NationStates Jolt Archive

ho·mo·sex·u·al ** *P* ** Pronunciation Key **(h m-s ksh -l, -m -)
adj.
Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.

every priest,and pervert guy who ever molested a little boy is a homosexual.You are dangerously close to entering the ignore filter. Post something useful. And just because you had relations once with same sex won't necessarily make you a homosexual. If that was the truth, we'd have a lot higher percentage of gays in this country, I'll tell you that.

hahaha
Shure. According to whom? According to your own subjective judgements and the subjective judgements of your "friends" here.

No, they haven´t.Yes they have. You haven't given one argument that hasn't been dispproved yet. The only one you have left is your precious slippery slope argument which you cling to with all the hope you have left.

hahaha
Shure. According to whom? According to your own subjective judgements and the subjective judgements of your "friends" here.

No, they haven´t.

http://www.ferratermora.org/photographer/images/glasses.jpg

These are for you, since apparently you can't see/read

You are dangerously close to entering the ignore filter. Post something useful. And just because you had relations once with same sex won't necessarily make you a homosexual. If that was the truth, we'd have a lot higher percentage of gays in this country, I'll tell you that.


Post something YOU deem useful? Why don't you get chatroom and talk
to yourself and agree with yourself, It's not a debate when you only
talk to people who only tell you how right you are.
go to Dictionary.com You are arguing with it, not me.

hahaha
Shure. According to whom? According to your own subjective judgements and the subjective judgements of your "friends" here.

No, they haven´t.

Then why don't you point out which arguments are still open and why?

:rolleyes: Yeah, that logic, so subjective. Either disprove peoples' arguments against you or admit that you have nothing but your own feelings to yell about. I've not seen a single point you've put forth stand up by anything but your repetition of it. If your point doesn't stand up to logical evaluation, here's a clue - IT'S NOT LOGICAL, and you have no point!

Post something YOU deem useful? Why don't you get chatroom and talk
to yourself and agree with yourself, It's not a debate when you only
talk to people who only tell you how right you are.
go to Dictionary.com You are arguing with it, not me.OMG! IT speaks! I'm not agreeing with myself. I'm telling you that you're pointless. So far your one source has been dictionary.com and nothing else. Your statistics are wrong, and you're not even helping to contribute to the debate. You sitting there, giggling like a 12 year old, which you damn well might be, as you make up things, and post as much anti-gay stuff as your enfeebled brain can. You give me some good, clear hard evidence, and some speech which requires thought to make, and I'll lay off your case. Until then, shut the heck up.

Then why don't you point out which arguments are still open and why? Oooh, ooh! I see where this is going! He'll just tell you to scroll up/back and read since they've already been mentioned a billion of times... :P He's so predictable/

And you think it should be determined according to your subjective opinion?
I would say it should follow the law. And the law is since many centuries of years: one man and one woman form a marriage.
If you want to change that it is you who need a consistent argument for it. And that has not been presented.

No, I think it should be determined based on a logical analysis of rights and laws, one which your side has yet to present. Citing tradition has no merit. I want concrete reasons why, today, gay marriage should be illegal. I don't respect tradition, it's nothing but past events. I prefer to actually think about issues, and I'd expect laws to be based in thought, not ignorant fear of change.

Yes they have. You haven't given one argument that hasn't been dispproved yet. The only one you have left is your precious slippery slope argument which you cling to with all the hope you have left.
No, you can´t say that. You haven´t read all my arguments which I´ve posted in several threads on many times about the issue.
And my arguments have in no way been disproven. I´ve repeatetly pointed out the difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Equality doesn´t mean to treat everything the same but to treat the same thing the same way and different things differently.
This argument has in no way be disproven.
And therefore it is logical that there ought to be no gay marriage since marriage is between one man and one woman (who are theoretically able to form a family).

OMG! IT speaks! I'm not agreeing with myself. I'm telling you that you're pointless. So far your one source has been dictionary.com and nothing else. Your statistics are wrong, and you're not even helping to contribute to the debate. You sitting there, giggling like a 12 year old, which you damn well might be, as you make up things, and post as much anti-gay stuff as your enfeebled brain can. You give me some good, clear hard evidence, and some speech which requires thought to make, and I'll lay off your case. Until then, shut the heck up.


Oh, so angry, anger = bias. You will never hear anything anyone has to
say because you wont evaluate it w/out bias.

No, I think it should be determined based on a logical analysis of rights and laws, one which your side has yet to present. Citing tradition has no merit. I want concrete reasons why, today, gay marriage should be illegal. I don't respect tradition, it's nothing but past events. I prefer to actually think about issues, and I'd expect laws to be based in thought, not ignorant fear of change.
In your legal system tradition (former precedents) play a key role, though. So it makes sense to point that out (in contrast to where I´m from).
And I have made an argument on it the post before.

Ah-nold says you ah all Girlie Men!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37077

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/13/wgay13.xml

http://www.stateline.org/stateline/?pa=story&sa=showStoryInfo&id=353058

These are just a couple of the links I found regarding California and banning gay marriage. Hopes this helps Anbar.

Yup, pretty much says what I already knew - there's a law in place, not a constitutional ban. Laws can be toppled, and should be, since such laws are unconstitutional.

Homosexuals make up 3% of the nation,
68% of all serial killers are homosexual

riiiight...and where did you pull those numbers from?

according to the FBI, serial killers are predominantly heterosexual, with only about 4% of serial killers identifying as homosexual. most serial killers have serious mental disorders that make questions about their orientation a little murky, but less than 10% of serial killers report EVER having engaged in homosexual activity, and 30% of those who said they had reported that the homosexual contact was in the form of a childhood abuse episode (making it actually a case of pedophilic rape rather than homosexual contact).

interestingly, if we accept your number that homosexuals are 3% of the population, then we must be shocked by the fact that over 98% of sexual assaults are by heterosexual men. especially since 50% of homosexuals are female, so that means that homosexuals are less than half as likely to rape as heterosexuals.

I prefer to actually think about issues, and I'd expect laws to be based in thought, not ignorant fear of change.
Fear of change is not ignorant. Or do you think change is always good?????
It is on the conterary right to be critical on changes. Things can change for worse after all.
As a conservative I say: the burden of prove for changes lays on those who demand it. And the haven´t presented any convincing and consistent arguments for it.

Absolutely! And never forget, we were smart enough to vote for a dead man over Ashcroft.

Amen!! I want that on a t-shirt.

I voted for the dead guy!!

In your legal system tradition (former precedents) play a key role, though. So it makes sense to point that out (in contrast to where I´m from).
And I have made an argument on it the post before.

You called it, Felkarth. I guess all that's left for us to do is stare in awe at all these unbeaten arguments that he made at some time in the vague past. Heaven help us, we are lost!

Let's see, wo which is more subjective, Kyber - numerous refutations over 69 pages of the arguments you've made, or your own mind in determining that these arguments are, somehow, still valid?

Fear of change is not ignorant. Or do you think change is always good?????
It is on the conterary right to be critical on changes. Things can change for worse after all.
As a conservative I say: the burden of prove for changes lays on those who demand it. And the haven´t presented any convincing and consistent arguments for it.

Fear of change with no other basis for rejecting it is ignorant. Such people are ignorant primates, huddling together fearfully at the sight of the shadows dancing on the cave walls. Resorting to citing history is admitting that you have to stop thinking to hold a position on this issue. One should be wary of change, and that means thinking about it on its own merits, not your own preconceived notions of it, nor how you perceive history in backing you up. So far, I've seen nothing but the latter from you. Your arguments defeated, you start grumbling about history, until such time when people forget and you can exhume your defeated argument and say, "Well, I made successful arguments about it in the past, on many thread!"

And, let me again point out, nothing you've said has stood up to scrutiny here, and I don't really care if that has sunken in yet or not.

You called it, Felkarth. I guess all that's left for us to do is stare in awe at all these unbeaten arguments that he made at some time in the vague past. Heaven help us, we are lost!

Let's see, wo which is more subjective, Kyber - numerous refutations over 69 pages of the arguments you've made, or your own mind in determining that these arguments are, somehow, still valid?
Sorry but my arguments were NOT disproven regardless of bombardements of insult directed against me by the gay-lobby. But this can´t be considered as disproving my arguments.
You may not agree with me but that doesn´t prove their arguments or your arguments to be correct.

Amen!! I want that on a t-shirt.

I voted for the dead guy!!

I'd heard about that vote a long time ago, and I was both amused and encouraged that a bad candidate could be defeated by a dead man. Now, all that fades into horror finding out that the candidate is John Ashcroft. No wonder he looks so dour.

Sorry but my arguments were NOT disproven regardless of bombardements of insult directed against me by the gay-lobby. But this can´t be considered as disproving my arguments.
You may not agree with me but that doesn´t prove their arguments or your arguments to be correct.

Blah blah blah - 30 pages later I check in on this thread, and you've said nothing different, including this little rant about how you've been insulted and how no one has disproven your arguments. Here's a clue - I watched Bottle break down one, and I saw a couple others laid to ruin the last time I checked in. Let's see.

Claim: None of my arguments have been disproven! They're just insulting me!
Fact: My own observations have show at least 2 of your arguments beaten with logic, and insults only following after you deny it. And guess what? You keep saying the same damn things! Hmm...the claim has thus been shown false, and you are:

[IGNORED]

Good luck with those shadows. ;)

Thank you. You are the second pro-gay-marriage-activists who stated to ignore me. Then do it: Happy to hear about that. Though the first one hasn´t kept his promise. Hope you do and not to hear from you again.

No, you can´t say that. You haven´t read all my arguments which I´ve posted in several threads on many times about the issue.
And my arguments have in no way been disproven. I´ve repeatetly pointed out the difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Equality doesn´t mean to treat everything the same but to treat the same thing the same way and different things differently.
This argument has in no way be disproven.
And therefore it is logical that there ought to be no gay marriage since marriage is between one man and one woman (who are theoretically able to form a family).Actually, I have been reading most of the threads you've been involved in, so you can't make assumptions that I haven't.

Homosexuality and Heterosexuality just aren't that different in order to merit different treatment. Just like white and black aren't that different. You have been disproven. And your arguement about people being able to form families doesn't hold true because older people and infertile couples can't form families either. So that argument falls. Anything else? Because your arguments aren't stable.

Oh, so angry, anger = bias. You will never hear anything anyone has to
say because you wont evaluate it w/out bias.Anger=bias? Are you on drugs? I've heard everything everyone has said. You just haven't said anything of merit, and that's what I'm talking about. At least Kyber makes an attempt to give logical arguments. You just sit there and pull stuff out of your ass and not back it up.

Actually, I have been reading most of the threads you've been involved in, so you can't make assumptions that I haven't.

Homosexuality and Heterosexuality just aren't that different in order to merit different treatment. Just like white and black aren't that different. You have been disproven. And your arguement about <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=people&v=56">people</a> being able to form families doesn't hold true because older <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=people&v=56">people</a> and infertile couples can't form families either. So that argument falls. Anything else? Because your arguments aren't stable.
It is stable. Most children are still born in families.
And most marriages have children.
The fact that there are exceptions doesn´t disprove the rule.
Another argument is that this would of course encourage homosexuality. And that is wrong, morally wrong. But you don´t see it that way because you are liberal and think everything is "equal". Why not allowing paedophilia or polygamy then??? Or incestous relationships?
No: it is you who have no argument for destroying the instituition of marriage which you want to do.

It is stable. Most children are still born in families.
And most marriages have children.
The fact that there are exceptions doesn´t disprove the rule.
Another argument is that this would of course encourage homosexuality. And that is wrong, morally wrong. But you don´t see it that way because you are liberal and think everything is "equal". Why not allowing paedophilia or polygamy then??? Or incestous relationships?
No: it is you who have no argument for destroying the instituition of marriage which you want to do.
do the homophobes only have slippery slope reasoning

do the homophobes only have slippery slope reasoning

No, they just have good moral reasoning.

No, they just have good moral reasoning.
really the only damn thing i've seen is slippery slope

Gay marriage will be the death of the family is we know it. Gay and lesbian activists will try to force new reterict onto the straight majority.

Homosexuality is immoral and corrupt and I won't take that back because it is the truth.

It is stable. Most children are still born in families.
And most marriages have children.
The fact that there are exceptions doesn´t disprove the rule.
Another argument is that this would of course encourage homosexuality. And that is wrong, morally wrong. But you don´t see it that way because you are liberal and think everything is "equal". Why not allowing paedophilia or polygamy then??? Or incestous relationships?
No: it is you who have no argument for destroying the instituition of marriage which you want to do.See, now this is proof that you don't listen to any of the arguments against you. Just because something is the majority doesn't make it right.. you and I both know that.

Pedophilia will never be legal because there is consent with children. we've been over this many a time. Polygamy is more than one person, and is thus not about a legal contract between two people. And incestuous relations are already legal, to a degree in the US. Anything after a first cousin is perfectly legal. If you're talking about brother and sister, it won't be legal because of the negative effects that come from inbreeding. However, what argument do you have for incestuous relationships being wrong? I'm not for them, but incest has been practiced many times through history in royal families. You throw this incestuous marriage term out like it is supposed to shock and appall us, but your forget that it is something that was, in the past, considered rather normal in some areas of the world. If you're going to use something in a slippery slope argument, at least make it something that sounds terribly bad.

Gay marriage will be the death of the family is we know it. Gay and lesbian activists will try to force new reterict onto the straight majority.

Homosexuality is immoral and corrupt and I won't take that back because it is the truth.The family has been pretty dead already. Pedophillic fathers, soaring divorce rates, abusive relationships, and the large amounts of single parents already illustrate this. What reterict do you speak of? Do you have some proof of what these 'activists' will try and force upon the majority?

Please explain how it is immoral and corrupt. You can't make base statements like that without something backing it up. Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean it is wrong. It isn't the truth until you prove it is. I can't state 2+2=5 unless I show you the steps I used to get to that process. Please use facts to back your arguments up.

See, now this is proof that you don't listen to any of the arguments against you. Just because something is the majority doesn't make it right.. you and I both know that.

Pedophilia will never be legal because there is consent with children. we've been over this many a time. Polygamy is more than one person, and is thus not about a legal contract between two people. And incestuous relations are already legal, to a degree in the US. Anything after a first cousin is perfectly legal. If you're talking about brother and sister, it won't be legal because of the negative effects that come from inbreeding. However, what argument do you have for incestuous relationships being wrong? I'm not for them, but incest has been practiced many times through history in royal families. You throw this incestuous marriage term out like it is supposed to shock and appall us, but your forget that it is something that was, in the past, considered rather normal in some areas of the world. If you're going to use something in a slippery slope argument, at least make it something that sounds terribly bad.

Yeah, like I did.

do the homophobes only have slippery slope reasoningAside from the bible, it's all they got left. And they can't even win with the bible anymore.

Yeah, like I did.Yeah, but you offered no proof or anything to back up your assertions, which makes them as equally invalid.

I agree with Olaxacroxa.
It is wrong and it is undermining family. The future depends on families.
Look to Europe where the nations are already facing declining populations.
We need to strengthen and encourage marriage and families.

Gays are undermining that and try to force their will on the majority. That is what I call against the will of the people. And it is against the law as well, regardless how often you claim it otherwise. Most states have banned gay marriage and they are right to do so.

I agree with Olaxacroxa.
It is wrong and it is undermining family. The future depends on families.
Look to Europe where the nations are already facing declining populations.
We need to strengthen and encourage marriage and families.

Gays are undermining that and try to force their will on the majority. That is what I call against the will of the people. And it is against the law as well, regardless how often you claim it otherwise. Most states have banned gay marriage and they are right to do so.
really? got something to back up that assertion? you want me to quote william f buckley about this stuff, i'll do it, i've read his column

I agree with Olaxacroxa.
It is wrong and it is undermining family. The future depends on families.
Look to Europe where the nations are already facing declining populations.
We need to strengthen and encourage marriage and families.

Gays are undermining that and try to force their will on the majority. That is what I call against the will of the people. And it is against the law as well, regardless how often you claim it otherwise. Most states have banned gay marriage and they are right to do so.

I don't get it. When a guys penis touches another guy's butt, does some kinda evil family death ray fly out to wreck havok on heterosexuals?

I agree with Olaxacroxa.
It is wrong and it is undermining family. The future depends on families.
Look to Europe where the nations are already facing declining populations.
We need to strengthen and encourage marriage and families.

Gays are undermining that and try to force their will on the majority. That is what I call against the will of the people. And it is against the law as well, regardless how often you claim it otherwise. Most states have banned gay marriage and they are right to do so.MOST states have not banned gay marriage. Did you even read that site I sent you to earlier? Try about 6. That's it really.

The declining population has nothing to do with the loss of a family structure. It has everything to do with the costs and work involved with raising children. It is expensive, and hard for people to raise children, and with most children heading to college these days, most parents know that they can't have a lot of children if they want to be able to afford university costs. By the way, do you have some proof of the declining population in Europe? I know the birthrates have declined, but that doesn't mean the population is shrinking.

And for the last time, gays are not trying to force ANYTHING on the majority. Gays are not forcing people to go out and have a gay marriage. They are not forcing people the change their lives. They are forcing people to recognize that a homosexual union is just as valid as a heterosexual union, and entitled to the same rights and benefits. Anything less is discrimination.

The family has been pretty dead already. Pedophillic fathers, soaring divorce rates, abusive relationships, and the large amounts of single parents already illustrate this. What reterict do you speak of? Do you have some proof of what these 'activists' will try and force upon the majority?

Please explain how it is immoral and corrupt. You can't make base statements like that without something backing it up. Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean it is wrong. It isn't the truth until you prove it is. I can't state 2+2=5 unless I show you the steps I used to get to that process. Please use facts to back your arguments up.

OK, many gay/lesbian activists want children to be taught about alternative relationships such as homosexuality, bisexuality, and even polygomy in elementary schools during health class. Gays/lesbians will want gay marriage recognized in any state if anymore allow it. Lawsuits will abound as gay/lesbian couples will inevitably force the courts to recognize their marriage in any state they move to.

But as for being immoral and corrupt, that is my opinion as a Christian. I accept all people based on there own merit and character, but I still think gay marriage is wrong.

OK, many gay/lesbian activists want children to be taught about alternative relationships such as homosexuality, bisexuality, and even polygomy in elementary schools during health class. Gays/lesbians will want gay marriage recognized in any state if anymore allow it. Lawsuits will abound as gay/lesbian couples will inevitably force the courts to recognize their marriage in any state they move to.

But as for being immoral and corrupt, that is my opinion as a Christian. I accept all people based on there own merit and character, but I still think gay marriage is wrong.Ah, but that's not the issue at the moment anyways, is it? And do you really think that it's wrong for children to actually be taught about it in school? so they learn the facts, and not the silent giggling whispers in the hallway? Is it really so terrible that the words 'fag' and 'gay' could eventually become NOT insults?

Those lawsuits are for courts to decide, and I think gay marriage should be legal nationwide, so I have no argument with that anyway.

And seeing that you are a Christian, may I ask if your opinion of homosexuals as 'immoral' and 'corrupt' stem from your faith? And if so, where exactly? To be honest, I'm just curious as to where in the Christian faith these ideas of hate and distaste stem from.

60% of polled Americans: No homosexual marriage (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37077)

And the gays want to force their will on the state to allow gay marriage. It is not about the legalisation of homosexuality. It is the attempt to push a political agenda against the will of the majority of people.

60% of polled Americans: No homosexual marriage (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37077)

And the gays want to force their will on the state to allow gay marriage. It is not about the legalisation of homosexuality. It is the attempt to push a political agenda against the will of the majority of people.That is a narrow margin for something of such importance as this. Especially with numbers changing to become closer and closer to being equal. Even our political system doesn't require just a majority for many things in the political process. Often, 2/3rd or even 3/4th majority is needed. 60% is a small margin.

60% of polled Americans: No homosexual marriage (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37077)

And the gays want to force their will on the state to allow gay marriage. It is not about the legalisation of homosexuality. It is the attempt to push a political agenda against the will of the majority of people.
im getting flashbacks of the civil rights movement, any one else?

Ah, but that's not the issue at the moment anyways, is it? And do you really think that it's wrong for children to actually be taught about it in school? so they learn the facts, and not the silent giggling whispers in the hallway? Is it really so terrible that the words 'fag' and 'gay' could eventually become NOT insults?

Those lawsuits are for courts to decide, and I think gay marriage should be legal nationwide, so I have no argument with that anyway.

And seeing that you are a Christian, may I ask if your opinion of homosexuals as 'immoral' and 'corrupt' stem from your faith? And if so, where exactly? To be honest, I'm just curious as to where in the Christian faith these ideas of hate and distaste stem from.

In the Christian faith, homosexuality is seen as a sin. Like any other sin it is against the will of God. Why do you think people talk about Soddom and Gommorah. God destroyed it because it was against nature. He would have saved the city if only ten people in a city of thousands were godly(meaning have a spouse of opposite sex and not being an adulterer). He made animals heterosexual and He intended for humans to be the same. If a Christian comes to you saying they hate gays, they aren't a true believer. I don't hate gays, but their actions are wrong.

Yeah, civil rights movement comparison sounds right. I've seen polls that suggest the older a person is, the less likely they are to approve of gay marriage. This goes something like this:
18-30 years old : 30% oppose
on up to like 70+ years old : 70% oppose

It would seem the younger generation will be around longer than the older generation, just like the racists of the south.

I was thinking about how in the constitution (I'm not quite sure, can someone back me up here, I cant find my copy) it says that the legal documents of one state MUST be honrored by another? Doesn't it also say that one state can not the rights another state offers? (Once again I'm sorry I cant give you the exact quote)
Thus wouldnt it be unconstitutional to deny a marrige certeficate from a same sex couple that got it from Mas, just because they lived in Miss?
And isnt it also unconstitutional because Miss is denying the rights that another state has?

In the Christian faith, homosexuality is seen as a sin. Like any other sin it is against the will of God. Why do you think people talk about Soddom and Gommorah. God destroyed it because it was against nature. He would have saved the city if only ten people in a city of thousands were godly(meaning have a spouse of opposite sex and not being an adulterer). He made animals heterosexual and He intended for humans to be the same. If a Christian comes to you saying they hate gays, they aren't a true believer. I don't hate gays, but their actions are wrong.

Same argument for teaching the theory of evolution. But in a PUBLIC school separation of church and state still exist, thus they cant ban a subject just because its a "sin" in a certain religion.
If it really bugs a parent(s) so much they can have a talk with the staff and the child is most likely be excluded from being though anything a parent doesnt want.

I do how ever dont think the kindergradeners should be taught about homosexuality, just as they arent thought about sex period. But Junior High and High Schoolers who are being though sex ed, should also be thaught about homosexuality, AND about having safe sex, both in a heterosexual AND homosexual relationship.

You are perfectly right. Under Article IV, Section 2 Clause 1 is "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

This is a key element of the idea of Federalism, where each state is its own nationality in relation to the other states of the Union, but citizens of one state moving in another cannot be denied the rights accorded them in their state of residence.

In the Christian faith, homosexuality is seen as a sin. Like any other sin it is against the will of God. Why do you think people talk about Soddom and Gommorah. God destroyed it because it was against nature. He would have saved the city if only ten people in a city of thousands were godly(meaning have a spouse of opposite sex and not being an adulterer). He made animals heterosexual and He intended for humans to be the same. If a Christian comes to you saying they hate gays, they aren't a true believer. I don't hate gays, but their actions are wrong.If it is a sin, and wrong, why do you protest so much against this sin, and not the other sins the bible names?

1. How about burning a bull on the altar as a sacrifice for God... Do you do that still? (Lev.1:9).

2. How about selling your daughter into slavery, do you still do that? (Exodus 21:7)

3. What about having contact with women when they are in their period of menstrual cleanliness? (Lev.15:19-24)

4. Lev. 25:44 even states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations.

5. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that if you work on the sabbath, you should be put to death.

6. Heck, eating shellfish is an abomination! How many Christians do this, and why don't I see such a rabid following protesting such seafood places? (Lev. 11:10)

7. Lev. 21:20 states that you may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. Do you wear glasses? If so, oops!

8. Lev.19:27 forbids me to trim the hair around their temples. That's a lot of sinners!

9. Lev. 11:6-8 says that touching the skin of a dead pig makes you unclean.

10. Heck, even farmers aren't immune. In Lev. 19:19 it clearly states that you can't plant two different crops in the same field, or even wear garments made of two different kinds of thread cotton/polyesterblend). According to the bible, we can get the whole town together and stone them! (Lev.24:10-16)

11. Of course, for people who sleep with their in-laws, we have a nice, private burning to death. (Lev.20:14)

Do you see what I'm saying? If you get your morals from a religion that dictates things like this.. you either need to pay heed to all of it, or not to any of it. You can't pick and choose what you pay strict attention to. So many people claim the bible is the end all word of Christianity, but with so many little things like this in it, people don't even read all of what they're putting their faith into. I'm not even sure what is, and what isn't Christianity anymore, since so much has changed over the years.

But if you're going to put your full opinion of something because of what the bible says, you'd better dang well do everything else the way the bible says... because it's just not right to pick and choose what to believe out of a religious text.

He made animals heterosexual and He intended for humans to be the same.We have discussed this to an extent in another thread, but animals have also exhibited homosexual tendencies and actions as well. So it's not just humans either.

And the gays want to force their will on the state to allow gay marriage. It is not about the legalisation of homosexuality. It is the attempt to push a political agenda against the will of the majority of people.

Okay, I know this has already been said, but this is a perfect example of the tyranny of the majority. The majority should never be allowed to dictate minority rights. And this is a civil rights issue, not a political agenda. There is no fucking "queer conspiracy". All that is being asked for is equality. The equal oportunity to marry the person you love and want to spend the rest of your life with. I don't understand why you feel that homosexuals are trying to force their will on you, the "majority", when it involves an issue that in no way effects your well being.

I have to admit, I don't agree with a lot of what's been said by people on my side of the argument. I don't think this is a states issue. I don't think this is a religious issue. Marraige is not solely a religious institution. It is a social and legal institution as well, and the government should legislate it. But not unequaly or discriminatorily, which is what is happenning. It's an issue of civil rights, which shouldn't be denied anyone just because they are the minority. It's about freedom, and the pursuit of happiness.




You're forgetting the fact that I believe same sex parenting to be harmful for the development of the child and society. Therefore, I am not for outlawing something that I believe to be harmless.


The "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" argument also doesn't make sense to me. I know a lot of people who have samely gendered parents, and none of them have ever shown any adverse effects from it. Also, for a homosexual couple to have children, they have to take conscious measures and go to a lot of steps most heterosexual couples never even think about taking. They have to
want it. Over 20 percent of all births and about half of all pregnancies are unintended, ie accidental.(note: this statistic is from 1995, I couldn't find anything more recent) It seems to me that children with homosexual parents have an advantage over those from heterosexual households: there is virtually zero chance that their birth wasn't planned for and welcomed by their parents. There is by far a smaller chance that these children will ever experience abuse or neglect at the hands of their parents. Unwanted children are often neglected, which does not a happy childhood make.

A lot of people also point to supposed homosexual promiscuity as a reason to deny equal rights. Great idea, lets curb this unhealthy promiscuity by denying access to an institution which is designed to encourage monogamy. That'll show them!


I brought up tax breaks because that is one of the rights frequently brought up by gay marriage proponents.
I don't see any point to the inheritance tax other than for the government to make a quick buck during someone's time of grief. If there is no other reason, then I don't think there should be inheritance taxes for anyone. If there is a good reason for inheritance taxes, I'd like to hear it.


That's real nice. You don't agree with the inheritance tax. Wait a sec while I jump around and shout for joy. Halle-fucking-lujah.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't something the rest of us still don't have to deal with. First you have to abolish the inheritance tax, then you can tell us that we don't have a legitimate tax greiviance when we're forbidden from marrying.

I was referring to interpretation of results, not intentional skewing of data. If I set out to synthesize a specific compound, I have to look at various spectra to try and determine exactly what happened during the reaction, whether or not the desired compound actually formed, impurities present, etc. etc. Because I have a vested interest in making that compound, it is sometimes easier to unintentionally misinterpret the data, when someone with less of an interest in the outcome can make a more neutral interpretation of the data. It doesn't happen all of the time, but it can happen.

Of course it can happen, but to the scientist setting out to do the research. This is why I only use peer-reviewed journals in my arguments. These journals have been looked at by neutral scientists, some that even have an interest in *not* agreeing with the results. This is one of the reasons the science community has peer review. Suppose you unintentionally misinterpret the data to say you got a certain compound. You put your data up for review and some other scientist says "Hey, wait a minute - you missed this spectrum here. Here on your IR, it actually shows....." and then you may be denied publication, or they may just ask you to clear up whatever it is that is confusing. The same thing goes for any type of scientific peer-reviewed journal article.

ho·mo·sex·u·al ** *P* ** Pronunciation Key **(h m-s ksh -l, -m -)
adj.
Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.

every priest,and pervert guy who ever molested a little boy is a homosexual.

Dictionary.com is not a medical dictionary. With most pedophiles, the gender of child they like is not the same as the gender of adult that they like. Most pervert guys who have molested little boys are actually heterosexual when it comes to adults. And it is the adult orientation that matters, since pedophilia *is* a mental problem.

What makes you think that gay marriages will end marriage as we know it?
What difference will it make when you choose to get married?
I still don't see why your against it? If you think its immoral and they're going to burn in hell. Well fine. Let'em. Why should you be allowed to choose how to people in love wish to live?

Hmn... If the anti-gay group is concerned wuth preventing gay marriage in order to protect the sacred institution that is marriage, should they also lobby against divorce and second-marriages and polygamous marriages? I mean, it only makes sense. Divorce is the main destructive factor for the institution of marriage. In fact, by letting gays marry, the institution will gain strength because MORE people will be marrying.

im getting flashbacks of the civil rights movement, any one else?

Homophobia is racism for the turn of this century, and gay rights the civil rights issue for our generation (for those of us not around for previous movements, that is). It's the same arguments, tailored for a new minority. And, as usual, previous discrimination is decried by those who perpetrate this new discrimination (because this time, the discrimination is right!).

It's the same old mentality, over and over again. I do have a question, though. I love this "family is the foundation of our society!" stuff. Now, I know a good number of people are only parroting blustering Neocon pundits, but for those of you who actually have given some thought to the matter, what is the basis of this statement? It seems pretty arbitary to me...a correlation which could be drawn of any number of things which exist in a successful society. Furthermore, how is gay marriage the death of family when, at a time when families are growing more and more scarce, you're allowing more people into the deal?

Hmm, that seems contradictory to me.

Hmn... If the anti-gay group is concerned wuth preventing gay marriage in order to protect the sacred institution that is marriage, should they also lobby against divorce and second-marriages and polygamous marriages? I mean, it only makes sense. Divorce is the main destructive factor for the institution of marriage. In fact, by letting gays marry, the institution will gain strength because MORE people will be marrying.

That's what I'm thinking...and I'd like to hear an answer. As far as the anti-gay marriage groups, it is funny that with marriage suffering so many of its own weaknesses, the one these "protection of marriage" groups go after is pending gay marriage, as if the institution was solid as a rock previously. Seeming utterly blind to any of those other problems with marriage, I think it's pretty clear what the real issue is to these groups.

That's what I'm thinking...and I'd like to hear an answer. As far as the anti-gay marriage groups, it is funny that with marriage suffering so many of its own weaknesses, the one these "protection of marriage" groups go after is pending gay marriage, as if the institution was solid as a rock previously. Seeming utterly blind to any of those other problems with marriage, I think it's pretty clear what the real issue is to these groups.

I tend to agree with you. And here's perhaps a curious twist - I am a Christian, and I beleive that homosexuality is a sin - as is stealing a cookie from the cookie jar.

But I totally opppose ANY government interference in what two consenting Americans desire to do. I do not beleive that is the place of Government to decide (I would hate to have my religion dicatated as illegal!). In my humble opinion, the matter is simply none of any government's business.

From a Christian point of view, my denomination would not marry a gay couple - and if that couple were members of the church, it would be a matter between THAT ORGANIZATION and the couple! If they did not like the church's decision, they would be free to move on - even if it saddened the rest of us in the church.

But government? How can they enforce it except SHOOT the couple that refused to dance to their regulation! Our Constitution clearly prevents and religious organization from dictating government policy (Amendment #1) and yet that is exactly what is being done! I am totally against it.

OK, many gay/lesbian activists want children to be taught about alternative relationships such as homosexuality, bisexuality, and even polygomy in elementary schools during health class.

So? Parents always have the option of keeping their children out of the sex-ed part of health class. If you don't want your children to be told that their are homosexual and bisexual people out there (polygamy is not a sexuality, per se, and would not be taught about), then don't sign the waiver saying they can take the class.

Gays/lesbians will want gay marriage recognized in any state if anymore allow it.

Anything else would be against the Constitution. Would you prefer we just do away with the Constitution altogether?

Lawsuits will abound as gay/lesbian couples will inevitably force the courts to recognize their marriage in any state they move to.

Again, if the states were not defying the Constitution, this would not be a problem.

But as for being immoral and corrupt, that is my opinion as a Christian. I accept all people based on there own merit and character, but I still think gay marriage is wrong.

Well, my opinion as a Christian is that a bunch of human beings who thought they knew what God wanted made anti-women and anti-homosexual rules, as well as rules about slavery. Why should your view rule over mine? And why should it rule over a non-Christian?

My opinion as an American is that we should uphold the Constitution in every way and thus denying gay marriage on the basis of "my particular religion thinks it is immoral" is wrong.

It's the same old mentality, over and over again. I do have a question, though. I love this "family is the foundation of our society!" stuff. Now, I know a good number of people are only parroting blustering Neocon pundits, but for those of you who actually have given some thought to the matter, what is the basis of this statement? It seems pretty arbitary to me...a correlation which could be drawn of any number of things which exist in a successful society. Furthermore, how is gay marriage the death of family when, at a time when families are growing more and more scarce, you're allowing more people into the deal?

What I love is that these people claim "tradition" when the idea of the nuclear family (1 man, one woman, 2.5 kids) has only been around about 50 years! Before that, a child was not just raised by two parents, they were raised by two parents, their grandparents, their aunts and uncles all living close enough to have a big influence on the child's life. And when people started moving towards the nuclear family, everyone screamed "Think of the children!" because they would no longer have the full extended family to take care of them. So, the folks claiming "a differently gendered two-parent family is best," don't even have tradition to back that up!

I tend to agree with you. And here's perhaps a curious twist - I am a Christian, and I beleive that homosexuality is a sin - as is stealing a cookie from the cookie jar.

But I totally opppose ANY government interference in what two consenting Americans desire to do. I do not beleive that is the place of Government to decide (I would hate to have my religion dicatated as illegal!). In my humble opinion, the matter is simply none of any government's business.

From a Christian point of view, my denomination would not marry a gay couple - and if that couple were members of the church, it would be a matter between THAT ORGANIZATION and the couple! If they did not like the church's decision, they would be free to move on - even if it saddened the rest of us in the church.

But government? How can they enforce it except SHOOT the couple that refused to dance to their regulation! Our Constitution clearly prevents and religious organization from dictating government policy (Amendment #1) and yet that is exactly what is being done! I am totally against it.

Well said. Government and religion ought to be kept apart, and just as no one is asking for the government to force churches to do anything, religious citizens and their churches should not be trying to force the government to do anything. The government ought to do nothing but perform official duties (i.e. uniting two people, should they ask to be united), and churches do nothing but bless the union if it's asked of them and they approve. It is good to see that someone understands the purpose of such separations. Some church-blessed unions will go unrecognized by the government, because though those congregations approve of same-sex marriage, the government won't perform their part of the deal. So, to some churches, their institution has been diminished. That seems to be unfortunately ironic.

What I love is that these people claim "tradition" when the idea of the nuclear family (1 man, one woman, 2.5 kids) has only been around about 50 years! Before that, a child was not just raised by two parents, they were raised by two parents, their grandparents, their aunts and uncles all living close enough to have a big influence on the child's life. And when people started moving towards the nuclear family, everyone screamed "Think of the children!" because they would no longer have the full extended family to take care of them. So, the folks claiming "a differently gendered two-parent family is best," don't even have tradition to back that up!

I never considered that aspect of it, but that is a good point, indeed, and another example of how such people never learn from the past. Well, not the real past, they prefer a fabricated past, a "good old days" in which everything was peachy. Those bad things of history, why, they have nothing to do with today's circumstances.

Back then, yeah, people argued that the extended family was needed, but now we know that just the heterosexual parents are all a kid really needs - this situation is completely different!

Back then, yeah, people argued that those Coloreds were dirty and immoral, but now we know that they're OK and that it's just those dirty, immoral homosexuals who are a danger to society - this situation is completely different!

And so it goes...previous discriminations are glossed over and isolated from today's situations, thusly no one learns anything, and we're free to find a new group to marginalize. Isn't traditionalism fun?

I've said before that divorces should be harder to obtain, but not impossible, since there are cases in which divorce is the best option for everyone involved. There are no legal privileges attached to fornication or adultery, nor do I believe there should be any attached to homosexuality. This being the case, to prevent children from being born out of wedlock, we would have to force unmarried pregnant women to have an abortion. Death is a lot less healthy that growing up without two parents.

Yet the adulter RETAINS his/her legal rights despite the harm that was done to the marriage, and if children are involved, the family. Should the adulter, in case of divorce, be allowed to remarry and potentially wreck a second family? For that matter, child abusers retain all of their legal rights associated with marriage. You would allow classes of people whose actions are undenialbe PROVEN to be detrimental to the family unit the right to marry.



Medical decisions - get a durable power of attorney. If that is not currently possible for unmarried people, it should be. For an example not involving same sex couples, John Smith is unmarried and has no living close family. He should be able to list a close friend in a durable power of attorney over a distant relative he hardly knows.

Remains of deceased spouse - delegate responsibilty for funeral arrangements in your will. If that's not possible, it should be. The above situation can be applied in this situation as well.

Hospital visitation - Why should only spouses be able to visit the severly sick? The above example can also be applied in this situation.

My point is that same sex couples can or should have access to some of these rights without needing a civil marriage or union, because other people should have access to them as well.

You still have not answered, if as you claim, marriage is about children, why childless married couples should get these rights automatically granted while others have to jump through expensive legal loopholes which may or may not ultimately be upheld. Even prior to Virginia's legislation, these documents were fought by other relatives who did not wish to give the person the contractual rights the legal documentation endowed them with. Many times the rights of the "blood" relatives prevailed. These documents do not provide rights equivalent to marriage, and thus the arguement that gay people can rely on them is a load of bunk.

Bottles,

I agree with you in one point.
The standards for marriage should be very simple and consistent: and that we have currently: one man and one woman.
If we give that up we loose that consistency and at the end have to allow polygamy and incestous relationships.
And that I don´t want.

If you are against INCEST why aren't you speaking out about the laws in this country which are actually closest to (and by some definitions actually) incest? Roughly half of all states allow cousins to marry and have been allowing cousins to marry years before the question of homosexual marriage arose. Hell, cousins were allowed to marry even long before the question of interracial marriage arose. Or the end of slavery. The other half of the states classify these unions as "incest" and although they do not allow the marriage of cousins under state law (although I don't think all of them do birth record checks or require people to 'prove' that they are not cousins) they must recognize the marriage of cousins who were married in the states that will allow for cousin marriages.

Afterall, aren't YOU the one who keeps saying different things are different? Homosexuality and incest are different, so saying one 'leads' to the other is equating different things.

So let's try equating even SIMILAR things. If people are going to allow COUSINS to marry then the next "logical" thing must be to allow brothers and sisters to marry. Thing is it hasn't happened yet.

Your "slippery slope" arguement is nothing but a pile of useless bullshit you are using in an attempt to cover the stench of your own ignorance and hatred.

let me say three things about this:
1) homophobia is rascism if being homosexual is a race. are homosexuals a seperate race? no , they arent, so any problem people have with them is not racial in nature.
2)in society some change is good. however some things should not change. these are bedrocks. things easily defined in the past but clouded by our jaded minds. things like "marriage", "death", and "family". these are the things we carry with us, the things that make us who we are. we lose them and we lose ourselves. I want to fight for the soul of our society. I oppose gay marriage because it is a curruption if not destruction of the cornerstone of the building i call "family". that is a building that is very run down. now we are removing the cornerstone. It might just collpase. But i dont want to move. i will remain in this building that is our culture even if you rip it down with all of us in it.
3) i dont care if being gay is natural. i dont care if some people are born that way. I think it is good for love to be in the world. I dont mind gays living together ect. But i do mind destroying the basic defenition of marriage for the sake of extending society into making popular every alternitive "lifesyle".
america:
for gay marriage: 32%
against gay marriage:62%

And what I can never understand is, why is it so important for this country to restrict rights of its citizens in such a profound manner? The Constitution says, each citizen is guaranteed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...it doesn't add 'but only for straight people'.
Actually, I was shocked to learn that the Constitution does NOT guarantee the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and from what I understand, they are not in the Bill of Rights either?

Apparently they are just soft, fuzzy, feel good words?

Please tell me I am wrong!! Well.....point me to a link...

yeah,show me where the constitution says that. actualy, dont, you will be up until thursday trying to find it. why? BECAUSE IT ISNT THERE. the constitution says no such thing. it provides a structure for government and law to be built around, it isnt a bunch of feel good quotes like that. it is a legal document. you should read it.

gay marriage certainly is in defiance of the law.
official definition of marriage( since..........well, always)----
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

SO, gay marriage is not valid as it does not fall within the definition of the word its self. gays do not apply. now we are talking law. not some such rhetoric about pursuits of happyness.

OK, many gay/lesbian activists want children to be taught about alternative relationships such as homosexuality, bisexuality, and even polygomy in elementary schools during health class. Gays/lesbians will want gay marriage recognized in any state if anymore allow it. Lawsuits will abound as gay/lesbian couples will inevitably force the courts to recognize their marriage in any state they move to.

But as for being immoral and corrupt, that is my opinion as a Christian. I accept all people based on there own merit and character, but I still think gay marriage is wrong.

Wow, just like those ethnically mixed couples did. How evil of them to demand equal rights. The schools even have to teach *shhhhh* that black people are fully human and are not inherently wrong or different in any biological way! The horror! The outrage! (<----EXTREME SARCASM ALERT)


You are allowed to *believe* whatever you wish about gay marriage. My mother believes that if a marriage is not sanctified by a Roman Catholic Priest then a marriage will be "false" and the parties involved in such a marriage are living an immoral and corrupt life. Furthermore, the majority of the people in the state that I live in are Catholic, and share her opinion. Should the state of Louisiana be allowed to declare all non-Catholic marriages null and void and strip non-Catholics of their civil rights in the name of preserving morality and putting an end to heretic propaganda?

1) homophobia is rascism if being homosexual is a race. are homosexuals a seperate race? no , they arent, so any problem people have with them is not racial in nature. it is based on values and ideas not physical differnces.
2)in society some change is good. however some things should not change. these are bedrocks. things easily defined in the past but clouded by our jaded minds. things like "marriage", "death", and "family". these are the things we carry with us, the things that make us who we are. we lose them and we lose ourselves. I want to fight for the soul of our society. I oppose gay marriage because it is a curruption if not destruction of the cornerstone of the building i call "family". that is a building that is very run down. now we are removing the cornerstone. It might just collpase. But i dont want to move. i will remain in this building that is our culture even if the far left rips it down with all of us in it. this is not about religion. it is not about skin color, creed, or laws. it is about changing the definition of a word. a word that society is built on. that is dangerous and wrong.

2)in society some change is good. however some things should not change. these are bedrocks. things easily defined in the past but clouded by our jaded minds. things like "marriage", "death", and "family". these are the things we carry with us, the things that make us who we are. we lose them and we lose ourselves. I want to fight for the soul of our society. I oppose gay marriage because it is a curruption if not destruction of the cornerstone of the building i call "family". that is a building that is very run down. now we are removing the cornerstone. It might just collpase. But i dont want to move. i will remain in this building that is our culture even if the far left rips it down with all of us in it. this is not about religion. it is not about skin color, creed, or laws. it is about changing the definition of a word. a word that society is built on. that is dangerous and wrong.

Changing the meaing of words is 'dangerous and wrong?' Pshaw.

words that have definitions that society is based on. yes. it is very dangerous. did you just read the last two sentences or somthing?come on, the post explains what i mean......if you read it.

words that have definitions that society is based on. yes. it is very dangerous. did you just read the last two sentences or somthing?come on, the post explains what i mean......if you read it.

how many times do i have to tell you you're retarded before you'll shut up?

words that have definitions that society is based on. yes. it is very dangerous. did you just read the last two sentences or somthing?come on, the post explains what i mean......if you read it.

Uhh, word's definitions are based on common recognised usage, not the other way around, unless you take your behavioral queues from Merriam-Webster or heaven forbid dictionary.com. *gasps*

i cannot understand why you feel it necessary to use personal attacks. I stated my views and you did not say anything back but somthing to poke fun at me. You will be happy to hear i will no longer be a part of this discussion because falling asleep is more appealing to me right now than drilling common sense into someone who does not care to hear me out and wishes to hurl insults. good day.

ha! i triumph!

no. you suck so much at making your case that you insult people so they leave. some triumph. same sort of triumph as clearing a room by farting. congradulations.

Missouri makes the 32nd state to FORBID gay marriage, only 18 more states to go and the sooner the better. I hope Bush gets reelected to changed the constitution to ban it.

Absolutely, 100%, agreed. That's the only reason there is to vote for Bush. I can't see any other. But it's a good enough reason.

Here's a list of some folks who are fighting to preserve the sanctity of marriage.

Taken from http://www.burntorangereport.com/archives/001300.html :

Ronald Reagan - divorced the mother of two of his children to marry Nancy Reagan who bore him a daughter only 7 months after the marriage.
Bob Dole - divorced the mother of his child, who had nursed him through the long recovery from his war wounds.
Newt Gingrich - divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.
Dick Armey - House Majority Leader - divorced
Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas - divorced
Gov. John Engler of Michigan - divorced
Former Gov. Pete Wilson of California - divorced
Rush Limbaugh - Rush and his current wife Marta have six marriages and four divorces between them.
Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia - Barr, not yet 50 years old, has been married three times. Barr had the audacity to author and push the "Defense of Marriage Act." The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is "Bob Barr...WHICH marriage are you defending?"
Sen. Alfonse D'Amato of New York - divorced
Sen. John Warner of Virginia - divorced (once married to Liz Taylor)
Gov. George Allen of Virginia - divorced
Henry Kissinger - divorced
Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho - divorced
Sen. John McCain of Arizona - divorced
Rep. John Kasich of Ohio - divorced
Rep. Susan Molinari of New York - Republican National Convention Keynote Speaker - divorced

Wouldn't preserving the sanctity of marriage make a little more sense if people really tried to work at it once they were involved in one? Why don't we start by making adultery a criminal offense? That, to me, seems to be more of an issue than letting two homosexuals who have been together for the last 20 years get married.

Next, congress is going to ban anchovies because THEY are the reason why pizza is so bad for us.

i cannot understand why you feel it necessary to use personal attacks. I stated my views and you did not say anything back but somthing to poke fun at me. You will be happy to hear i will no longer be a part of this discussion because falling asleep is more appealing to me right now than drilling common sense into someone who does not care to hear me out and wishes to hurl insults. good day.


Where is this 'common sense' you speak of?

thank god its getting banned. First cloning, now marriages. the next law that is passed is gonna be you can kill someone if they wronged you :sniper:

words that have definitions that society is based on. yes. it is very dangerous. did you just read the last two sentences or somthing?come on, the post explains what i mean......if you read it.

Society isn't based on marriage. Go check the divorce rate some time.

Missouri makes the 32nd state to FORBID gay marriage, only 18 more states to go and the sooner the better. I hope Bush gets reelected to changed the constitution to ban it.
you're right "enodscopia"... :headbang: let's hope bush is re-elected, Lord knows it is more important to suppress gay rights when we can keep a leader that will kill our family and friends and fellow citizens in what has become an unneccesary "conflict" :sniper: by destroying our enemies homeland and then paying billions of dollars to rebuild what we destroy. who's paying us for what they destroyed? is there even a price that could be paid for the loss of lives, the loss of freedom and the agony experienced by those who have lost loved ones through all of this?? and what's up with all these people wanting to "change" the Constitution?? wasn't there a reason it was written in the first place? if we aren't going to abide by it, rather than changing and making ammendmants why don't we just throw it the hell out and let each elected official tell us how to live and what our rights are during their term in office? maybe then we can get someone like hitler in office that does away with general elections and restricted terms of service and they can "change" it to where they rule us for more than 4 - 8 years. :mp5: i say we should have taken the "redkneck" approach and bombed the whole damned country, scraped it into the ocean and called it done... but no, let's keep bush so the gays can't marry. guess what?... we will keep suc**ng and fu***ng :fluffle: whether we can marry or not. we just want equal rights like we would have if we lived in America... that's right, we DO live in America... who would have guessed??

let me say three things about this:
1) homophobia is rascism if being homosexual is a race. are homosexuals a seperate race? no , they arent, so any problem people have with them is not racial in nature.

If I were one to sign in irritation, I would place one here.

Saying homophobia is the racism of this generation is akin to saying that the Rolls Royce is the caviar of automobiles. Am I claiming that the Rolls Royce is a kind of fish egg delicacy? No, I am not.

2)in society some change is good. however some things should not change. these are bedrocks. things easily defined in the past but clouded by our jaded minds. things like "marriage", "death", and "family". these are the things we carry with us, the things that make us who we are. we lose them and we lose ourselves. I want to fight for the soul of our society. I oppose gay marriage because it is a curruption if not destruction of the cornerstone of the building i call "family". that is a building that is very run down. now we are removing the cornerstone. It might just collpase. But i dont want to move. i will remain in this building that is our culture even if you rip it down with all of us in it.

"Marriage," "Death," and "Family." You know, once again, I see some arbitrary words being trotted out as the cornerstones of our very society, and yet, no explanation as to why. You must have some logical reasoning for choosing these things; so, what are they? I'm not going to put any more of my thought processes into breaking down this "reasoning." I want to hear someone tell me just why marriage, in this and ONLY this current definition, is so vital to our society.

I also have to comment on how funny your example is. Without any idea of what will happen in allowing gay marriage, you assume that all it can be likened to is ripping out that cornerstone. Could it be simply bolstering a crumbling foundation? PAtching bad masonry? Or even carving one's name into the stone? No, certainly not! There's only one way this could go, and I've not explained it yet, but trust me, it's the utter destruction of our very society!!!

Why is it that everyone thinks that the guy with the "The End is Near" sign is a whacko, yet no one laughs at arguments such as this one?

3) i dont care if being gay is natural. i dont care if some people are born that way. I think it is good for love to be in the world. I dont mind gays living together ect. But i do mind destroying the basic defenition of marriage for the sake of extending society into making popular every alternitive "lifesyle".
america:
for gay marriage: 32%
against gay marriage:62%

Oh yes, this is all about the trendiness of being gay. That's why some of the couples at the forefront of this issue have been together for decades. They just wanna look soo cool. :rolleyes:

And don't cite the numbers for me. Rights are not granted by majority vote. That's fortunate, since more people of this nation cast a vote in the "American Idol" contest than in the last Presidential elections.

thank god its getting banned. First cloning, now marriages. the next law that is passed is gonna be you can kill someone if they wronged you :sniper:

*Stands and applauds*

Bravo, Sir, that was a wonderful statement that needed to be made!

The way you failed to capitalize and punctuate properly, the way you failed to construct simple sentences, and the way you equated three completely unrelated things to reach one unfathomable conclusion...it was all so marvelous! And that little sniper smiley...you truely are a credit to your people. God bless you, Sir. God bless you!

*Wipes tear from eye, sits down*

*Snickers*

I say Congress should ban the eating of shellfish.

The bible's as clear on that as it is on its definition of marriage and homosexuality. (Lev 11:9-12)

Seriously. The American diet is already in a shambles, but this wanton shrimp eating is really going to crack the foundation of our way of life if it continues.

Protect the sanctity of the American Diet. BAN SHELLFISH!!

I say Congress should ban the eating of shellfish.

The bible's as clear on that as it is on its definition of marriage and homosexuality. (Lev 11:9-12)

Seriously. The American diet is already in a shambles, but this wanton shrimp eating is really going to crack the foundation of our way of life if it continues.

Protect the sanctity of the American Diet. BAN SHELLFISH!!

And figs. God hates figs (http://www.godhatesfigs.com/).

Ha!! I love it. I got my inspiration from www.godhatesshrimp.com

Sorta puts things in perspective.

Is this a 73 page thread about Missouri banning gay marriage? Wow. Total NS nerdcore at its best.

Is this a 73 page thread about Missouri banning gay marriage? Wow. Total NS nerdcore at its best.

No, it's a 55 page thread. Set to 20 posts / page! Synchronise watches!

You kn ow I am getting pretty sick on Cons pointing at the statistic of Americans against gay marriage. It is the same trick they used to try and stop blacks getting equal rights.

Makes me laugh though. This issue has been coming up alot in western europe recently. And the countries are either looking to make it fully legal or to wait an see. The US is the country that is going the other way. strange.....

Makes me laugh though. This issue has been coming up alot in western europe recently. And the countries are either looking to make it fully legal or to wait an see. The US is the country that is going the other way. strange.....

Yes, Germany (which along with the UK, France, Spain and some other place that slips my mind is going to bring in Civil Unions) was the focus of the following Times article, note the bit which talks about the two parties activly COMPETING for the gay vote: Germany welcomes gay Free Democrat leader
From Roger Boyes in Berlin



GUIDO WESTERWELLE, the German Free Democrat leader who is grooming himself to be the country’s next Foreign Minister, has become the latest high-level European politician to out himself as a homosexual.
The tall, flamboyant 42-year-old immediately became the focus of conservative criticism. “This country does not need more gays,” grumbled Jörg Schönbohm, the powerful Christian Democrat Interior Minister of Brandenburg. “It needs more families that produce children.”



Others cautioned of the dawning of a pink republic, with gay proselytising among the top ranks of politics the order of the day. Homosexual politicians across mainland Europe are discounting the electoral risk of coming out. Peter Mandelson, who makes no secret of his homosexuality, is about to become one of the most influential European Union commissioners.

The Mayor of Paris, Betrand Delanoe, and of Berlin, Klaus Wowereit, are openly gay — “and a good thing too!” said Herr Wowereit in his inaugural speech. A key moulder of German immigration policy, the Green deputy Volker Beck is regularly filmed in his parliamentary offices with the Spartacus gay magazine clearly languishing on his desk.

Homosexuals have long played a role in mainstream politics. The postwar consensus has been to camouflage sexual tastes. During the Cold War era, homosexuals had to be kept out of Cabinet posts lest they be exposed to blackmail. This unwritten rule was occasionally breached. Konrad Adenauer, the former Chancellor, memorably told colleagues that he did not care about the homosexuality of his Foreign Minister, Heinrich von Brentano, “provided he doesn’t lunge at me”.

But the prejudice that homosexual politicians were a security risk persisted until quite recently. It was used by the ill-fated Free Democrat, Jürgen Möllemann, as a way of blocking the ambitions of his party leader, Herr Westerwelle, to present himself as Foreign Minister in waiting.

Herr Westerwelle, said Herr Moellemann in a book written shortly before his death in a parachuting accident, was ostentatiously pro-Israeli because the Israelis had compromising information on him. Herr Westerwelle furiously dismissed the insinuation.

The mood has changed in recent years. In Germany, at least, this is partly because of the accession of the Social Democrat-Green Government, which set out to bring homosexuals back from the fringes of society. It introduced a form of legal partnership that stops short of marriage. This year hardly an eyebrow was raised when the Social Democrat campaigners in Hamburg invited Herr Wowereit up from Berlin to spend a night trawling for local election votes in transvestite clubs. In the event, that election was won by Ole von Beust, an openly gay Christian Democrat, who lives with his male Justice Minister.

“Candidates who are at peace with themselves are always more likely to win than to lose,” says the Emmid opinion pollster Klaus-Peter Schöppner. But 9 per cent of German women say that the sexual tastes of a candidate could influence their vote, and 18 per cent of men say the same. As many as 45 per cent of conservative voters would be influenced by a candidate’ s sexual identity. Comparable results have been recorded across northern Europe.

A politician’s coming-out has to be carefully calculated. Mr Mandelson — who admittedly no longer needs to worry about voter approval — M Delanoe, Herr Wowereit and Herr Westerwelle are all typically modern metropolitan politicians. They can count on a substantial gay vote cancelling out those who are put off for religious or other reasons. Rural politicians prefer to stay in the closet.

Herr Westerwelle outed himself at the 50th birthday of Angela Merkel, the Christian Democrat leader. They hoped to form a coalition after toppling Herr Schröder in 2006. Although he remains discreet (“I want to live my own life”, he tells reporters) his companion, Michael Mronz, was clearly introduced as his boyfriend. Frau Merkel was delighted and the reason is clear: she wants to shape a new, open form of tolerant conservatism as an alternative to the Social Democrats. The Free Democrats are to be allowed to steal the clothes of the Greens as the nation’s social laboratory.

Herr Westerwelle has seized the role with glee. Homosexuals, he said last week, should be allowed to adopt children and be treated as equals. The Free Democrats galloped ahead: homosexuality, they say, should be taught in school biology lessons. Others want history teachers to introduce the subject of gay persecution during the Nazi era.

Coming-out can be a way of transforming the image of a party. Herr Westerwelle, a rather tortured personality, has constantly reinvented himself and, almost in passing, his small but important Free Democrat Party. As a schoolboy in Bonn he was spotty, overweight and bullied — his mother had left the family and his schoolmates were quick to pick on his emotional vulnerability — and so he set about shaping himself as the model of a successful, popular youth politician. His party, market liberals who spoke for selfemployed businessmen and enlightened bureaucrats, was given a similar remodelling.

“I just fear that he will do for homosexuality what he has done for the Free Democrats — trivialise it,” said Claudius Seidel, a conservative critic. Christian Democrats, especially in Catholic Bavaria, are feeling distinctly uneasy. The gay issue could yet divide the conservative opposition so profoundly that the Chancellor again defies the odds and stays in power in 2006. Edmund Stoiber, the Prime Minister of Bavaria, has made clear how deeply he disapproves of Herr Westerwelle.

His outing could become the crucial fault line between Catholic conservatives and social modernisers. But he can take heart: much of the print media is on his side. “Can a gay man be Foreign Minister and Deputy Chancellor of Germany?” asked the political editor of Stern magazine. “He can. He must be allowed to seek the job.”



Cool or what?

Makes me laugh though. This issue has been coming up alot in western europe recently. And the countries are either looking to make it fully legal or to wait an see. The US is the country that is going the other way. strange.....

Not just the USA Daroth!

France has annuled gay marriages by the France's highest court.

Not just the USA Daroth!

France has annuled gay marriages by the France's highest court.

Marriages? From my quick Googling, there seems to have been only one. Furthermore, it seems that there is a civil union system in place in that country, which may be expanded (as it does not go far enough). Not exactly the same as Missouri, is it?

Europe seems to be taking this issue in a far more mature fashion that the US...go figure.

Marriages? From my quick Googling, there seems to have been only one. Furthermore, it seems that there is a civil union system in place in that country, which may be expanded (as it does not go far enough). Not exactly the same as Missouri, is it?

Europe seems to be taking this issue in a far more mature fashion that the US...go figure.

I don't know about the Civil Union thing in Europe but I do know of one state here in the US that offers Civil Unions with limited Benefits. That being the state of Vermont.

Actually, I was shocked to learn that the Constitution does NOT guarantee the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and from what I understand, they are not in the Bill of Rights either?

Apparently they are just soft, fuzzy, feel good words?

Please tell me I am wrong!! Well.....point me to a link...

From Amendment 14:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

All but the pursuit of happiness part. =)

gay marriage certainly is in defiance of the law.
official definition of marriage( since..........well, always)----
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

SO, gay marriage is not valid as it does not fall within the definition of the word its self. gays do not apply. now we are talking law. not some such rhetoric about pursuits of happyness.

You are missing the point. We are talking about legal rights that are being offered to one group and not to another, without a compelling reason from the state. Such things in the law are unconstitutional. You want to change the word marriage to something else? Fine, but the rights themselves must be offered equally.

Not just the USA Daroth!

France has annuled gay marriages by the France's highest court.

Oh yes, because it has become increasingly obvious that conservatives love France and take all their political cues from the French.

Is this a 73 page thread about Missouri banning gay marriage? Wow. Total NS nerdcore at its best.

Some people happen to feel strongly about their personal freedoms.

Missouri makes the 32nd state to FORBID gay marriage, only 18 more states to go and the sooner the better. I hope Bush gets reelected to changed the constitution to ban it.
Does it make you happy do deny other people their happiness?

I fucking hate people like you.

It seems to me that we have much bigger issues going on in our world today than to worry about who is marrying who or going to bed with who for that matter. Has anybody lost any family or friends to cancer etc? Has anybody seen a hungry child or one that has no education? Has anybody lost a loved one in the war?

I would rather my daughter be with another woman than a man that beats and belittles her soul.

I am not a supporter of PDA's (public displays of affection) by anybody as far as groping etc. So what goes on behind closed doors is up to them.

It seems to me that we have much bigger issues going on in our world today than to worry about who is marrying who or going to bed with who for that matter. Has anybody lost any family or friends to cancer etc? Has anybody seen a hungry child or one that has no education? Has anybody lost a loved one in the war?

I would rather my daughter be with another woman than a man that beats and belittles her soul.

I am not a supporter of PDA's (public displays of affection) by anybody as far as groping etc. So what goes on behind closed doors is up to them.

A bit of sanity injected into the thread now and then does wonders...thank you.

He uses two main arguments: one says that marriage is for child rearing and gays and lesbians can not make/rear children. The other uses the worn out cliche of the slippery slope. When eirther of these comes under major refutment rather than counter arguing he leaves and comes back using the other argument.

Example:

Gay can not raise babies and that is what marriage is for look at these non-biased studies done by fundamentalist homophobic christians:

Your wrong as this sourcee is unbiased while yours were from christian websites

YOURS are biased!

*more refutment and Ky leaves*

*ky Returns*
Blah blah slippery slope blah blah

He seems to be shocked and offended at personal iinsults yet seems to think that saying "I do not like gay people" is somehow FAR better than this.

He ignores almost all questions aimed at him anand those he does awnser are often awnsered with "I said that above!" in an annoyed tone as if he would NEVER ask someone to anwser something they had already awnsered.

Example: What about infertile couples they cann not make babies?

I already AWNSERED thart, scroll up!

I can not find it.

*no response*

So what do you think of HOMOSEXUAL incest marriages.

I would not allow them as that would be unfair on the hetros

So what do you think of homo incest marriages

I would not allow them as that would be unfair on the hetros.

Kybernetica also claims he is not a homophobe or a bigot despite saying that he does not like gay people.

From Amendment 14:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

All but the pursuit of happiness part. =)
Thanks for directing me to the relevant section. :)

I have heard the inclusion of "pursuit of happiness" many times before. I guess it is just not true.

Thanks for directing me to the relevant section. :)

I have heard the inclusion of "pursuit of happiness" many times before. I guess it is just not true.

Well it is in the Declaration of Independence so it is true that it was written. Just not in the US Constitution! :)

Thanks for directing me to the relevant section. :)

I have heard the inclusion of "pursuit of happiness" many times before. I guess it is just not true.

Many people equate "pursuit of property" with "pursuit of happiness."

Many people equate "pursuit of property" with "pursuit of happiness."

hell, give me alot of property, and i must admit i'd be happy. lol

I read the first 400 posts of this 1100 post thread before coming to the conclusion that it is largely pointless.

Neither side is going to convince the other side. This argument cannot be won. Thus what I am about to write is pointless, but it will make a good blog entry so, what the heck...

Those who will argue for banning same-sex marriage do so from religious intolerance/homophobia and nothing else. Any purported "evidence" put forth by the family research council or other conservative wingnut organizations is irrelevant.

If you're going to form an opinion and then go looking for evidence which supports your opinion, you're approaching the problem backward. The idea is to look at all the evidence and *THEN* form the opinion. Forming the opinion first and then seeking the evidence for it is patently unscientific, and science would appreciate it if you would stop dragging it into the argument. It's also dishonest, since you started out from the position of being against same-sex marriage... it's not as if the evidence convinced you, so why should you present it to me as if it would convince me?

So first of all, just be honest. "I don't like gay people." "Homosexuality is wrong." "Gay marriage is against my religion and nature." If that's what you feel, then say it. Say what you really believe, for THAT is the truth, not all this other subterfuge that gets added on to try and hide the fact that you're against gay marriage because of fear or hate.

I say fear and hate as opposed to religion because it is possible to be both religious *and* tolerant. I am an atheist. One of my best friends is what I would describe as a devout Jew, though I couldn't tell you exactly what branch of Judaism he follows. He's a very decent person, and he keeps kosher. Therefore from his perspective, it's wrong to eat a ham and cheese sandwich. But my very good friend would never, ever, not in a million years try and tell me that I couldn't have a ham and cheese sandwich, try to pass laws against the same, and would not even if I were a Jew of the exact same sect as he. This is because he recognizes that the reach of his personal religion extends no further than his own person. Period.

Thus he recognizes that the "it's wrong" assessment can only apply to actions that he himself takes. In essence, he is cognizant of the distinction between "it's wrong" and "it's wrong *for me*".

And thus, we return to gay marriage. Gay marriage isn't wrong. It's wrong *for you*. If you think (a) homosexuality is an abomination, and (b) you can't stand the thought of gay sex acts, and (c) you think gay marriage is an oxymoron, then I strongly advise you to (a) not engage in homosexual behavior, (b) not think about gay sex acts, and (c) not marry a gay person. In all likelihood, you weren't planning on doing any of those things anyway, right? So what then, exactly, is the problem? Nobody is asking you to enter into a gay marriage, or teach your children that they can enter into gay marriage... so the problem would be... what? Thou shalt not suffer a fag to live, or something?

Gay couple X are in love and wish to be married so they can enjoy all the protections and benefits that any other married couple can enjoy. As someone who is not homosexual, and who finds the idea of homosexual intercourse repellant, I gladly endorse couple X and wish them luck and happiness in their relationship. I can't relate to homosexuality, but I can *certainly* relate to LOVE. They're mutually consenting adults in love, under what guise of decency could I possibly deny them the right to the same civil union I enjoy? The answer to that is none. There is no guise for that denial, and those of you who attempt to dress in such guise would be advised to put on a bathrobe because it is completely transparent.

Missouri's referendum is disgusting, and it will not stand. It may take 10 years, or 50 years, or 100 years, but the day will come when gay marriage is a recognized civil construct in across this nation. The day *IS* coming, no matter how much you rail against it (the homo-free future is a pipe dream). Years from now people who live in that age will look back on this one with the same mix of perplexity and disgust that we look back on the eras of institutionalized race and gender inequalities. The white shame of today will be replaced by the hetero shame of tomorrow.

What a waste.

There are so many more important issues in the world today, and yet a bunch of hateful, fearful, bigots are going to muster themselves to tell two people who are in love (love every bit as real as any you've ever experienced) that they cannot marry each other. In 50 years or so, when gay marriage is 100% legal, where will that couple be? Why should their happiness have been tossed on the bonfire set by the hatemongers to no useful purpose since the act would ultimately be legalized?

Recognizing gay marriage is the right thing to do.

Since I'm not going to stick around for replies, and since frankly, the opponents of gay marriage haven't been saying anything particularly stellar or insightful thus far, let's run down the standard litany and get it over with now. I'm not pulling these arguments out of my butt... I've heard them all before.

1. Homosexuality is unnatural.

* Homosexuality is natural and occurs regularly throughout nature. MARRIAGE is unnatural. So is clothing, eyeglasses, bicycles, ice cream, foot powder, tattoos, CD players, nylon, and sporks. We don't have laws against any of those things (or didn't until people started making laws against gay marriage). Homosexuality is unnatural *for you*. Don't practice it.

2. Homosexuality is against the laws of God

* The laws of your God, as you have been taught them, perhaps. But this is not a theocracy, and you don't get to extend the laws of your religion to people of other faiths. It's your faith, *you* follow it. We have a separation of church and state in this country precisely for that reason.

3. If you allow gay marriage, you have to allow incestual, polygamous/polyandrous, bestial, and other bizarre forms of marriage.

* Slippery slope arguments are fallacious, and disengenuous, so STFU. You know damn well that the issue on the table is gay marriage and nothing else. Putting scary things on the table with it in an effort to frighten people into seeing things your way is the mark of a contemptible liar. It does not follow that if we allow same-sex marriage that we have to allow ANYTHING else. Polyandry and polygamy are entirely different sorts of arrangements for which we have *no analogue* in our legal system, a discussion of them would be interesting, but it is *NOT* this discussion. Bestial marriages involve at least one entity with very limited rights and no ability to sign a marriage license... again no analogue. Incestuous marriages can be either heterosexual or same-sex so they hardly serve as a recommendation on either side of the argument. Just shut up with the slippery slope nonsense. It's BS, and everybody knows it's BS, including you.

4. It's my right to vote to ban gay marriage in a referendum.

* Had you lived over a hundred years ago, it would also be your right to enslave other humans and beat them when they didn't follow your orders. That doesn't make it the right thing to do. By all means exercise your rights.

5. Judges shouldn't be legislating this from the bench, the appropriate solution was to do exactly what Missouri did, put it up for public referendum.

* And again, over a hundred years ago, if you had put up a public referendum in the deep south (the economy of which largely *depended* on a workforce that didn't have to be paid) the public would have voted to keep their slaves. Big surprise. The majority (or even the minority in power) is only interested in what is best for *itself*. History has shown that, repeatedly, it has been the *courts* that have overturned discriminatory laws, sometimes against the will of the (racist) people who voted those laws in. Unfair laws get overturned; it is generally the courts that overturn them; this is the natural way of things in the United States. Enjoy discriminatory laws while you have them. Their days are numbered as surely as the sky is blue. This is one of the reasons our nation is such a great one...

6. Marriage is a religious issue... if we have separation of church and state, then the state can't say it's okay for gay people to marry... that is only something a church can say.

* Well, besides the fact that several churches will perform same sex marriages, this misses the point. Gay people aren't demanding the right to be married by a church. They simply want to be *married* (i.e. in the civil sense, thusly enjoying the protections and benefits our country offers people who enter into civil marriage.) If a gay couple wants to be married by a baptist church, I wish them luck and suggest they wear body armor. But since the objections to such a union are only the result of religious intolerance, hatred, or fear, then the government has no grounds upon which to deny them the right to the same civil contract that a hetero couple can enjoy

7. "Gay" isn't a race, thus denying gays the right to "marry" isn't racism. Thus there is no way a law defining even *civil* marriage as between a man and a woman can be overturned on those grounds.

* The US government disagrees with you. Homosexuality is not a "race" but "sexual preference" is a recognized "protected class" in the US legal code, along with "creed", "race", "gender", "marital status", "parental status", "physically impaired", "mentally impaired", and a host of other protected classes, numbering I think 14 in all. Our legal system makes clear that discrimination against ANY of these protected classes is a violation of US law. Denying a marriage license to a gay couple because of they are a gay couple is therefore discrimination. Therefore we are passing laws that break other laws. The courts are where this mess will be cleaned up. Stay tuned.

8. If we allow gays to marry my kids will grow up thinking it's okay to be gay and it's okay for gays to marry. Think of the children!

* GOOD. We'd like your kids to grow up not hating people because they are different. Prejudice and discrimination do nothing but impede our nation's progress and our maturation as a species. Less hate is a *GOOD* thing, not a *BAD* thing. Besides, you know full well that you will communicate your values to your children to the best of your abilities. In all likelihood, they'll grow up with the same values as you.

9. Why change the definition of marriage?

* Prior to all this hubbabaloo, it's arguable that the definition of marriage didn't actually include the 1 man 1 woman clause. Adding it in response to gay people trying to marry is in fact, changing the definition of marriage. Some would take issue with that stance, but that's okay, because the definition of marriage has demonstrably changed *countless* times over the history of mankind and has many flavors and variants. In some countries (including certain sects here in America) polygamous marriage is acceptable. 70 years ago, in much of our nation, an interracial marriage was ILLEGAL. Clearly, the definition has been changed. Arranged marriage. Common-law marriage. And so on. And so on.

10. Why can't gay people just have civil unions? Why does it have to be "marriage"?

* Are we actually going to argue about something as stupid and unimportant as a word? What's in a name? Well at least in this case, legal system recognizes "marriage" as a civil contract that a couple can enter into. The word "marriage" has worked its way deeply into our legal system as the name of this civil contract. The license you receive to become joined in the eyes of the law is called a "Marriage License". In the religious sense, only the deity you worship can grant you the right to marry. This isn't about religious marriage, so the use of the word should be moot. If I cohabitate with a woman for 7 years, I am married to her in the eyes of the state, without any religious ceremony taking place. And yet there's no push to ban common-law marriages, or force them to be called something else. If you're going to set aside a group of civil marriages and insist (simply for religious reasons--which BTW automatically makes it a violation of the separation of church and state) that they be called "civil unions" instead of "marriages", then every single law and legal document and practice of the land needs to be modified to include "or civil union" after every mention of the word "marriage". Ultimately this will provide a vehicle for intolerant lawmakers to oppress gay people by "accidentally" forgetting to include "or civil union" on certain documents. Our history has shown there is no such thing as "separate but equal". If you're going to hand out marriage licenses to heterosexuals, you've got to hand them out to homosexuals too.

11. But what if gay couples have kids? Surely that's not a good environment for kids to grow up in!

* What if they do? Many gay couples already have kids, and in several states it is legal for gay couples to adopt. Whether or not it is a bad environment is up for debate. According to the American Psychological Association, and several other respected (NON-ACTIVIST) organizations, there's no lasting harmful effect in being raised by a same-sex couple. It doesn't make the child more likely to turn out gay or unbalanced in some way. But for the sake of argument, let's assume there was a measurable impact on the children of gay marriages... imagine that statistically more of them are retarded or whatever. Does that mean we should (a) deny gay marriage or (b) deny gay parenthood? We don't deny two mentally impaired persons the right to marry and have a baby. We don't deny convicted felons the right to marry and have a baby. Surely those environments are probably less hospitable to children, but we allow them. Why should they be preferrable to a stable two-parent home where both parents are the same gender? Heck we don't deny a single woman the right to have a baby. Is a single parent somehow better than two of the same sex? As a basic principle, our society doesn't practice eugenics or intrusive marriage management for heteros. There's no reason to practice it for gays.

12. Gay marriages are invalid because there is no way they can produce children. Why should they be accorded the benefits of a normal marriage which can produce children?

* Irrelevant. There are countless hetero marriages that produce no children by choice or due to a physical disability. We don't deny those marriages, why deny gay marriages?

13. Listen, black people don't choose to be black, so laws preventing someone from marrying based on race clearly are discriminatory. I fail to see why I have to subsidize through tax dollars a lifestyle choice that I don't personally agree with.

* The debate as to whether homosexuality is a choice or not is irrelevant. If you *choose* to drive a hybrid car instead of a SUV, our legal system extends benefits to you. If you *choose* to marry someone as poor as you are as opposed to someone regularly featured in Forbes Magazine, our legal system extends benefits to you. If you *choose* to defend this great nation in military service, our legal system extends benefits to you. If you *choose* to have six kids, our legal system extends benefits to you. No you can't choose your race. But you can choose your religion... people convert all the time, and yet we defend freedom of religion. Our society respects the rights of the individual and self-determination. As far as the tax money goes, you are paying the government for benefits that are extended to all citizens, once you pay it, it isn't your money anymore. We subsidize Jewish, Baptist, and countless-other-ist marriages. Are you an atheist? No? Does your government grant you the right to withhold tax money that would go to benefit atheist marriages? No. This is a non-argument. All that said, it is clear enough from the science, that homosexuality is not a conscious choice in any event, even if it is not determined by genetics. It's not as if someone wakes up one morning and says, "Gee I think I'll be gay." I've known a number of gay people over the years and NONE of them has ever said to me that they chose to be gay.

14. What about the harmful effects to society of homosexuality? AIDS? Other STDs? Moral decline?

* Let's say you deny a gay couple the right to marry. Are they going to stop having sex as a result? NO. Are they going to stop being gay? NO. So what was the point of this argument then? Besides the riskier sex acts that gay people engage in are not inherently gay acts. Plenty of heterosexual married couples engage in fellatio, cunnilingus, analingus, and anal intercourse. It's the act itself that is risky, not the genders of the people performing it.

15. Only a very tiny segment of the population is gay. Going to all this trouble for them is a waste of time and resources. We can't bend over backwards and cowtow for every little group that comes along and demands some right or another. I could form my own church with me as the only member and demand benefits from the government otherwise.

* The upper estimate of the percentage of the US population that is homosexual is 10%, and the lowest estimate is 3%. The actual number probably falls somewhere in between... say 5%, which would be 1 person in every 20. That is an enourmous group (about 14 million) of people! We're not talking about a group of 5 guys hanging out behind the shed here. To put that in perspective, the portion of the American population that is Jewish is also 5%. Should we start denying rights to Jews based on the size of their group?

16. If you're not gay, how do you know homosexual love is *real* love? What if it isn't? What if they are just looking to get the bennies and don't really love each other? If that's true, homosexual marriage would not be real marriage.

* Civil marriage is a social recognition of a loving union between two people, but our legal system does not require that you be in love with the person you are marrying. Therefore, even if gay love was somehow "lesser" in devotion (which is kind of a pointless argument anyway, as if it could be measured), this would be irrelevant to the question of allowing gay marriage. We allow heteros to marry whether or not they are in love, therefore there is no reason to apply such a restriction to gay couples. That aside, every gay couple I've ever known seemed to be genuinely in love to my untrained eye.

In conclusion, it amazes me that people who are not gay think this is any of their business. Newsflash: it ain't. If two ladies in Poughkeepsie get hitched it doesn't affect you one iota unless you are one of them. That people would be so presumptuous as to think that they have some right to deny a loving couple marriage based on the genders involved astonishes and, frankly, disgusts me. Let's let the homosexuals marry and move on to something important which affects us all, like, oh I don't know... terrorism? Racism? Abortion? Gun rights? Education? Healthcare? The environment? Commerce? Tax reform? Political Reform? Corporate welfare? Human trafficking? Drugs? Renewable energy? Cancer? Heart disease? Iraq? Afghanistan? Taiwan? China? Space exploration? Media conglomeration? The price of gasoline? And so forth?