore the New Testament (which teaches you to love your neighbours as equals and all that malarkey). Homophobic people all too often use this exact same method.

Briefly, the 'law' point of view. Well, it may indeed be the law, but in Los Angeles there's a similarly outdated law which states (and I quote);


...So, let's all go back to the days when husbands were legally entitled to beat their wives, and women had no voice in society. After all, it's the law.

Finally, let's view this all from the Logic point of view. If someone is homosexual...what the heck does it matter to you? I mean, honestly? What difference could it possibly make?

Excuse me..but you'd have a tough time getting minorities to accept this viewpoint...I don't recall any national black organization of any stature endorsing homosexual marriage..in fact...most blacks I know are rather ticked that gays would piggyback themselves onto their struggle...

Originally Posted by Kybernetia
And a child needs a father and a mother.......a child needs a person from both sexes and not just from one.

Not in every case. I have a friend who never knew his father and was raised by his mother and grandmother. He turned out to be normal. He is not even remotely feminine. Although in other cases this may have resulted differently.

There's no test, but they do a background check on everyone who wants to adopt... your point makes no sense whatsoever.


To you maybe. All I am saying is that their should be something more than a background check to adopt.

Excuse me..but you'd have a tough time getting minorities to accept this viewpoint...I don't recall any national black organization of any stature endorsing homosexual marriage..in fact...most blacks I know are rather ticked that gays would piggyback themselves onto their struggle...
They aren't 'piggybacking themselves' into the stuggle. And I'm not trying to imply that; what I'm saying is that homophobia is fundamentally identical to racism. You disagree? That's your choice.

The Netherlands for example.
just because the government in the netherlands is fair and intelligent doesnt mean homosexuality is accepted
go to disctionary.com

look up legal, look up accepted

The thing the anti-gay-marriage people are trying to avoid bringing up is that by not allowing gays and lesbians to marry, we're restricting on their rights. Don't forget, there was a time when people thought blacks shouldn't marry, among other things. Although the same people who tried to keep the blacks from doing it are most ofthen the people trying to keep gays from doing it.

Religon is the only thing preventing homosexuals from having these rights, not suprising considering you could be burned at the stake a few centuries ago for dressing funny. Your personal dislike of gays or your religon's (unproven) condemning of them should not dictate how these people live their own lives. By not giving gays and lesbians this basic right, you are, bluntly, oppressing them.

There should be no argument on wether or not to give people their most basic rights.

(Apologies to Kybernetia if it seems like I am picking solely on you; I just don't have the time to read every page, and your post was at the top of this one.)
...No it doesn't. The high number of HIV/AIDS infections amongst homosexual people just proves what is already simple fact; the method of sexual interaction between two males simply makes them more susceptible to the virus. The skin in the anus is far weaker than the skin in the genitalia of either sex, thus providing the virii with a simpler route into the body. The higher amount of HIV and AIDS sufferers amongst the homosexual community is simply a result of this - it is not proof of any promiscuity on their part, as you suggest here.
I reiterate my statement about the higher amount of promisquity. Although the factors you have stated may add to that. Well: that just underlines my opinion that homosexuality is dangerous - especially for the people involved of it.

(...As the child of a single parent (and a friend to numerous people who are in the same situation) I find this point of view somewhat insulting. I am male, and have been raised solely by a mother - I have never so much as met my father - and I'm fairly sure that I've turned out all right. .
I was also raised mainly by my mother - my parents divorced.

(I didn't have the 'male' point of view at all in my upbringing, and aside from a more feminine mind than most males, I'm a perfectly normal and respectable individual (not wanting to 'toot my own horn', so to speak). .
See: there is a lack: the male perspective. I see it that way. Not that this was my fault, though. But there is a lack.



Now, I realise that this point has probably already been raised throughout this topic, but homophobia (the dislike of homosexuals and the concept of homosexuality) is very much akin to racism.
Don´t talk rubbish. Homosexuals are no race.
You can´t choose your colour of skin but you can control and chose if you have sex or if you haven´t and with whom.
There is always the possibility to abstain. So: people have a choice whether they want to live a homosexual lifestyle or not.

No..I didn't miss your point...but as far as the entry into the US, he contacted his AIDS not thru sex with a woman, but thru a homosexual male. The disease did not originate between heterosexual sex, otherwise this virus would have been around for millenia..

Now, Salishe, usually your posts are very intelligent, so I'm going to assume that you either know absolutely nothing about biology, or just slipped up because gay people make you feel icky. Viruses change and evolve, just like anything else. There were different viruses millenia ago than there are now (although some are still able to hurt you so they're still around). We get new flu viruses and new cold viruses every single year.

Besides, homosexual sex has been going on for just as long as heterosexual sex, so (if new viruses didn't pop up all the time) I could say that "the disesase did not originate between homosexual sex, otherwise this virus would have been around for milleniea."

Like, I said, you are usually very intelligent, although I often disagree with you. But you really need to get your head out of your ass on this issue.

The thing the anti-gay-marriage people are trying to avoid bringing up is that by not allowing gays and lesbians to marry, we're restricting on their rights. Don't forget, there was a time when people thought blacks shouldn't marry, among other things. Although the same people who tried to keep the blacks from doing it are most ofthen the people trying to keep gays from doing it.

Religon is the only thing preventing homosexuals from having these rights, not suprising considering you could be burned at the stake a few centuries ago for dressing funny. Your personal dislike of gays or your religon's (unproven) condemning of them should not dictate how these people live their own lives. By not giving gays and lesbians this basic right, you are, bluntly, oppressing them.

There should be no argument on wether or not to give people their most basic rights.

Then you would agree..the idea is one of compromise right?..Take the benefits package out of being "married"..leave that up to the religous institutions...and for homosexuals to be content with a "civil union"...legally that is what homosexuals are after right..the same rights of heterosexuals. That is..unless this is just to piss off heterosexuals and force them to accept homosexuality as a valid moral choice?..

I wholeheartedly accept the notion of "civil unions" for all concerned, hetero and homo, allow for "marriage" to remain a religous function.

Now, Salishe, usually your posts are very intelligent, so I'm going to assume that you either know absolutely nothing about biology, or just slipped up because gay people make you feel icky. Viruses change and evolve, just like anything else. There were different viruses millenia ago than there are now (although some are still able to hurt you so they're still around). We get new flu viruses and new cold viruses every single year.

Besides, homosexual sex has been going on for just as long as heterosexual sex, so (if new viruses didn't pop up all the time) I could say that "the disesase did not originate between homosexual sex, otherwise this virus would have been around for milleniea."

Like, I said, you are usually very intelligent, although I often disagree with you. But you really need to get your head out of your ass on this issue.

My point was..mercy...this is getting tiring....we know...for a fact that the virus commonly referred to as AIDS resulted in sex between homo sapiens (there, no sexual connatation to piss off anyone) and an monkey, a lesser form....now...as far as I know..and every medical journal I have read points to this...it moved from there to the homosexual community..which then was transferred via blood or bisexual individuals to the heterosexual community. Now..once again...if evidence is presented to me to refute this assertion, then by all means..do so..and I will review it.

Stupid now am I??.I don't recall usage of name-calling to prove a point? I understand perfectly clear the difference between first identified individual and potentially who might have infected first.

Witchhunt..on the contary..the CDC went to extraoridary lengths to avoid that....yes..I remember when it was called GRID too..but you can't prove it originated with a heterosexual..while I at least have some evidence to point otherwise..please..do all the wishful thinking you want..but just don't try to snow me..just because it wasn't politically correct to point fingers initially at the homosexual community...Yes...I remember all too well..how the community in San Francisco fought with the CDC on everything from blood tests to shutting down the bath houses.

Okay - stupid is strong, and I apologise - I meant that that kind of sweeping statement makes people look stupid - but you cannot go around saying you have 'evidence' that Patient Zero was, in fact, the first AIDS carrier in the USA. Like I said with the BSE comment, just because the CDC says something, doesn't make it true, any more than it does for any organisation.

BSE is zoomorphic, and there have been Americans suffering from KJD for years - while the American government has only admitted one case of BSE, and that is just last year.

I can't prove that GRIDs came into the country in anyone - but the CDC basically abandoned their pursuit after they had reasonable grounds to believe they had 'their man'. And of course the gay community resisted the investigation - if the government could pin a new disease specifically on homosexuality, all of their rights as citizens were on the line.

Since America has porous borders, and a huge volume of traffic, it is not unlikely that AIDS has been crossing the borders for decades.

No..actually..it was confirmed..Patient Zero..as far as bringing it into the States was a bisexual male..a French-Canadian airline steward...

And since you can offer up no evidence to prove it originated in the heterosexual community..once again..I must go with what I know...that it orignated thru acts of bestiality,and from there to the homosexual..barring evidence presented to me indicating otherwise..not saying it couldn't..but I've seen no evidence to contradict this widely held medical viewpoint.

Seriously, Salishe - head-out-of-ass. You keep stating that the first US carrier was a BISEXUAL, right? So even if you are perfectly correct you have absolutely no reason to be sure that it was originally spread through homosexual activity. Whoever first got it from the monkey meat could have been heterosexual and your bisexual carrier could have gotten it from heterosexual contact.

Sex isn't the only way to transmit AIDS. The monkey could have bitten someone. That would transmit it through the blood without intercourse. Ever wonder why they have to throw away needles?

Now, if evidence came up proving that AIDS came from sheep...

just because the government in the netherlands is fair and intelligent doesnt mean homosexuality is accepted
go to disctionary.com
look up legal, look up accepted
And it is never going to be accepted since it is unnatural and makes biologically no sense. It is misdirected sexuality.

If it's unnatural... why does it occur naturally?

And if all you use to support your claim that it makes no sense biologically, all I need to remind you si that evolution didn't just stop, it's still going. Homosexuality probably has an as yet unknown benefit to the species. Like losing our tailbone and other retro helix genes, our species probably hasn't developed enough to see the benefits yet.

It is called Roman law and it is based on the legal principles of Roman law. And by the way: The Romans became christians: In the fourth century AC christianty became the religion of the majority of the people. It had already grown much in the second and third century AC. It even became state religion of the Roman Empire at the end of the fourth century. The West Roman Empire ended in 476, the East Roman Empire (Byzantine) in 1453.
The germanic tribes who took over took over a lot of things of the Romans. That was the confrontative transformation of germanic tribal traditions with roman-christian culture.
In 800 the pope crowned the king of the Francs to be the emperor of the "Holy Roman Empire". A title an position which existed till 1806, when it was destroyed by Napoleon.
So: the roman tradition always existed. And christianty is a part of it.
And by the way: I expect an apology from you for calling me Nazi.
That is unacceptable. I admitt that I was a bit personal as well: but I reacted after you called me "bad dog" which I felt heavily insulted by. But my counter-insult to suggest you are fond of bestiality was inapropiate. I apologize for that.

Our legal system is based on the classic Roman model, that pre- and post-dates Christianity in Rome. Our legal morality is not that of classical Rome - it is entirely a product of the Judea-christian traditions that predated Rome accepting christianity.

I never actually called you a Nazi - and the only times I alluded to it were when you made flippant remarks about closing borders, and demonising minorities. I still believe those kind of actions are suspect in their political motivation, and I would hope that those were not policies you truly endorse... but that would, anyway, be your choice.

I apologise for calling you a Nazi.

By the way... the 'Bad Dog' reference is a flippant remark... which was unnecessary, but not really intended as an insult...

Seriously, Salishe - head-out-of-ass. You keep stating that the first US carrier was a BISEXUAL, right? So even if you are perfectly correct you have absolutely no reason to be sure that it was originally spread through homosexual activity. Whoever first got it from the monkey meat could have been heterosexual and your bisexual carrier could have gotten it from heterosexual contact.

What is this crap with the need to belittle someone?...what you have is assertion and wishful thinking..."it could"..or "maybe"...which has as much credibility as Nixon saying he wasn't a crook....Look..I'm going purely on what I've read..basic medical and scientific journals..a few back up your claim but just as many back up mine...til I read irrefutable evidence basing your opinion is correct..I must accept my opinion as in line with current medical thought.

My point was..mercy...this is getting tiring....we know...for a fact that the virus commonly referred to as AIDS resulted in sex between homo sapiens (there, no sexual connatation to piss off anyone) and an monkey, a lesser form....now...as far as I know..and every medical journal I have read points to this...it moved from there to the homosexual community..which then was transferred via blood or bisexual individuals to the heterosexual community. Now..once again...if evidence is presented to me to refute this assertion, then by all means..do so..and I will review it.

Can't let that pass, either, I'm afraid. We don't know for a fact that that is how AIDS originated. It is one theory, that it is zoomorphic from apes-to-man, but that doesn't mean people had sex with apes. It doesn't mean that the apes were even the first to have had the disease - they might have contracted it from humans.

What we have here is suspicions and assumptions. That is not the same as facts. The fact is... we don't know exactly HOW, WHERE or even WHEN the disease we now call AIDS originated... we just have one paper-trail, with insufficient depth, one 'possible carrier' (which certainly doesn't disclude the possibility of other carriers), and a whole truck-load of theories.

What is this crap with the need to belittle someone?

Sorry, I see so much crap on here that when I see one of the people who is usually quite intelligent being illogical, it bothers me.

...what you have is assertion and wishful thinking..."it could"..or "maybe"...which has as much credibility as Nixon saying he wasn't a crook....Look..I'm going purely on what I've read..basic medical and scientific journals..a few back up your claim but just as many back up mine...til I read irrefutable evidence basing your opinion is correct..I must accept my opinion as in line with current medical thought.

See, now you just stated that you have read medical and scientific journals that back up both claims (I never made a claim by the way, I just stated a possibility). In the US, AIDS did spread mostly through the homosexual community at first. This is well-documented. However, the community it came from *before that,* is not. Therefore (and by your own admission since you just said that the journals back up both claims), either possibility is equally correct. We don't know (and probably won't since the people involved are pretty much all dead). If there is equal evidence both ways, neither opinion is "in line with current medical thought."

Not a Wiccan...I am a Cherokee Indian who faithfully has kept his people's culture and ways...our ways date back on the North American continent as far back as 20,000 yrs ago..at no time did we endorse homosexual marriage. None of the tribes have.

And while a religous group..the Wiccans (who btw are a relatively renewed interests in it)....it still is not a civilization..As far as Thessaly goes..I can't refute that because frankly I haven't read up on it..but since you brought it up...I shall attempt to review what material I have found on it.

Okay - before we start... I know for 'a fact' that the 'Native' Americans arrived on the North American Continent about 9,000 years ago. I have seen this documented many times. AT the same time, I appreciate that what is popularly accepted is not the same as fact, so I have no reason to doubt your 20,000 years figure.

The same principle applies in the field of scientific evidence... I have heard of Patient Zero... I have heard of the monkey-theory of the origin of AIDS, but I have no incontravertible evidence for the veracity of either.

When you call yourself a pagan, you need to be aware that pagan covers a lot of territory - and a great number of those pagan followings have very different traditions to the Cherokee.

I never actually called you a Nazi - and the only times I alluded to it were when you made flippant remarks about closing borders, and demonising minorities. I still believe those kind of actions are suspect in their political motivation, and I would hope that those were not policies you truly endorse... but that would, anyway, be your choice.
I apologise for calling you a Nazi.

I accept your apology. Though I never demonised minorities. However I advocated a more restrictive immigration policy. By the way: the immigration policy of most European countries has become much more restrictive in the last about 10-12 years. That includes - fortunately - my country as well. And I endorse that.

I agree with you partly. I know that many hetero couples are not even mentally capable of handling a kid and may abuse them. But I stand by my opinion that allowing gays to adopt AUTOMATICALLY just by being married is wrong. If there was some kind of test given to see if they're fit, then i would be in favor of gay marriage, (and this test could be universal, for hetero couples too.)

No-one gets to adopt automatically. I agree - there should be rigourous testing before anyone is allowed to adopt, and I don't think the current system is nearly testing enough... being based more on your job, and how much money you have.

If they used such tests on heterosexual couples, I think they should on homosexual couples, too. If they don't, then I see no reason why the homosexual community should be specifically targetted for unfair treatment.

Okay - before we start... I know for 'a fact' that the 'Native' Americans arrived on the North American Continent about 9,000 years ago. I have seen this documented many times. AT the same time, I appreciate that what is popularly accepted is not the same as fact, so I have no reason to doubt your 20,000 years figure.

The same principle applies in the field of scientific evidence... I have heard of Patient Zero... I have heard of the monkey-theory of the origin of AIDS, but I have no incontravertible evidence for the veracity of either.

When you call yourself a pagan, you need to be aware that pagan covers a lot of territory - and a great number of those pagan followings have very different traditions to the Cherokee.

If I came off as ill-prepared in my opinions you have my apologies..but I tend to stay out of debates like this as there has been no incontrovertible evidence one way or the other...

As for the lineage line of the Cherokee...I should have rephrased...archaeological digs confirm the Cherokee in the Tennessee/North Carolina/Georgia area around 10,000 yrs ago..but crossed over from Asia into Canada around 20,000 yrs ago.

If I came off as ill-prepared in my opinions you have my apologies..but I tend to stay out of debates like this as there has been no incontrovertible evidence one way or the other...

As for the lineage line of the Cherokee...I should have rephrased...archaeological digs confirm the Cherokee in the Tennessee/North Carolina/Georgia area around 10,000 yrs ago..but crossed over from Asia into Canada around 20,000 yrs ago.

Others on this thread have been saying you are a most logical and capable debater - for which I have nothing but the greatest respect. There can never be too many incisive and inquisitve minds. Perhaps it is a shame we crashed head to head on this subject - but it is one that is demonising a whole section of the world's communities, and I think it too important to let ignorance reign supreme.... which, unfortunately, it does far too much on some of these threads. I was not intending to attack you specifically.

I appreciate your position, and, if more people would demand some evidence either way, most of these threads would have become irrelevent.

(By the way - I know... I'm married to a Georgia Cherokee).

First of all: I´m not religious and not a child of any propaganda machine. I´m from Continental Europe, so Roman law (which is the basis for our legal system) matters to me.
To your other statements: You have no evidence for your claims. On the conterary: Homosexuals have on average more promisque life styles and more often change their sex partner. The high number of HIV/AIDS infections proves and underlines this fact.
And a child needs a father and a mother. Said enough that this isn´t always the case. But two fathers and two mothers??? That is just unnatural. A child needs a person from both sexes and not just from one. Males and females have different abilities.
A child certainly doesn´t need to have two fathers who have sex which each other and are presented as a role-model to the child.
So: of course: I´m against gay marriage as well as against gays adopting children.

And just because I don´t agree with you, you don´t have the right to attack me personally.


Weeeeeeeell, you just invalidated your relevance in this topic since you're... oh yeah... not american... soooo thanks and goodnight.

I accept your apology. Though I never demonised minorities. However I advocated a more restrictive immigration policy. By the way: the immigration policy of most European countries has become much more restrictive in the last about 10-12 years. That includes - fortunately - my country as well. And I endorse that.

Okay - this is what I viewed as deminising a minority.... perhaps you see it differently.

"Oh yes. Why don´t we allow female teachers to wear the Burqa???? And hell, I have an idea - in order to avoid "discrimination" of muslim women why don´t we make the burqa compulsory for women, heh???
OH God, your left-wing multi-cultural advocates are really fucking stupid. Should we wait and see the further rise of Islamism in Europe??? And just don´t pretend it isn´t there because it is there: in France, Britain, Germany, Spain, Netherlans, Austria.
We need to crack down on them. I don´t have anything against Islam. But those muslim here have to adapt to our culture and to interprete their religion in a way that is in accordance with democracy and pluralism. And there is a not unsignificant minority that doesn´t do that. We have to crack down on them. Who isn´t willing to integrate should leave the country. "

Others on this thread have been saying you are a most logical and capable debater - for which I have nothing but the greatest respect. There can never be too many incisive and inquisitve minds. Perhaps it is a shame we crashed head to head on this subject - but it is one that is demonising a whole section of the world's communities, and I think it too important to let ignorance reign supreme.... which, unfortunately, it does far too much on some of these threads. I was not intending to attack you specifically.

I appreciate your position, and, if more people would demand some evidence either way, most of these threads would have become irrelevent.

(By the way - I know... I'm married to a Georgia Cherokee).

Well...in that case...brother if you still live in the Georgia area, she needs to make sure she gets herself up to our home on the Qualla Reservation in the Smokies...it's the beginning of the Ritual Ceremony time and she should at least make one...

Okay - this is what I viewed as deminising a minority.... perhaps you see it differently.
"Oh yes. Why don´t we allow female teachers to wear the Burqa???? And hell, I have an idea - in order to avoid "discrimination" of muslim women why don´t we make the burqa compulsory for women, heh???
OH God, your left-wing multi-cultural advocates are really fucking stupid. Should we wait and see the further rise of Islamism in Europe??? And just don´t pretend it isn´t there because it is there: in France, Britain, Germany, Spain, Netherlans, Austria.
We need to crack down on them. I don´t have anything against Islam. But those muslim here have to adapt to our culture and to interprete their religion in a way that is in accordance with democracy and pluralism. And there is a not unsignificant minority that doesn´t do that. We have to crack down on them. Who isn´t willing to integrate should leave the country. "
That is rather a demonisation of the political left. And a bit polemic. Well: and it is a demonisation of the Islamists. But they are demons - they are a thread to all of us. I have never said: all Muslims are islamists. Some are though. AND WE NEED TO CRACK DOWN ON THEM.
The fact that you see that as a problem shows that you can´t distinguish between them. I spoke explicitly about a minority group among the muslim group - you can read that I you would look again on it. And yes: I want to crack down on this minority among muslims which spreads islamism and islamists ideology and who pose a thread to the free and open society. Tolerance is good but not towards the intolerant.

Originally posted by Chess Squares:"gay peopel are gay"

Hmmmmmmmm.......Maybe, just maybe, that could possibly be the reason that they are known as...gay?! Naaa, it couldn't be, could it? And what are peopel?
I would also like to point out: NOBODY HAS ACTUALLY GIVEN A GOOD REASON FOR BEING OPPOSED TO GAY MARRIAGE!!! WHAT'S SO WRONG WITH IT?!

PS-I would like everyone to know that I am not gay.

Salishe,

You have stated that none of the Native American societies that you know of every recognized homosexual marriage, and I am sure that that is true. However, you have also stated (in a different thread) that "two-spirited" people were seen as being blessed, so obviously the tribes were not *against* them. Were these people allowed to pursue relationships in peace?

My real question, however, is if there was a concept of secular marriage in these societies? To my [limited] knowledge, there was not. A man and a woman got permission from whoever it was they needed permission from, the duties of a husband and wife were detailed to them, and they were married, but moreso in the religion sense. In a tribal society, I can not see where there would be a call for a secular marriage, as there were no income taxes or inheritance taxes. If someone was widowed and could not take care of themselves, the tribe took care of them. If someone was not married but for whatever reason could not take care of themselves, the tribe took care of them. Please correct me if I am wrong on any of this, but was there ever a need for a secular view of marriage in tribal society?

Salishe,

You have stated that none of the Native American societies that you know of every recognized homosexual marriage, and I am sure that that is true. However, you have also stated (in a different thread) that "two-spirited" people were seen as being blessed, so obviously the tribes were not *against* them. Were these people allowed to pursue relationships in peace?

My real question, however, is if there was a concept of secular marriage in these societies? To my [limited] knowledge, there was not. A man and a woman got permission from whoever it was they needed permission from, the duties of a husband and wife were detailed to them, and they were married, but moreso in the religion sense. In a tribal society, I can not see where there would be a call for a secular marriage, as there were no income taxes or inheritance taxes. If someone was widowed and could not take care of themselves, the tribe took care of them. If someone was not married but for whatever reason could not take care of themselves, the tribe took care of them. Please correct me if I am wrong on any of this, but was there ever a need for a secular view of marriage in tribal society?


Some of the tribes viewed Homosexual/Bisexuals as possesed of "two-spirits", they would place a bow/arrow and a mixing bowl in a circle, lite a fire around the circle...to determine which spirit held sway in that person..male or female, the bow/arrow symbolizing maleness, and the mixing bowl symbolizing feminity...the elders would then tell the child they could take one item from the fire only...to determine which spirit was dominant..as far as pursuing relationships...I am unaware of any repurcussions, some might have a social stigma attached...but then again, some were considered sages, sorcerers, and healers..different tribes held different views...

And there were definite inheritances..the Sioux were shrewd traders, a wealthy person might be seen as one having more ponies or items taken in war.

As far as the tribes taking care of their own..this is true..but it is also true they practiced infanticide for those that were weak...and the elderly would go on an American version of the Australian walkabout...when they knew it was time to die..they simply packed up and left.

In summary...I don't believe it mattered any difference between religous and secular...the marriage might have been sanctified by the bride's father but there was no need to have a priest or shaman perform a ceremony, marriage was practical-minded.

No..I didn't miss your point...but as far as the entry into the US, he contacted his AIDS not thru sex with a woman, but thru a homosexual male. The disease did not originate between heterosexual sex, otherwise this virus would have been around for millenia..

Bzzzt. Wrong!
This disease BEGAN IN AFRICA...as a result of acts of bestility with green monkeys. AND, another interesting fact...AIDS first became known to exist in Africa right about the same time we officially wiped out smallpox!
could it be that nature, seeing as we conquered one disease (smallpox) decided to give us another disease, AIDS, to make up for that, and to continue to have a chack and balance on our numbers?

Originally Posted by Kybernetia
NO TO GAY MARRIAGE.

Marriage is to be between one man and one woman. That´s common law and aside of that that is also Roman law.

Marriage and family are linked close together. Therefore it must be possible for the partners to form a family with children and give them a father and a mother.


I only saw this because someone else quoted it..Kybernatia is on my Ignore list for a good reason.

How many times do I have to shoot down this argument??

"Therefore it must be possible for the partners to form a family with children and give them a father and a mother."
Fine, then...ban all sterile and infertile heteros from marrying. Ban all post-menopausal women and impotent men from marrying. Ban all women who've had a hysterectomy for medical reasons, or their tubes tied by choice, from marrying. Ban all men who've had vasectomies from marrying. Ban marriage of any couple who does not intend to have children.
Until you do that, your argument falls down like a house of cards, it fails to hold water. It just goes to show what a bigot you are, and to what lengths you will go to hold on to your comfortable prejudices.

I KNEW there was a reason I'd put you on my Ignore list. I have no use for people like you. Good day. Go back to the rock from under which you crawled.

Granted..there is no way we could confirm that assertion..then again it can not be disproved..in the absence of any evidence that indicates it traveled to the heterosexual community first I must concur that it originated within the homosexual community via the original bestiality communication.
Hmm...since you didn't even KNOW...until I said so, that AIDS had begun with an act of bestiality...how would you know if that act was a hetero or homo act of bestiality?
How do you know the man who first fucked a monkey hadn't fucked a female monkey, instead of a male monkey...thus making it an act of HETERO bestiality??

No..actually..it was confirmed..Patient Zero..as far as bringing it into the States was a bisexual male..a French-Canadian airline steward...

And since you can offer up no evidence to prove it originated in the heterosexual community..once again..I must go with what I know...that it orignated thru acts of bestiality...

You didn't even know THAT until I pointed it out!

I am opposed to gay marriage for one reason. It allows a gay couple to adopt children if they are given FULL benefits of marriage. If they weren't allowed to adopt kids, I would be for it.

Because we ALL KNOW that a child is far better off in an orphanage or an institution where they get no love or support...they are better off being shuttled from foster family to foster family...forever unwanted and unloved...than they are being adopted by (shudder) a loving homosexual couple that would actually WANT and LOVE that child. Heaven forbid we should allow THAT!!

Not a Wiccan...I am a Cherokee Indian who faithfully has kept his people's culture and ways...our ways date back on the North American continent as far back as 20,000 yrs ago..at no time did we endorse homosexual marriage. None of the tribes have.

And while a religous group..the Wiccans (who btw are a relatively renewed interests in it)....it still is not a civilization..As far as Thessaly goes..I can't refute that because frankly I haven't read up on it..but since you brought it up...I shall attempt to review what material I have found on it.

Cherokee, huh? Then you MUST know something of the winkte?? And you must know that, in your original culture, before Westerners poisoned it...that transgender people such as myself were actually REVERED...we were the herbalists and healers, the siritual advisers...because we were possessed of the ability to see both sides.

Excuse me..but you'd have a tough time getting minorities to accept this viewpoint...I don't recall any national black organization of any stature endorsing homosexual marriage..in fact...most blacks I know are rather ticked that gays would piggyback themselves onto their struggle...

And WE are ticked that they are ticked. And WE are ticked that they are now rubbing shoulders with the very people who, forty years ago, used the SAME arguments against them...and mowed them down with fire-hoses in Selma and other places.
and WE are ticked that they have so short a memory that they forget plenty of gay people marched right alongside them, facing the fire hoses and the batons with them...in order that THEY get their rights...after all, we knew it was right!
NOW, the contemporary African-American, who is too young to remember what living under Jim Crow felt like...are ticked at us for demanding to be treated as equally as all other humans. WTF????

What is this crap with the need to belittle someone?...what you have is assertion and wishful thinking..."it could"..or "maybe"...which has as much credibility as Nixon saying he wasn't a crook....Look..I'm going purely on what I've read..basic medical and scientific journals..a few back up your claim but just as many back up mine...til I read irrefutable evidence basing your opinion is correct..I must accept my opinion as in line with current medical thought.

Because your opinion supports the conclusion you want to produce!

There is not a shred of evidence out there to support the theory that "sexual intercourse" of any kind was involved in the crossover of "a possible precursor" of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus.

Let me clue you in on this, Salishe and Labrador, because you are both vastly misinformed. A definitive 10 year study, published in 2003, by Paul Sharp of Nottingham University and Beatrice Hahn of the University of Alabama, shows that the most likely mechanism is that wild chimpanzees (specifically, Pan troglodytes troglodytes from west-central Africa) became coinfected with two differing types of Simian Immunodeficiency Virus which then experienced a crossover event to produce a genotype that could infect humans.

This new emergant strain was then allowed into the human population by ingestion of chimpanzees rather than sexual intercourse with them. To suggest that someone "first got AIDS by fucking a chimp" is as stupid and baiting as to say someone got Spongiform Encephalitus from having sex with a cow suffering from "Mad Cow Disease". While sexual intercourse may have become a transmission mechanism, it had no inception in sex, gender or orientation at all.

If you are aware of a different study, Salishe or Labrador, by all means post a cite. Until you have one, please don't make baseless assumptions and try to portray them as science. It's offensive and wrong.

That is rather a demonisation of the political left. And a bit polemic. Well: and it is a demonisation of the Islamists. But they are demons - they are a thread to all of us. I have never said: all Muslims are islamists. Some are though. AND WE NEED TO CRACK DOWN ON THEM.
The fact that you see that as a problem shows that you can´t distinguish between them. I spoke explicitly about a minority group among the muslim group - you can read that I you would look again on it. And yes: I want to crack down on this minority among muslims which spreads islamism and islamists ideology and who pose a thread to the free and open society. Tolerance is good but not towards the intolerant.

Some christians are extremists. We should kill them all.

"Tolerance is good as long as I agree with it"
Sorry, i disagree with that idea, and therefore I should CRACK DOWN ON YOU

"Some Muslims are 'islamists'" People who practice the religion of Islam are called Muslims. Someone doesn't know their stuff.

"They are demons." "I'm not religious"
http://www.sirene.gr/~md/Covers/2004/Hypocrisy-TheArrival.jpg

Some christians are extremists. We should kill them all.
"Tolerance is good as long as I agree with it"
Sorry, i disagree with that idea, and therefore I should CRACK DOWN ON YOU
"Some Muslims are 'islamists'" People who practice the religion of Islam are called Muslims. Someone doesn't know their stuff.
"They are demons." "I'm not religious"
http://www.sirene.gr/~md/Covers/2004/Hypocrisy-TheArrival.jpg
I don´t like people quoting statements of me out of context. By doing that you can always - with every person- turn statements around and give them a completly different meaning. I call that manipulation. And by the way: I didn´t say: ""Tolerance is good as long as I agree with it" I said : Tolerance is good but not against the intolerant. For that reason my country - Germany - for example bans Nazi parties and symbols and music. And islamism is an extremist ideology which wants to undermine and overthrow free and open societies. We have a right to defend ourselves against it.
And by the way: follower of this radical interpretation of Islam call themselves Islamists. They are a minority among muslims. But they are dangerous - just look on what happend in your country on 9/11 - and we have to crack down on them.

People love the idea of separating the church from the state. They can do what they want with their members amd their god. Good stuff.

But whatever happened to separating the state from the church? 90% of religious people try to adhere to the guidelines of their religion as strictly as they can. Im not saying its bad to have rules. I consider myself a christian, but more in the sense of believeing Jesus' message of love than believing the miracles in a biased scripture. But this is a purely logical debate, and the reasoning should be kept to that. If any church can say "gay marriage offends me" and the government responds, then our democracy is a puppet and we are in a dictatorship. Theres no separation in that. The government is there for the people, not the institutions. Stomping out peoples emotions because you dont like them sounds like creating a master race to me. Not my cup of tea.

Judging from peoples descriptions of his actions and beliefs, Jesus wouldnt be a lobbyist. Why should the tribes of people who follow him be?

Also, a big glowing hand didnt split the heavens and scribble on some parchment. The bible was written by HUMANS with no science. Just a human example and some fables. Thus it can only be logically accepted as both fiction and biography. And ive learned some good stuff from fiction and biography in the past, and i try to live by it. And i reguard religious texts the same way. Why not take the message of love and use it to promote freedom from opression instead of focusing on each contradictory sentence? Love is what its all about. And if anyone claims they can restrict love with law, theyre smoking something fun. The government is there to restrict WORLDLY harm to people and to promote WORLDLY justice and happiness among its people. Since someomes marriage isnt doing anything to anyone else worldy, then it only makes logical sense for gay marriage to be legal. If it isnt, then too bad. It isnt going to stop the love two people will feel for each other. And if you try to stomp that out, youve lost americas heart and soul.

I tried to keep as much of my personal stuff out of here because it just brings down the logic, which is what it should be about. hope i did a good enough job. I think its enough to know im an avid equal rights supporter.

Quick question, how did a thread about gay marriage become about terrorism and it's links to Islam?

Wow. There are some sit down, stand up die hard people committed to the thread. Something I have yet to see, in all of this is a good sense of fundamental logic coming from the anti-gay side. That is to say none of your arguments have a launching point, with out tyeing religion, or wacky (yes wacky) scenarios in. See your problem is that you assume every one has the same view and out look on the world that you and your comrades (yes in my view your all communists, and it makes sense to me, even though its based off of wacky logic). Now do you like been called something that your not... Surly you have a hundred reasons that your not a red wearing commie son of a bitch? And see thats what its like when I read your arguments. Lots of dumb logic, I personally don't understand, and can't comprehend, (ie not being religious). See because if I said I had a base that well intruding into peoples love live is so '1984' or sooo 'communist' your all going to think I'm wacky in the head. But hey By some kind of weird twisted stand point, I'm very right! Just like you all think you are. So now thats your all ruffled up, and ready to bite into my communist theory with your wacky logic vs my wacky logic. Just remember its all wacky in the end! You wacky people. See it sucks when some one mays a dumb, but to them point full argument.

Then tell me how.

How do you crack down on them?

**doorbell rings**
"Hello sir, I was just wondering. Are you, by any chance, an islamic fundamentalist who hates the western world?"
"Why, yes, I am! Is this a survey? I love surveys!"
"Yesssss, survey...NAIL HIM!"

**large people wearing mostly black and mostly leather grab said person and stuff him into van**

**goes to the next house, doorbell ring**
"Hello sir, I was just wondering..."

You know what, Stuart, I LIKE YOU. You're not like the other
people, here, in the trailer park.

Oh, don't go get me wrong. They're fine people, they're
good Americans. But they're content to sit back, maybe
watch a little Mork and Mindy on channel 57, maybe kick
back a cool, Coors 16-ouncer. They're good, fine people,
Stuart. But they don't know ... what the queers are doing
to the soil!

You know that Jonny Wurster kid, the kid that delivers papers
in the neighborhood. He's a foreign kid. Some of the neighbors
say he smokes crack, but I don't believe it.

Anyway, for his tenth birthday, all he wanted was a Burrow Owl.
Kept bugging his old man. "Dad, get me a burrow owl. I'll never
ask for anything else as long as I live." So the guy
breaks down and buys him a burrow owl.

Anyway, 10:30, the other night, I go out in my yard, and there's
the Wurster kid, looking up in the tree. I say, "What are
you looking for?" He says "I'm looking for my burrow owl."
I say, "Jumping Jesus on a Pogo Stick. Everybody knows
the burrow owl lives. In a hole. In the ground. Why the hell do you
think they call it a burrow owl, anyway?" Now Stuart, do you
think a kid like that is going to know what the queers are
doing to the soil?

I first became aware of this about ten years ago, the summer
my oldest boy, Bill Jr. died. You know that carnival comes into
town every year? Well this year they came through with a ride
called The Mixer. The man said, "Keep your head, and arms, inside
the Mixer at all times." But Bill Jr, he was a DAAAREDEVIL, just
like his old man. He was leaning out saying "Hey everybody,
Look at me! Look at me!" Pow! He was decapitated! They found
his head over by the snow cone concession.

A few days after that, I open up the mail. And there's a pamphlet
in there. From Pueblo, Colorado, and it's addressed to Bill, Jr.
And it's entitled, "Do you know what the queers are doing to our
soil?"

Now, Stuart, if you look at the soil around any large US city,
there's a big undeground homosexual population. Des Moines, Iowa,
for an example. Look at the soil around Des Moines, Stuart.
You can't build on it; you can't grow anything in it. The government
says it's due to poor farming. But I know what's really going on,
Stuart. I know it's the queers. They're in it with the aliens.
They're building landing strips for gay Martians, I swear to
God.

You know what, Stuart, I like you. You're not like the other
people, here in this trailer park.

--"Stuart" by The Dead Milkmen from their album Beelzebubba

Kaybit has some kickass wisdom there.

We're all wacky. There will probably never be an end to wackiness.

But you might as well be wacky and defend something with reason and valor in your microsecond of life. Otherwise, its kinda hopeless. and thats not something i like.

Then tell me how.
How do you crack down on them?
**doorbell rings**
"Hello sir, I was just wondering. Are you, by any chance, an islamic fundamentalist who hates the western world?"
"Why, yes, I am! Is this a survey? I love surveys!"
"Yesssss, survey...NAIL HIM!"
."
Hahaha. I´m not the police. But there needs to be a closer cooperation between police, secret services and human intelligence. And we know a lot:
We know people making hate-speech against the west - particulary the US. My country -left-wing government by the way - just passed a law in a great consensus with the conservatives about immigration which also incluedes the fight against terrorism. Hate-speakers can be pushed out of the country, people with dubious background are refused access to come to the country and there is to be a ban-list for islamists to come to the country. Furthernmore the secret service information is going to be sent to the foreigners offices - which deals with that stuff. For those already in there are problems of course. But if they are foreign nationals they can now be pushed out into their homeland (if that is possible). If not that is problematic though. Unfortunately the suggestion to take them into protective custody for up to two years isn´t possible. But they may be restrictions imposed on them regarding freedom of movement.
So, there are possibilities. Goverment has just banned several islamists instituitions. The tolerance to the intolerant has to end.

Leviticus 18:22 people-

[In reference to a man} You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female;it is an abomination.

Leviticus 18:22 people-

[In reference to a man} You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female;it is an abomination.

http://www.wackyweaselworld.com/flameINC/images/red8.jpg

Next time, read the thread.

Now - All you Anti's - I want replies to this:
The term 'marriage' should apply to the religious ceremony ONLY. Civil unions (that is the part supported by the government) should be applied to BOTH types of union (gay *and* straight).
Thus, after you heterosexuals fill out the forms at the registry office for your non-discriminatory civil union, you can trot off to the church of your choosing and get 'married', officially in the eyes of your god. Gays can do the same thing; *provided* they can find a church willing to marry them. NO CHURCH SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO RECOGNISE A UNION OR A MARRIAGE PERFORMED BY ANOTHER CHURCH, but the government must recognise ALL the civil unions.

Fair compromise? Any intelligent comments from the anti's are welcome and awaited with eagerness.Bravo! Best solution yet, and clearly clarifies between state marriage and relgious marriage.

http://www.wackyweaselworld.com/flameINC/images/red8.jpg

Next, read the thread.
Hey, aren´t you "discriminating" against blind people by making fun of them. Poor Gordy La Forge - spelling?. You are violating the code of the "political correctness" of the political left. The same code you are supporting through your irresponsable support of gay marriage.

No..I didn't miss your point...but as far as the entry into the US, he contacted his AIDS not thru sex with a woman, but thru a homosexual male. The disease did not originate between heterosexual sex, otherwise this virus would have been around for millenia..That makes no sense. The disease wouldn't have been around for millenia, seeing as it could be spread through both heterosexual and homosexual relations. The only reason it happened to appear then was not because of more homosexual relations, which have been around for as long as heterosexual relaitons, thank you very much, but because some people in Africa were fooling around with monkeys, and then spread the disease having heterosexual intercourse. The only reason it spread faster through the homosexual community was because at the time, the gay community was far more promiscuous and filled with less stable relationships, in part a direct rebellion to the heterosexual community which despised them. Now, things have changed, and they are less promiscuous and more stable as they try to achieve the same marriage rights that the heterosexual couples enjoy.

I do stand up for what I know is right. So ya: As a small business owning, tax paying, collage student (because while I might have a business that lets me live well, I still like my education) as well as a lesbian. I most likely have done a ton more in my 20 years alive then most people. But there is one thing I very much want to do and thats marry the person I love. Not just because it symbolizes a further form our commitment to each other, but because its an expression of how strong our love is. I have no religious views, I like to stand on neutral grounds when it comes to people talking about religion. Still being married to the girl I love with all my heart has a meaning to me. Now marriage to me is probably something totally different then the religious view of it, but yes it means something to me. And even if its not recognized by the state I'm still going to do it. I've been told I'm evil and a bad person, and stabbed by my own mother for what I feel. I don't understand much about your crazy religious views and quoting some old books and THINKING that some people care about what they say abut who';s not to lie with who. Your not suppose to sacrifice your brother Able. The eye of Gehenna is upon us... Or what ever. I do under stand that most religions don't preach hate, and hate is what your doing. I don't really hate... so I guess I'm better then you hu?

No..actually..it was confirmed..Patient Zero..as far as bringing it into the States was a bisexual male..a French-Canadian airline steward...

And since you can offer up no evidence to prove it originated in the heterosexual community..once again..I must go with what I know...that it orignated thru acts of bestiality,and from there to the homosexual..barring evidence presented to me indicating otherwise..not saying it couldn't..but I've seen no evidence to contradict this widely held medical viewpoint.Patient Zero was the first comfirmed patient of AIDS in America. But not necessarily the first case of AIDS that was ever in America. Just the first they ever treated and could conclusively prove that that was what it was. There is also no evidence to really prove that he was conclusively the first person to ever have AIDS in America. You just can't prove that. There's so many people who have come and gone, you just can't track it.

You are polemic. But of course there can be situations where the state has to take the children away from the parents because they are not able to care for them: for example if they are drug addicts in a progressed stage, e.g.
May be a relative can take custody then. But if that isn´t possible an orphanage is better than leaving the children under this conditions.Did you just say an orphanage is better than having two, loving, adoptive gay parents. What the hell is wrong with you?

My country -left-wing government by the way - just passed a law in a great consensus with the conservatives about immigration which also incluedes the fight against terrorism.

Oh Dear God, he's German - man, that is embarassing. My apologies, we're not all like him.

PS: The Government may be left-winged by American standards, but in Germany they're not considered left-winged anymore. More centralist.

Did you just say an orphanage is better than having two, loving, adoptive gay parents. What the hell is wrong with you?
.
Yes: those children would suffer tremendously under their homosexual foster parents and the normal reaction of the environment to this "family". So: don´t use poor children as guiny pigs for the gay lobby.

Oh Dear God, he's German - man, that is embarassing. My apologies, we're not all like him.
PS: The government may be left-winged by American standards, but in Germany they're not considered left-winged anymore. More centralist.
They are left-wing still, though not extrem left-wing like Lafontaine who left politics though.
Just look to the Iraq policy and to the "citizen insurance". Just another way to take the money from the hard working people who work a little more, for the people with little savings, for the middle class.
They are left-wing and are hopefully being replaced by a centre-right government in 2006.
Well: you don´t need to apologize for me. I won´t apologize for you or for the anti-american Gigatron either. I´m only responsible for my own action not for yours.

They are left-wing still, though not extrem left-wing like Lafontaine who left politics though.

Having read this thread I understand that you see it that way. But not everything left of your own political position is actually left-winged.

Yes: those children would suffer tremendously under their homosexual foster parents and the normal reaction of the environment to this "family". So: don´t use poor children as guiny pigs for the gay lobby.

there are already children who have been raised in same sex households. and they're just fine. more open-minded when it comes to sexual orientations, and not all of them are gay 90% aren't... similarly with the general population.

Yes: those children would suffer tremendously under their homosexual foster parents and the normal reaction of the environment to this "family". So: don´t use poor children as guiny pigs for the gay lobby.

Your an iddiot lady.