NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a question that I haven't ever heard answered. What possible effects would allowing homosexual marriages affect you personally? What other reason could there possibly be to outlaw homosexual marriages?

It would eliminate a precedent for unequal treatment before the law, which potentially has very big personal effects on me.

I'll tell you how it affects me personnally:

If that was to come to pass, I'd be able to marry the person I love.

Oh, wait, that's a good thing.

I dont agree with it on a philisophical basis, and thats all the explanation and reason you need.

I can understand why conservatives would want to ban homosexual marriages to keep families together

For example (for all of you who watch South Park)

Pretend that gay man (the guy with Mr. Hat) fell in love with a woman and got married. They had three children. And then one day, the man sees another man. Things get hotter until the man decides to leave the family for this other man and get married.

Although I honestly don't think it's any different from when spouses cheat on each other...

I dont agree with it on a philisophical basis, and thats all the explanation and reason you need.

Why aren't you asnwering her question? What you just said has nothing to do with the inquiry at the origin of this thread...

I mean, she's not asking why you agree or disagree. She's asking if it affects you personnally, and if so, how. Try to stay on topic, you're only the 4th poster.

It would mean that my ex-wife would have a chance to get divorced again. :D

What possible effects would allowing homosexual marriages affect you personally?

it would mean that some of my friends could get married someday. well, they can here, because it's legal in ontario. but still it's nice to know that my homosexual friends can get married and be happy like everybody else.

I dont agree with it on a philisophical basis, and thats all the explanation and reason you need.

Actually, no it isn't. There are most likely thing that you do that others disagree with on a philosophical basis yet are perfectly legal. Why should homosexuals be denied 1049 federal rights because you have a philosophical problem with them?

Why aren't you asnwering her question? What you just said has nothing to do with the inquiry at the origin of this thread...

I mean, she's not asking why you agree or disagree. She's asking if it affects you personnally, and if so, how. Try to stay on topic, you're only the 4th poster.

I did answer the question, it affects me personnaly becuase I dont agree with it and im not comfortable with the thought of it. But for example, lets say there is a bill passed that allows for legal gay marriage. Whats to stop people from marrying their television, family members, or an animal? It opens a door to alot of unforseen consequinces(sp?) and future debates like this one.

Why aren't you asnwering her question? What you just said has nothing to do with the inquiry at the origin of this thread...

I mean, she's not asking why you agree or disagree. She's asking if it affects you personnally, and if so, how. Try to stay on topic, you're only the 4th poster.

He...

I'm a he...

Other than that, spot on.

The establishment of homosexual marriages would mean the redefinition of marriage.

Actually, no it isn't. There are most likely thing that you do that others disagree with on a philosophical basis yet are perfectly legal. Why should homosexuals be denied 1049 federal rights because you have a philosophical problem with them?

Of course I do. And if i had my way they would probly be illegal too.

I did answer the question, it affects me personnaly becuase I dont agree with it and im not comfortable with the thought of it. But for example, lets say there is a bill passed that allows for legal gay marriage. Whats to stop people from marrying their television, family members, or an animal? It opens a door to alot of unforseen consequinces(sp?) and future debates like this one.

That's called a slippery slope argument. Marriage is entering a contract. Can you enter a contract with a TV or an Animal? Also allowing homosexual marriage is not a liscense for familial sexual predation. Can you enter into a heterosexual marriage with your sibling now? Allowing homosexual marriages won't change that because of the destructive impacts that would have on people.

Truth is, there are no unforseen consequences.

It goes against my belief that marriage is an outdated practice.
:mad:

Whats to stop people from marrying their television, family members, or an animal? It opens a door to alot of unforseen consequinces(sp?) and future debates like this one.

television is an inanimate object.
family members: there is a chance of mutation in offspring.
animal: can't consent, different species.

worst case, polygamists figure they can get something through.

The establishment of homosexual marriages would mean the redefinition of marriage.

Why is that a bad thing? How does that affect your marriage (assuming you're married -- marriages in general if you're not).

The establishment of homosexual marriages would mean the redefinition of marriage.

they redefined that to allow women equal status in marriage rather than being property.
they also changed it to allow black people to marry white people.

Of course I do. And if i had my way they would probly be illegal too.

Sorry, what would be illegal? You lost me.

television is an inanimate object.
family members: there is a chance of mutation in offspring.
animal: can't consent, different species.

worst case, polygamists figure they can get something through.

You missed it entirely, does it matter that television is an innatimate object, no. And people can and do mate with animals and family members.

I did answer the question, it affects me personnaly becuase I dont agree with it and im not comfortable with the thought of it. But for example, lets say there is a bill passed that allows for legal gay marriage. Whats to stop people from marrying their television, family members, or an animal? It opens a door to alot of unforseen consequinces(sp?) and future debates like this one.
Congress passed a tax on our income, what's stopping them from passing taxes on other things? I mean, once we found out that income tax is legal and constitutional, why didn't we make federal taxes on everything?

We lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. What's to stop congress from lowering to 12?

We allowed women and minorities the right to citizenship and vote, what's stopping congress from registering non-Citizens, or better yet, animals the rights of citizenship and vote?

You missed it entirely, does it matter that television is an innatimate object, no. And people can and do mate with animals and family members.

People cannot enter into a contract with animals or inanimate objects.

Familial Sexual Predation is something that is already prevented and will not change if homosexuals are allowed to marry.

My aunt was happily married to my uncle for many years, they had two children. My uncle came out and they got divorced, although gay marriage is not legal at their state. First of all, there are many other things that can tear marriages apart that are not and cannot be outlawed. Also, it doesn't take legal marriage to divorce someone, as in my example. The piont is that nobody should be told who they can and can't marry, anyone who says they have a right to dictate that knows they are wrong. Period. Poeple can decide for themselves what they want to do in their life, it's nobody else's business unless it starts to affect other people.

Now, gay marriage could affect others by causing divorce, but so what? The government does not need to decide "crack down" on divorces, it's none of it's concern. The only other thing I can think of is that some people would not like to see so many gay couples in public. I don't want to kids walking around with pink hair and peirced everything possible, but I understand that whether it looks good to me or not it's their right.

I did answer the question, it affects me personnaly becuase I dont agree with it and im not comfortable with the thought of it. But for example, lets say there is a bill passed that allows for legal gay marriage. Whats to stop people from marrying their television, family members, or an animal? It opens a door to alot of unforseen consequinces(sp?) and future debates like this one.

No, you did NOT answer her question. I might not agree with divorce, yet poeple go ahead and get married to divorce after a year or two anyway, and that doesn't affect me in the least. Hence why even if I object to divorce, I don,t try to get it outlawed.

Are you trying to take the thread on slippery slope on purpose? That argument is so old and tired and lamed, and has been beaten to a bloody, dead pulp so many times I'm not even going to bother answering anything else than : the same thing that stopped them from marrying their TV, family members or animals when they legalized inter-racial marriage.

People cannot enter into a contract with animals or inanimate objects.

Familial Sexual Predation is something that is already prevented and will not change if homosexuals are allowed to marry.

Do you know that? And if you asked somebody 50 years ago about gay marraige they would have an answer simillar to yours.

He...

I'm a he...

Other than that, spot on.

Oh.






Um, sorry.

You missed it entirely, does it matter that television is an innatimate object, no. And people can and do mate with animals and family members.

it does matter. a television can't consent because it is an inanimate object.
mating between family members can cause mutations in offspring, thus it is hazardous. an animal can't consent either. animals and inanimate objects can't enter contracts.

Do you know that? And if you asked somebody 50 years ago about gay marraige they would have an answer simillar to yours.

no they wouldn't have.

it mean that i would have to buy more wedding presents
not only THAT but, since im already married, i would never get my money back in reciprocated presents.

Do you know that? And if you asked somebody 50 years ago about gay marraige they would have an answer simillar to yours.
What does that have to do with the cost of tea in China (even if it were true)?

Furthermore, you are refusing to answer how homosexual marriages could lead to marriages to inanimate objects or animals given that neither inanimate objects nor animals can enter into a contract. And you have yet to give any reason for anyone to believe that the laws that prevent against familial sexual predation would be overturned if gay marriage were allowed.

Of course I do. And if i had my way they would probly be illegal too.

So you're saying your moral code should be set into law, because by the sheer merit of being yours it should be forced on everyone else in your country?(Wherever that is)

You missed it entirely, does it matter that television is an innatimate object, no. And people can and do mate with animals and family members.
People also mate with machines of sort...(just thought I'd help you out)


Okay, done helping


Now, there is a difference between mating with a person and marrying them. People these days have sex all the time. I don't see daily marriages and divorces now do I?

No, you did NOT answer her question. I might not agree with divorce, yet poeple go ahead and get married to divorce after a year or two anyway, and that doesn't affect me in the least. Hence why even if I object to divorce, I don,t try to get it outlawed.

Are you trying to take the thread on slippery slope on purpose? That argument is so old and tired and lamed, and has been beaten to a bloody, dead pulp so many times I'm not even going to bother answering anything else than : the same thing that stopped them from marrying their TV, family members or animals when they legalized inter-racial marriage.


Did interacial marriage open the door for the legalization of gay marriage? Before that, it was unthinkable to propose that two homosexuals could be married.

And people can and do mate with animals and family members.

I don't know where you live, but I'm not moving there.... eww.

Still, you've said nothing to disprove the point where marriage is a contract and animals and inanimate objects cannot agree to a contract .

Did interacial marriage open the door for the legalization of gay marriage? Before that, it was unthinkable to propose that two homosexuals could be married.
And before interacial marriage was black marriage...
Why did we even let the blacks marry? Now we're talking about marrying toasters and space ships!![/sarcasm]

Did interacial marriage open the door for the legalization of gay marriage? Before that, it was unthinkable to propose that two homosexuals could be married.
Interracial marriage may very well have opened the door to (or at least opening up the disscussion for) homosexual marriage. The difference there is that consenting adults can (and often do) enter into contracts with each other. Inanimate objects and animals cannot enter into contracts.

The establishment of homosexual marriages would mean the redefinition of marriage.
Why is that a bad thing? How does that affect your marriage (assuming you're married -- marriages in general if you're not).

I didn't say it was a bad thing.

I'm not married.

It would affect marriages in general by changing what the point of marriage is.



The establishment of homosexual marriages would mean the redefinition of marriage.
they redefined that to allow women equal status in marriage rather than being property.
they also changed it to allow black people to marry white people.


You are quite correct, those examples show redefinitions of marriage. But those changes are more like superficial changes, groundbreaking and important as they are. Gay marriages would change the essential nature of marriage.

I did answer the question, it affects me personnaly becuase I dont agree with it and im not comfortable with the thought of it. But for example, lets say there is a bill passed that allows for legal gay marriage. Whats to stop people from marrying their television, family members, or an animal? It opens a door to alot of unforseen consequinces(sp?) and future debates like this one.


Firearms are legal, whats to stop them from legalizing assualt weapons, Heavy Machine Guns, Rocket Launchers, Tanks, B-2 Bombers? It opens the door to a lot of unforseen consequences.

Didja see that? I just went from small arms to high-yield nuclear bombs using the same method you did. Slippery Slopes are usually suprisingly level and firm

Do you know that? And if you asked somebody 50 years ago about gay marraige they would have an answer simillar to yours.

That post isn't making any sense. 50 years ago nobody would've supported gay marriage, while whe clearly was. Please take the time to think your posts through before putting them up...

I didn't say it was a bad thing.

I'm not married.

It would affect marriages in general by changing what the point of marriage is.






You are quite correct, those examples show redefinitions of marriage. But those changes are more like superficial changes, groundbreaking and important as they are. Gay marriages would change the essential nature of marriage.

It would change the scope of marriage, not what it is. Okay, what do you say, is it a bad thing?

Did interacial marriage open the door for the legalization of gay marriage? Before that, it was unthinkable to propose that two homosexuals could be married.

It was unthinkable that a homosexual could be a part of society then, too. It's like feminism. Public opinion began to see women as people, and the laws accommodated that.

People also mate with machines of sort...(just thought I'd help you out)


Okay, done helping


Now, there is a difference between mating with a person and marrying them. People these days have sex all the time. I don't see daily marriages and divorces now do I?

*coughbritneyspearscough*

I want to marry a toaster.

*coughbritneyspearscough*

guffaw! No, no, that was an hourly marriage/divorce

lol.

I want to marry a toaster.
If I have my way, you'll be allowed to.

Oh no wait... Did I say that out loud?

The consequences are that homosexual marriage promotes a non discrimination agenda which taken to its logical conclusion will mean that we also must allow other things that we may find abhorrent such as incest or polygamy. We will have to allow this because we have set the precedent of not being able to stop something because of non-discrimination laws.

Gay couples can enter into a partnership agreement to protect property rights, gay people have the right to live as a gay couple now, so what possible benefit does allowing gay marriage create. The answer is none. Thereby the real question is why do they want it? The answer is above.

Also we must consider the fact that gay people will then demand the right to adopt children as they cannot make any naturally. This is a natural progression of their non-discrimination rights. A gay persons lifestyle is promiscuous by choice, the only thing stopping gay people being more promiscuous is the possibility of disease,(aids and the likes). The best way to reduce this risk is to have sex with young virginal children. By opening the door to gay adoption as a natural progression from gay marriage, we put children at risk by exposing them to people with an undesirable motive.

This is how gay marriage will affect everyone in society. Are we prepared for the consequences? Have we thouroughly examined all the angles.

it does matter. mating between family members can cause mutations in offspring, thus it is hazardous. .

You DO realize the subject is marriage, not breeding, right? You DO realize that you can breed without marriage, right? So, since your opposition to incest is the breeding, if they are sterile, is that OK? If homosexual marriage were legal, no chance of breeding, so is that OK?

It would change the scope of marriage, not what it is. Okay, what do you say, is it a bad thing?

It would change the scope of marriage, and what it is.

Changing the scope of marriage has been done before. Changing what marriage is has not.

And as to whether or not I think it's a bad thing - perhaps I'm wating for the culmination of this discussion to form a good/bad opinion.

Did interacial marriage open the door for the legalization of gay marriage? Before that, it was unthinkable to propose that two homosexuals could be married.

No, inter-racial marriage did NOT open the door for that. Please take into account that this happens...what, 50 years later? And that the cause is that gay poeple have had their own gay rights movement since then. You're trying to put a cause-and-effect link to two events who are simply similar in the sense that the gay rights movement had the black's rights movement to itself on.

Now that we've cleared that up, explain exactly to me how animals and TVs can set up their own Animal's rights and TV's rights movements to pave the road for future inter-species and inter-things marriages?

Firearms are legal, whats to stop them from legalizing assualt weapons, Heavy Machine Guns, Rocket Launchers, Tanks, B-2 Bombers? It opens the door to a lot of unforseen consequences.

Didja see that? I just went from small arms to high-yield nuclear bombs using the same method you did. Slippery Slopes are usually suprisingly level and firm

Nothing at all! Good point! Let's get to it then!

Black people used to be thought of as subhuman (some people still think this :( ). White people started letting them get married. They're not thought of in the same way anymore. By not allowing homosexuals to marry, you're essentially denying them the right of social status.

Plain and simple it doesn't. I could care less what people do as long as it doesn't concern me.

It would make me more proud of my country. Other than that, nope.

No one has ever made a non-logical argument againist gay marriage, unless it involves the bible or gayocide (or whatever, people dont want gay people near, etc)

Gay marriage is fine by me, MYOB

Did interacial marriage open the door for the legalization of gay marriage? Before that, it was unthinkable to propose that two homosexuals could be married.

before then it was unacceptable to think that gay people couldn't be blackballed from everything. you know, to think that they're actually sane people.
we've grown up a lot since then.

The consequences are that homosexual marriage promotes a non discrimination agenda which taken to its logical conclusion will mean that we also must allow other things that we may find abhorrent such as incest or polygamy. We will have to allow this because we have set the precedent of not being able to stop something because of non-discrimination laws.

Gay couples can enter into a partnership agreement to protect property rights, gay people have the right to live as a gay couple now, so what possible benefit does allowing gay marriage create. The answer is none. Thereby the real question is why do they want it? The answer is above.


Partnership agreements and property rights don't promote a non-discrimination agenda, perhaps? So why is it we're not seeing any partnership agreements and property rights for paedophiles and their victims, if such arrangements are okay for anyone?

As for the benfits of having real marriageover said arrangements, just ask a lawyer, he'll make you a list.

It would prppably cause me to be invited into several weddings, were it not legal alredy in Finland. Personally, I see no problems with gay marriages. Marriage, after all, is just a ritual to seal a contract between two(usually) consenting individuals. In my opinion religion should have nothing to do with marriage, since it is an affair between individuals, not neccessarily of any religion. Mixing religion with legistlation will, in my opinion, lead to no good.

You mean no one has ever made a logical argument against gay marriage? Gotta watch those double negatives because now I'm confused as to what you meant to say.

I am against Homosexual marriage for the same reason I am against Polygamy, and marriage between a father and his legal aged son... and other things. Marriage is a sanctimonious institution, lets not cheapen it with allowing deviants to parttake in it. Before I get accused of being a religious zealot, save your breath with the flames, as I was just answering the question that was posed.. not here to debate with people that are for homo marriage

You DO realize the subject is marriage, not breeding, right? You DO realize that you can breed without marriage, right? So, since your opposition to incest is the breeding, if they are sterile, is that OK? If homosexual marriage were legal, no chance of breeding, so is that OK?

fine. i personally don't care if brother and sister get married. i'm not goign to marry any of my sisters (which would be both a same sex and incestual relationship)

hell, i don't care if they allow polygyny so long as they allow polyandry as well.

Partnership agreements and property rights don't promote a non-discrimination agenda, perhaps? So why is it we're not seeing any partnership agreements and property rights for paedophiles and their victims, if such arrangements are okay for anyone?

As for the benfits of having real marriageover said arrangements, just ask a lawyer, he'll make you a list.
Uh, as far as paedophile/"victim" relationships, didn't you hear the stuff about that one teacher that got out of jail about a month ago? The "victim" and the paedophile will probably be getting married...

My $.02:
The slippery slope argument is that preventing gay marriages denies them certain rights. Marriage is a religious institution, not something that Government should be involved in changing. A "civil union" provides any couple the same rights to property, etc. The problem that we have today is that everyone wants "special rights" (one example: hate laws) because they belong to some specific minority, when, in fact, they are protected by the same laws as everyone else. You should not be entitled to any special rights because of sexual orientation, race, gender, or creed, nor should you be discriminated against because of sexual orientation, race, gender or creed.

Greater Valia,
People will argue with you, tell you you're narrow-minded, tell you that you are not "tolerant" etcetera. Those same people believe that tolerance means that you have to accept a belief/position different than your own. In fact, tolerance means that it's ok to hold a belief that is different, that is your right.

I am against Homosexual marriage for the same reason I am against Polygamy, and marriage between a father and his legal aged son... and other things. Marriage is a sanctimonious institution, lets not cheapen it with allowing deviants to parttake in it. Before I get accused of being a religious zealot, save your breath with the flames, as I was just answering the question that was posed.. not here to debate with people that are for homo marriage
You didn't answer the question though.
The question looks like this:

How does Homosexual marriage affect YOU?

An answer would look something like this:
"Homosexual marriage affects me in that my life is changed in this way."
and not like this:
"I am against Homosexual marriage and this is my reason."

A gay persons lifestyle is promiscuous by choice, the only thing stopping gay people being more promiscuous is the possibility of disease,(aids and the likes). The best way to reduce this risk is to have sex with young virginal children. By opening the door to gay adoption as a natural progression from gay marriage, we put children at risk by exposing them to people with an undesirable motive.


You're so full of predudice you're sickening me. For your information, and even though that'll never change your blind assumptions, I'm a gay male of 21 years old. I've had a single sexual partner in my life as of yet, with which I've shared my life for the last 2 years and a half. I also intend on marrying him in the next few years(I live in Canada) and spend the rest of my life being faithful to him.

I happen to know COUNTLESS heterosexuals who regularly cheat on their girlfriend. I happen to hear every year about this or that celebrity who married another celebrity to divorce a few months or even days later.

You don't have the slightest f*cking clue what you're saying when you're talking about gays being promiscuous by choice, only stopped by disease, and interested in molesting children. You have no idea how much I have to restrain myself from vomitting all the contempt I have for those affirmationson you, but that would be frowned upon on this forum. End of dicussion.

The consequences are that homosexual marriage promotes a non discrimination agenda which taken to its logical conclusion will mean that we also must allow other things that we may find abhorrent such as incest or polygamy. We will have to allow this because we have set the precedent of not being able to stop something because of non-discrimination laws.

Gay couples can enter into a partnership agreement to protect property rights, gay people have the right to live as a gay couple now, so what possible benefit does allowing gay marriage create. The answer is none. Thereby the real question is why do they want it? The answer is above.

Also we must consider the fact that gay people will then demand the right to adopt children as they cannot make any naturally. This is a natural progression of their non-discrimination rights. A gay persons lifestyle is promiscuous by choice, the only thing stopping gay people being more promiscuous is the possibility of disease,(aids and the likes). The best way to reduce this risk is to have sex with young virginal children. By opening the door to gay adoption as a natural progression from gay marriage, we put children at risk by exposing them to people with an undesirable motive.

This is how gay marriage will affect everyone in society. Are we prepared for the consequences? Have we thouroughly examined all the angles.

Dear god, where to begin...
Laws against polygamy and incest already exist for reasons outside of class and creed. Allowing gay marriage does not change this. Allowing gay marriage does not automatically make these other laws defunct.

Yes, gay couples can enter into partnership agreements, but it costs a lot of money and time to make a dozen different legal contracts just to get the bigger rights granted by marriage. It isn't fair. If it is, then why not make all arrangements legal-based, and just make marriage a religious institution?

And fuck you is my first reaction for calling homosexuals promiscuous by nature. Read Cosmo, Maxim, and any of their mimics. They promote one night stands and multiple partners. And having sex with children because they're low-risk? If that's an issue, then straight people would do the same. Like I've said before, the group at the greatest risk for AIDS are college age, straight females. And if a person, today, wanted to get their hands on a little boy, wouldn't you think they'd find it easier if they said they were straight?

And the consequences? I don't see them as any different than allowing integrated schools and banning sex discrimination.

Eh...yea, if homosexuals were allowed to marry, it'd actually help eliminate the promiscuousity as they'd be more likely to take their relationship (with one partner) more seriously and cherish and honor that single partner more.

I am against Homosexual marriage for the same reason I am against Polygamy, and marriage between a father and his legal aged son... and other things. Marriage is a sanctimonious institution, lets not cheapen it with allowing deviants to parttake in it. Before I get accused of being a religious zealot, save your breath with the flames, as I was just answering the question that was posed.. not here to debate with people that are for homo marriage
do you know what sanctimonious means?

"Homosexual marriage affects me in that my life is changed in this way."
It is still the same, except now i hafta type some more junk, cutting into my valuble AOE time ;)

(logical agrument againist gay marriage) <--never happened to me
I'd like to hear one though.

A gay persons lifestyle is promiscuous by choice, the only thing stopping gay people being more promiscuous is the possibility of disease,(aids and the likes). The best way to reduce this risk is to have sex with young virginal children. By opening the door to gay adoption as a natural progression from gay marriage, we put children at risk by exposing them to people with an undesirable motive.

you're an idiot.

if being gay meant being promiscuous, then why the hell would gay people want to get married?

because of course, as we all know, nothing says promiscuity like buckling down for the rest of your life with the same person.

and also, the most likely group to get aids now are heterosexual women. for some reason a lot of heterosexuals think themselves immune to it and so don't use protection.

Uh, as far as paedophile/"victim" relationships, didn't you hear the stuff about that one teacher that got out of jail about a month ago? The "victim" and the paedophile will probably be getting married...


Good point. But you're not forgetting that the boy's 21 now, are you? They could not get married or have any other form of arrangment or benefit as long as the guy wasn't of legal age. So technically now they're a happy normal het couple.

Which doesn't mean it wasn't very wrong of the woman to sleep with a 12 yo boy.But that's another debate.

The consequences are that homosexual marriage promotes a non discrimination agenda which taken to its logical conclusion will mean that we also must allow other things that we may find abhorrent such as incest or polygamy. We will have to allow this because we have set the precedent of not being able to stop something because of non-discrimination laws.

Gay couples can enter into a partnership agreement to protect property rights, gay people have the right to live as a gay couple now, so what possible benefit does allowing gay marriage create. The answer is none. Thereby the real question is why do they want it? The answer is above.

Also we must consider the fact that gay people will then demand the right to adopt children as they cannot make any naturally. This is a natural progression of their non-discrimination rights. A gay persons lifestyle is promiscuous by choice, the only thing stopping gay people being more promiscuous is the possibility of disease,(aids and the likes). The best way to reduce this risk is to have sex with young virginal children. By opening the door to gay adoption as a natural progression from gay marriage, we put children at risk by exposing them to people with an undesirable motive.

This is how gay marriage will affect everyone in society. Are we prepared for the consequences? Have we thouroughly examined all the angles.
A seemingly intellectual post wrought with lunacy.

Allowing gay marriages will not allow for incest or polygamy any more than heterosexual marriages already do. Incest is particularly troubling since that opens the possibility for sexual predation within families. In order to protect people, that practice must be (and would continue to be) outlawed. Polygamy creates confusion for families, problems with the tax code, and is not healthy for children, so that too should be (and would continue to be) outlawed.

There are 1049 federal rights (and, depending on the state, around 400 state rights) afforded to married couples. Many, many of those rights simply cannot be duplicated by any sort of contract. That means that in order to be afforded those rights you have to be married. Therefore, not allowing homosexual marriage is discriminatory in nature. That is to say that the federal government is affording some citizens rights while preventing others from having those rights. There would be legal benefits to gay marriage, so no, it is not some conspiracy to legalize incest or polygamy.

Gay people already demand the right to adopt. Allowing homosexual marriages would legitimize that effort and there is no reason to think that children in loving homes (regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents) would be at any disadvantage. A typical homosexual is no more promiscuous than a typical heterosexual. The assertion that homosexuals would adopt children so they could have them as disease-free sex slaves is absolute lunacy. It is the absolute pinacle of crazy, conspiratorial and stupid and I'm surprised that anyone would readily admit to such a fantasy. Remember as a percentage of the population (and in sheer numbers), heterosexuals tend to have higher numbers of sexual predators than homosexuals. Yet no one makes retarted allegations like you just did about heterosexuals.

We have thoroughly examined all the real angles. Truth of the matter is you are clearly biased against and are completely out of touch with homosexuality. You cannot imagine that homosexuals are people just like any other. You go so far as to insinuate that they will raise children so they can have sex slaves.

Sick, just sick.

You didn't answer the question though.
The question looks like this:

How does Homosexual marriage affect YOU?

An answer would look something like this:
"Homosexual marriage affects me in that my life is changed in this way."
and not like this:
"I am against Homosexual marriage and this is my reason."

Murder is outlawed in Switzerland. In 2000, the population of Switzerland was 7,262,000. In the same year, 69 people were murdered.

What does it matter how an issue personally affects you if it is a question of its legality?

Murder is outlawed in Switzerland. In 2000, the population of Switzerland was 7,262,000. In the same year, 69 people were murdered.

What does it matter how an issue personally affects you if it is a question of its legality?
The point is that the poster claimed to have answered the question. He probably didn't even read the question as he did not say how gay marriage affects him..

I find it funny that your emotional outbursts block you from reading the message.

Let me say it again. Gay marriage is about removing discrimination. If you remove discrimination for one thing, it naturally follows that you must remove discrimination from another because a precedent has been set.

This removal of discrimination will lead to new excesses being promoted such as incest, polygamy, etc. That is the door you are opening. Gay people may stand up and scream in outrage but they know their agenda and so do I.

You want to change the fabric of morality by normalising the abnormal. This will allow you to promote new debauchery into the world. You claim emotive catch cries such as discrimination and the rights of minorities and yet your motives are plain for anyone who hasn't yet been cowed by the politically correct left.

If you state that you disagree with incest, etc then you discrimination is the same as though opposing gay marriage. Society discriminates for a reason. That reason is to protect the people in that society.

It would make me happier. I'd have a higher level of pride in my country. And I could rub it in the faces of all those idiots who think otherwise.


And now, to use the slippery slope:

If we let gay people get married, anyone can marry anything. So don't.

If we let people of different races marry, people of the same gender will. So don't allow it.

If we let people of the same race marry, people of different races will. So don't allow it.


Using the slippery slope, nobody should ever get married ^_^


Oh, and...uh...arn't most pedophiles straight? Those fucking hetros, we should ban them all!

Well then don't blame the whole gay marriage issue on the homosexuals...blame it on the liberals that started allowing blacks to marry.

I find it funny that your emotional outbursts block you from reading the message.

Let me say it again. Gay marriage is about removing discrimination. If you remove discrimination for one thing, it naturally follows that you must remove discrimination from another because a precedent has been set.

This removal of discrimination will lead to new excesses being promoted such as incest, polygamy, etc. That is the door you are opening. Gay people may stand up and scream in outrage but they know their agenda and so do I.

You want to change the fabric of morality by normalising the abnormal. This will allow you to promote new debauchery into the world. You claim emotive catch cries such as discrimination and the rights of minorities and yet your motives are plain for anyone who hasn't yet been cowed by the politically correct left.

If you state that you disagree with incest, etc then you discrimination is the same as though opposing gay marriage. Society discriminates for a reason. That reason is to protect the people in that society.

You said, and I quote:

Also we must consider the fact that gay people will then demand the right to adopt children as they cannot make any naturally. This is a natural progression of their non-discrimination rights. A gay persons lifestyle is promiscuous by choice, the only thing stopping gay people being more promiscuous is the possibility of disease,(aids and the likes). The best way to reduce this risk is to have sex with young virginal children. By opening the door to gay adoption as a natural progression from gay marriage, we put children at risk by exposing them to people with an undesirable motive.

It appeared that you meant that homosexuals were promiscuous deviants that would be more so if only they could be sure not to get AIDS (and the like). Furthermore, it appears (and I have highlited that part) that you are saying that the ultimate agenda of homosexuals is to legitimize adopting children so they can raise them as their disease-free sexual slaves.

First off, is that what you meant?

Gay people may stand up and scream in outrage but they know their agenda and so do I.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!





*pant,wheeze*




HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!



And to think I even bothered answering you! God, but I never seem to learn...

I find it funny that your emotional outbursts block you from reading the message.

Let me say it again. Gay marriage is about removing discrimination. If you remove discrimination for one thing, it naturally follows that you must remove discrimination from another because a precedent has been set.

This removal of discrimination will lead to new excesses being promoted such as incest, polygamy, etc. That is the door you are opening. Gay people may stand up and scream in outrage but they know their agenda and so do I.

You want to change the fabric of morality by normalising the abnormal. This will allow you to promote new debauchery into the world. You claim emotive catch cries such as discrimination and the rights of minorities and yet your motives are plain for anyone who hasn't yet been cowed by the politically correct left.

If you state that you disagree with incest, etc then you discrimination is the same as though opposing gay marriage. Society discriminates for a reason. That reason is to protect the people in that society.

Holy crap, you're a fricking lunatic.

http://www.foutz.net/blog/images/tinFoilHat.gif

Enjoy!



Oh, but I should really comment better. So here we go:

Let me say it again. Gay marriage is about removing discrimination. If you remove discrimination for one thing, it naturally follows that you must remove discrimination from another because a precedent has been set.
Are you advising that we activly purser discrimination? I shouldn't even have to comment on that one-you're screwed up!

This removal of discrimination will lead to new excesses being promoted such as incest, polygamy, etc. That is the door you are opening. Gay people may stand up and scream in outrage but they know their agenda and so do I.
Explain how your slippery slope works when it's been debunked time and time again. I already commented on your "knowledge of their 'agenda.'" You little feces you.

If you state that you disagree with incest, etc then you discrimination is the same as though opposing gay marriage. Society discriminates for a reason. That reason is to protect the people in that society.
I disagree with incest for several reasons. You know, REASONS, those things you haven't provided. For starters, it's too easy for a child to fall to a predetor adult who's looking for easy sex. Secondly, they cannot legally give consent. Want more reasons?

Because I do. Give me cold, hard facts that gay marrige will lead to the destruction of the world. Here's a hint: it hasn't happened to any other countries that allow it. So you're wrong.

And just because I feel aggressive, I'll say it again: you're a little small pile of human excrement.

It would make me happier. I'd have a higher level of pride in my country. And I could rub it in the faces of all those idiots who think otherwise.


And now, to use the slippery slope:

If we let gay people get married, anyone can marry anything. So don't.

If we let people of different races marry, people of the same gender will. So don't allow it.

If we let people of the same race marry, people of different races will. So don't allow it.

Using the slippery slope, nobody should ever get married ^_^.

The slippery slope argument isn't as simple as that. When establishing a form of marriage in which its contractors cannot naturally procreate (nobody flame me for that, I'm not being malicious), you break from a practically unbroken historical record of marriage being only between individuals that can naturally procreate. You establish a precedent to break from the norm.

Whether or not it's good or bad.

Mag, I meant what I said in that is was used to illustrate the natural progression of removing discrimination.

Read into what you want, focus on the emotive or debate the issue, either way is fine with me. Its a free world and free speech is still valid,(just). How long that may continue, who knows.

You are quite correct, those examples show redefinitions of marriage. But those changes are more like superficial changes, groundbreaking and important as they are. Gay marriages would change the essential nature of marriage.

How so? It would just introduce another group of loving, consenting adults are into marriage.

Mag, I meant what I said in that is was used to illustrate the natural progression of removing discrimination.

Read into what you want, focus on the emotive or debate the issue, either way is fine with me. Its a free world and free speech is still valid,(just). How long that may continue, who knows.

Are you or are you not insinuating that homosexuals are trying to legitimize adoption so they can have undiseased virginal child sex slaves? If not, what did you mean when you said:

Also we must consider the fact that gay people will then demand the right to adopt children as they cannot make any naturally. This is a natural progression of their non-discrimination rights. A gay persons lifestyle is promiscuous by choice, the only thing stopping gay people being more promiscuous is the possibility of disease,(aids and the likes). The best way to reduce this risk is to have sex with young virginal children. By opening the door to gay adoption as a natural progression from gay marriage, we put children at risk by exposing them to people with an undesirable motive.

I find it funny that your emotional outbursts block you from reading the message.

Let me say it again. Gay marriage is about removing discrimination. If you remove discrimination for one thing, it naturally follows that you must remove discrimination from another because a precedent has been set.

This removal of discrimination will lead to new excesses being promoted such as incest, polygamy, etc. That is the door you are opening. Gay people may stand up and scream in outrage but they know their agenda and so do I.

You want to change the fabric of morality by normalising the abnormal. This will allow you to promote new debauchery into the world. You claim emotive catch cries such as discrimination and the rights of minorities and yet your motives are plain for anyone who hasn't yet been cowed by the politically correct left.

If you state that you disagree with incest, etc then you discrimination is the same as though opposing gay marriage. Society discriminates for a reason. That reason is to protect the people in that society.

You are an individual of utter ignorance and prejudice. Your life is centered on fear and hatred of what you don't know. The paranoia that clouds your thoughts and judgement is worthy of the best psychiatric hospital.

I would say that I hold nothing but contempt for you, but that wouldn't be true, as I happen to pity you.

I will not even deign lower myself to your level to answer any of your future posts. But do tell me, are you really that disconnected from reality, or are you just a pathetic yet successful troll?

How so? It would just introduce another group of loving, consenting adults are into marriage.

The idea that marriage should be between groups of loving, consenting, adults is a break from historical record.

The slippery slope argument isn't as simple as that. When establishing a form of marriage in which its contractors cannot naturally procreate (nobody flame me for that, I'm not being malicious), you break from a practically unbroken historical record of marriage being only between individuals that can naturally procreate. You establish a precedent to break from the norm.

Whether or not it's good or bad.

This is not a flame, just a question. Is impotence or the inability to have children justifiable reason for divorce in the US? Is the ability to have children a requirement to get married (heterosexual marriage that is)?

A gay persons lifestyle is promiscuous by choice, the only thing stopping gay people being more promiscuous is the possibility of disease,(aids and the likes). The best way to reduce this risk is to have sex with young virginal children.
Do you actually know any gay people? Cuz I do, and nobody I've met is like that. Some people in every group are going to be bad, but I don't judge you on what a minority of your people may have done. Oh, I have an interesting fact for you, most child molestation by percentage of the offenders to their group is done by straight men.

Goed, personal insults aside,(I recognise you need them to express your natural illiteracy), some facts.

Holland has allowed gay marriage.

The average length of a gay marriage in that country is 1.5 years. Out of all gay marriages in that country there was an aveage of 8 extra marital affairs. Furthermore, the study also revealed that 42% of all gay people in Holland had had over 500 sexual encounters whilst 23% of gay people in Holland had had over 1000 sexual encounters.

The staistics for child abuse in the USA revealed that 2% of all child abuse was perpertrated by homosexuals. When you take that figure to its next step, the percentage of gay people in america,(identified by national survey), of 3%, the figure of child abuse as a percentage of homosexual population explodes to 35%.

Rant all you want, but don't ignore the issue. I may be emotive in relation to my feelings towards the homosexual community but I am comfortable with their right to exist. I am uncomfortable with where a civil union bill will lead because it doe's change societies laws relating to discrimination.

You see a gay basher and react emotionally. I see a social issue that seems to not be debated and I bring it to the table.

GoEd, I would kindly ask that you edit your previous post to remove a couple of the more offensive words. I understand you can get carried away(so did I a little earlier) but that moron simply isn't worth the trouble you'd get with the mods.

Besides, I'm sure you're above name-calling. Let's not see you sink that low over that.

skalador, you also are looking at this emotionally. I refer you to my post addressed to goed.

Goed, personal insults aside,(I recognise you need them to express your natural illiteracy), some facts.

Holland has allowed gay marriage.

The average length of a gay marriage in that country is 1.5 years. Out of all gay marriages in that country there was an aveage of 8 extra marital affairs. Furthermore, the study also revealed that 42% of all gay people in Holland had had over 500 sexual encounters whilst 23% of gay people in Holland had had over 1000 sexual encounters.

The staistics for child abuse in the USA revealed that 2% of all child abuse was perpertrated by homosexuals. When you take that figure to its next step, the percentage of gay people in america,(identified by national survey), of 3%, the figure of child abuse as a percentage of homosexual population explodes to 35%.

Rant all you want, but don't ignore the issue. I may be emotive in relation to my feelings towards the homosexual community but I am comfortable with their right to exist. I am uncomfortable with where a civil union bill will lead because it doe's change societies laws relating to discrimination.

You see a gay basher and react emotionally. I see a social issue that seems to not be debated and I bring it to the table.

Cite your sources.

Still waiting for an answer regarding your homosexuals want to adopt children so they can have undiseased sexual slaves comment.

(logical agrument againist gay marriage) <--never happened to me
I'd like to hear one though.

Okay, I'll stick my head out.

I've heard this argument uttered. I'd like you guys to take it apart. That would do me a great sevice.

A sociological argument against gay marriage.

(Sociology is the studying of society.)

Society is made up of individuals. These individuals form groups within society. A group that is most common, and very effective as a stablizing force for society (allows society to continue for a multiplicity of reasons), is marriage.

But the crux of marriage being so important is that marriage is one of the few effective, and only universal, method for succesfully raising children (propagation of society).

Anything that defeats or impedes this method is sociologically unsound. It would be unhealthy for society. Therefore, society as a whole should reject it.

Now, so far so good. You probably agree with the above, except some of you may attack the idea of marriage having been established for the propogation of children. Good luck.

The weak point of this argument comes when the person says that gay marriages weaken marriage as a sociological institution.

How does gay marriage not weaken marriage as a whole?

Keep in mind that marriage, here, is determined by its success in propagating and raising children.

Goed, personal insults aside,(I recognise you need them to express your natural illiteracy), some facts.

Holland has allowed gay marriage.

The average length of a gay marriage in that country is 1.5 years. Out of all gay marriages in that country there was an aveage of 8 extra marital affairs. Furthermore, the study also revealed that 42% of all gay people in Holland had had over 500 sexual encounters whilst 23% of gay people in Holland had had over 1000 sexual encounters.
Well DUH. It's fucking Holland. Try another country.

Oh, and I noticed you didn't mention divorce or cheating or sex rates of the US...


The staistics for child abuse in the USA revealed that 2% of all child abuse was perpertrated by homosexuals. When you take that figure to its next step, the percentage of gay people in america,(identified by national survey), of 3%, the figure of child abuse as a percentage of homosexual population explodes to 35%.[quote]
How do you figure? That just looks like shitty math to me. Explain.

[quote]Rant all you want, but don't ignore the issue. I may be emotive in relation to my feelings towards the homosexual community but I am comfortable with their right to exist. I am uncomfortable with where a civil union bill will lead because it doe's change societies laws relating to discrimination.
Once again-are you saying you WANT discrimination? You're sick.

You see a gay basher and react emotionally. I see a social issue that seems to not be debated and I bring it to the table.
Actually, I'm not acting emotionally. Very, very rarely do I get angry. Frustrated at stupidity? Yes. But emotional or angry? Hardly. I insult you because it brings you to a lower level-where you belong.


(on seeing Skalador's post)

Oh, all right :p. Was just having a little fun ;)

It all goes back to views of Christians what they believe the Bible says. In reality, it doesn't have any bearing what so ever on an individual's day to day life. You can walk around nearly any city in America and see two men or two women walking holding hands or kissing in public. It's funny, because in Europe, the part of the world were Christianity really took off as a religion, this type of thing doesn't really receive a second thought. I could see Christians have a problem with gay marriage in a church, but that's a debate for another day. I cannot see a problem with the state joining two people in a legal marriage. Moral or not.

On the same token, marriage is much more than a ring or a piece of paper. It's more than a tax break. It's a state of mind and an emotional bond between two people. Just because the church or state says you cannot be legally married, that doesn't mean you aren't in my opinion.

The white, Christian, conservative male is a subborn thing though. Just ask African Americans. It's only been a 200 year fight for them. Ask women of any race. How long have they been fighting for equal rights, especially in the workplace?

Hopefully, a time will come when all people have the same basic rights, regardless or race, gender, or sexual preference.

This is not a flame, just a question. Is impotence or the inability to have children justifiable reason for divorce in the US? Is the ability to have children a requirement to get married (heterosexual marriage that is)?

All right, I'll try to field this: I don't know whether your first question was one about my personal opinion, or whether you were consulting me about divorce laws.

Question number 2: I don't see why the ability to have children shouldn't be a requirement, due to the fact that that's a purpose of marriage.

Well, since this has turned into yet another flamefest on gay marriage, I'll just answer the original question.If they allowed gay marriage, my lesbian neighbors might get married and go on a honeymoon.

When they go on vacation, I usually dogsit their pup.

Last time I dogsat for them, they gave me a nice cheescake.

I like cheesecake.

Therefore, gay marriage is good.

Quote(Lardtrophia):The staistics for child abuse in the USA revealed that 2% of all child abuse was perpertrated by homosexuals. When you take that figure to its next step, the percentage of gay people in america,(identified by national survey), of 3%, the figure of child abuse as a percentage of homosexual population explodes to 35%.

??? what? How did you get 35%?

and do that with 98% and 97%(non-gay) and see if that makes sense

... homosexuals want to adopt children so they can have undiseased sexual slaves comment.

On a more humorous note, now that I'm over this trolling issue...

You don't need children to have an undiseased sexual slave. Personnally, I find my boyfriend much more convenient and accomodating. On top of that, it's legal and he's actually sexually appealing. Who would've though?

Question number 2: I don't see why the ability to have children shouldn't be a requirement, due to the fact that that's a purpose of marriage.

No, the purpose of sex is to have children. Marriage is the devotion of one's body and love to another person.

Based on what you said, if a hetrosexual male is unable to have children they should lose their right to get married to the woman they love?

That makes no sense.

The slippery slope argument isn't as simple as that. When establishing a form of marriage in which its contractors cannot naturally procreate (nobody flame me for that, I'm not being malicious), you break from a practically unbroken historical record of marriage being only between individuals that can naturally procreate. You establish a precedent to break from the norm.

I'll just respond to all of this crap that many people seem to think about inability for procreation and how it supposedly affects the legality of gay marriage:

The state of New Mexico has allowed first cousins (blood relatives that typically produce mentally handicapped or retarded children) to marry as long as one of them cannot produce children (sterility, etc.).

Oh, all right :p. Was just having a little fun ;)

*Rolls eyes*

Just ignore him, he's not worth you wasting your breath on insults. :p

He's just a troll anyway.

Quote(Lardtrophia):The staistics for child abuse in the USA revealed that 2% of all child abuse was perpertrated by homosexuals. When you take that figure to its next step, the percentage of gay people in america,(identified by national survey), of 3%, the figure of child abuse as a percentage of homosexual population explodes to 35%.

??? what? How did you get 35%?

and do that with 98% and 97%(non-gay) and see if that makes sense
by making up numbers and flat out falsfying information. current profiling and psychological research has demonstrated that a heterosexual male is about twice as likely to sexually assault an adult as a homosexual male is, and a heterosexual male is over 3 times as likely to sexually assault a child as a homosexual male is. more over, to say that 2% of child abuse is by homosexual males shows the falsehood of the stats to begin with; less than 0.5% of child abuse cases in the US involve a homosexual of either gender, with heterosexual males being by far the most likely to abuse children.

Well, since this has turned into yet another flamefest on gay marriage, I'll just answer the original question.If they allowed gay marriage, my lesbian neighbors might get married and go on a honeymoon.

When they go on vacation, I usually dogsit their pup.

Last time I dogsat for them, they gave me a nice cheescake.

I like cheesecake.

Therefore, gay marriage is good.
a good a reason as any. I too like cheesecake.

Quote(Lardtrophia):The staistics for child abuse in the USA revealed that 2% of all child abuse was perpertrated by homosexuals. When you take that figure to its next step, the percentage of gay people in america,(identified by national survey), of 3%, the figure of child abuse as a percentage of homosexual population explodes to 35%.

actually, since 2% of child abuse is by homosexuals, out of 3% total homosexuals, using your figures, you proves that homosexuals have less child abuse then non-gays

Well, since this has turned into yet another flamefest on gay marriage, I'll just answer the original question.If they allowed gay marriage, my lesbian neighbors might get married and go on a honeymoon.

When they go on vacation, I usually dogsit their pup.

Last time I dogsat for them, they gave me a nice cheescake.

I like cheesecake.

Therefore, gay marriage is good.


I love you.



Here's a cheesecake :p

Doesn't affect me at all unless one of my gay friends was to get married. I didn't know it was even an issue until it became one but now that it is, I support gay marriage. I don't really see the logic in any of the arguments against it.

Question number 2: I don't see why the ability to have children shouldn't be a requirement, due to the fact that that's a purpose of marriage.
oops, better tell my boyfriend that, quick...i'm not going to have kids ever, so i guess somebody should warn him that our marriage would have no purpose, before he goes and wastes his life by proposing.

Quote(Lardtrophia):The staistics for child abuse in the USA revealed that 2% of all child abuse was perpertrated by homosexuals. When you take that figure to its next step, the percentage of gay people in america,(identified by national survey), of 3%, the figure of child abuse as a percentage of homosexual population explodes to 35%.

??? what? How did you get 35%?

and do that with 98% and 97%(non-gay) and see if that makes sense


Actually, the most reliable sources for statistics on sexual orientation points toward 8% to 11% of gay population. I'll not get into details, but the study he cited (for the 3% stat) basically considered a man having had a single sexual encouter with a woman during his teens and having had sex exclusively with men for the rest of his life heterosexual.

Funny the little facts you learn in sexology and methodology classes.

All right, I'll try to field this: I don't know whether your first question was one about my personal opinion, or whether you were consulting me about divorce laws.

Question number 2: I don't see why the ability to have children shouldn't be a requirement, due to the fact that that's a purpose of marriage.
So everyone should have to submit to a fertility test prior to getting their marriage liscense in your opinion? And if they fail that fertility test they should be denied access to those 1049 rights? Should the people be required to submit an affidavit that indicates their intentions of having children? And if those people decide not to have children what should be their punishment? Forced divorce?

Question 1 was about your opinion. However, there is no provision in the law that allows for impotence or inability to have a child (i.e. hysterectomy or what have you) as grounds for divorce.

No, the purpose of sex is to have children. Marriage is the devotion of one's body and love to another person.

Based on what you said, if a hetrosexual male is unable to have children they should lose their right to get married to the woman they love?

That makes no sense.

#1 The purpose of marriage is to bring up the children concieved by sex in a stable situation.
Their are unstable ways to bring up children. Unmarried mothers who rear their children themselves have a very tough time of it. They have to balance the moneymaking, plus the childcare. It's not easy.

#2 It makes no sense because you haven't considered the possibility of marriage being for more than love for the other person.

#1 The purpose of marriage is to bring up the children concieved by sex in a stable situation.
Their are unstable ways to bring up children. Unmarried mothers who rear their children themselves have a very tough time of it. They have to balance the moneymaking, plus the childcare. It's not easy.
Then childbirth really has nothing to do with it-artificial ensemination? Adoption? Who's to say that gay parents will raise kids worst then straight ones? No, that's not a moral question, that's asking for proof, before someone gets excited over it.


#2 It makes no sense because you haven't considered the possibility of marriage being for more than love for the other person.

I think divorce rates speak for themselves. A lot of people don't get married for love. Well, a few might think it's love. But obviously, they're wrong :p

#1 The purpose of marriage is to bring up the children concieved by sex in a stable situation.
Their are unstable ways to bring up children. Unmarried mothers who rear their children themselves have a very tough time of it. They have to balance the moneymaking, plus the childcare. It's not easy.

#2 It makes no sense because you haven't considered the possibility of marriage being for more than love for the other person.
you didn't answer the question. should a heterosexual couple be denied marriage if they don't intend to have children, or if they are unable to have children? should couples beyond reproductive years be given divorces no matter what, because they are no longer able to bear and rear their own young? should women past menopause be denied the option of marriage?

I don't want to break the party, but I think we're getting a little off-topic here...

well I read all 8 pages so I can post after reading all the posts.
Gay Marriage will resul in gay adoption these children will then be taught to be gays their children will ect. until it christainity vs. gays and lets face it you like gays more than you like christains most of you anyway becasue we frankly don't agree with your gay philosphy and so you dislike us we dislike you create a war I don't want to touch but you almost always bring up how it "doesn't" hurt anyone becasue thats your best argument, and its not a very good one.

I don't want to break the party, but I think we're getting a little off-topic here...
not at all...this person aparently believes gay marriage will be detrimental because it will allow the unions of people who cannot produce offspring. since that already occurs, we need to figure out why gay marriage in particular will bother him but no other non-child-producing unions do.

People think that my position on marriage being for those who an procreate is wrong and bizarre. I am not denying the role of love in marriage. I'm not going to marry unless I love the person. But there are two responsibilities in marriage - toward the individual you will be spending your life with, sharing your most intimate moments with... but as regards procreation, the other responsibility, here is another of my positions you may go ahea and bash - I think that all sex should be open to the possibility of procreation.

And that is my basis for thinking that marriage is not right for those who cannot procreate.

#1 The purpose of marriage is to bring up the children concieved by sex in a stable situation.
Their are unstable ways to bring up children. Unmarried mothers who rear their children themselves have a very tough time of it. They have to balance the moneymaking, plus the childcare. It's not easy.

#2 It makes no sense because you haven't considered the possibility of marriage being for more than love for the other person.
Fact is, you've got no more business telling me what marriage ought to be than I have telling you the same thing.

My moral and ethical worldview has room in it for people with your mindset. Can you say the same thing?

Marriage is no longer exclusively a religious argument. Once the government started defining tax brackets and inheritance laws around married and single, it became a secular institution too.

I don't do religion anyway, so religious arguments are irrelevant to me. But I'm straight and I'm currently single, which means in the eyes of the law I can be married.

I'm sorry, what was your point again? Oh yeah, only your view is correct.

well I read all 8 pages so I can post after reading all the posts.
Gay Marriage will resul in gay adoption these children will then be taught to be gays their children will ect. until it christainity vs. gays and lets face it you like gays more than you like christains most of you anyway becasue we frankly don't agree with your gay philosphy and so you dislike us we dislike you create a war I don't want to touch but you almost always bring up how it "doesn't" hurt anyone becasue thats your best argument, and its not a very good one.
hello, Star Shadow. my name is Punctuation, and I want to be your friend!

well I read all 8 pages so I can post after reading all the posts.
Gay Marriage will resul in gay adoption these children will then be taught to be gays their children will ect. until it christainity vs. gays and lets face it you like gays more than you like christains most of you anyway becasue we frankly don't agree with your gay philosphy and so you dislike us we dislike you create a war I don't want to touch but you almost always bring up how it "doesn't" hurt anyone becasue thats your best argument, and its not a very good one.

You're a puppet of Lardtrophia aren't you, troll?

People think that my position on marriage being for those who an procreate is wrong and bizarre. I am not denying the role of love in marriage. I'm not going to marry unless I love the person. But there are two responsibilities in marriage - toward the individual you will be spending your life with, sharing your most intimate moments with...but as regards procreation, here is another of my positions you may go ahea and bash - I think that all sex should be open to the possibility of procreation.

And that is my basis for thinking that marriage is not right for those who cannot procreate.
so answer the question. should infertile heterosexuals, heterosexual who don't want kids, women past menopause, couples too old to produce children, etc, be denied marriage or have divorce imposed on them?

... babble babble babble ...
Here. Have a cheesecake.

Alright, first of all: Most pedophiles are straight. And even if you say, "Oh, look, [enterpercentagehere] of pedophiles are gay!" then that proves nothing. Of course there are gay pedophiles, and there are straight pedophiles. There are gay murderers, and there are straight murderers. There are gay policemen, and there are straight policmen. There are gay bankers, and there are straight bankers.

Secondly: Sure, if a man (or a woman) turns out to be gay or lesbian, yes, that will probably rip the family apart. But if there wasn't so much prejudice against gays in the first place, then he wouldn't have felt the need to marry so that he'd "fit in," then the family wouldn't have been ripped apart in the first place. And, as other people have already said, people do get divorced, anyway. Straight couples.

And, alright, gay people are (genrerally) more sexually active than straight people. That's because they don't have the risk of the woman in the relationship getting pregnant. I'm sure if straight people had that freedom, they'd have sex just as much. This isn't a valid argument for why gay people can't have loving relationships.

Speaking of which, isn't "love" the whole key word? Shouldn't there be acceptance for love, no matter what kind it is? Isn't this America, founded on the principles of freedom and free will? Isn't this America, land of "It's my own damn business"? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Happiness. Sure, one could argue that this is a supporting argument for murder ("If murder makes him happy, then so be it!"), but that's different. That's happiness that comes directly from the unhappiness of another.

Which brings us back to the topic. Really, how does it affect you? How does it affect you directly? I mean, sure, you know that this is allowed, and it might give you a feeling of acute discomfort, but they're happy. Are you really so unhappy knowing that people different than you are happy? Again, this is America. You have the freedom to be happy however you want. (Or, at least, in theory. America doesn't usually live up to its principles.) And that's the beauty of America, isn't it? White people, black people, Asian people, Hispanic people, straight people, gay people, lesbian people, transvestites, living side by side happily. Oh, if only we had a country like that.
-Alastia

Fact is, you've got no more business telling me what marriage ought to be than I have telling you the same thing.

My moral and ethical worldview has room in it for people with your mindset. Can you say the same thing?

Marriage is no longer exclusively a religious argument. Once the government started defining tax brackets and inheritance laws around married and single, it became a secular institution too.

I don't do religion anyway, so religious arguments are irrelevant to me. But I'm straight and I'm currently single, which means in the eyes of the law I can be married.

I'm sorry, what was your point again? Oh yeah, only your view is correct.

I am not arguing from a religious viewpoint.

I am arguing from a sociological viewpoint.

I never once referenced religion.

not at all...this person aparently believes gay marriage will be detrimental because it will allow the unions of people who cannot produce offspring.

Yes, but I meant that doesn't in itself affect him personally. Although I do look forward to hearing why gays shouldn't be able to marry because they can't have children while heteros who can't have children should still be able to marry because they're hetero.

well I read all 8 pages so I can post after reading all the posts.
Gay Marriage will resul in gay adoption these children will then be taught to be gays their children will ect. until it christainity vs. gays and lets face it you like gays more than you like christains most of you anyway becasue we frankly don't agree with your gay philosphy and so you dislike us we dislike you create a war I don't want to touch but you almost always bring up how it "doesn't" hurt anyone becasue thats your best argument, and its not a very good one.
Sadly, no. It is not the goal of homosexuals to raise homosexual children and thusly takeover the planet. Seriously, is there something in the holy water or what? I can't believe how many otherwise smart, stable people I've heard say that there is some kind of homosexual agenda to convert people. The tin-foil hattery is amazing.

I suppose the argument that homosexuals want to convert the world into homosexuals is some kind of good argument? Apparently, you wouldn't know a good argument if someone stuck it where the sun doesn't shine...double entendre intended.

quote(starshadow):Gay Marriage will resul in gay adoption these children will then be taught to be gays their children will ect. until it christainity vs. gays and lets face it you like gays more than you like christains most of you anyway becasue we frankly don't agree with your gay philosphy and so you dislike us we dislike you create a war I don't want to touch but you almost always bring up how it "doesn't" hurt anyone becasue thats your best argument, and its not a very good one.

lets turn that around..
Christian Marriage will resul in Christian adoption these children will then be taught to be Christians their children will ect. until it christainity vs. gays and lets face it you like Christians more than you like gays most of you anyway becasue we frankly don't agree with your christian philosphy and so you dislike us we dislike you create a war I don't want to touch but you almost always bring up how it "doesn't" hurt anyone becasue thats your best argument, and its not a very good one.

Damn.
Herod should have killed Jesus while he had the chance ;)

You're a puppet of Lardtrophia aren't you, troll?
no Lardboy isn't very good at arguing anyhow at least I posted something with a legit arguement in it. LArd sucks :p

hello, Star Shadow. my name is Punctuation, and I want to be your friend!

Did I ever tell you how much I love your sly wit and acid sarcasm? ;)

Yes, but I meant that doesn't in itself affect him personally. Although I do look forward to hearing why gays shouldn't be able to marry because they can't have children while heteros who can't have children should still be able to marry because they're hetero.
the argument i usually hear is that these folk feel allowing gays to marry will somehow devalue their own unions, like how giving away diplomas to unqualified people would devalue the education of somebody who deserves it. the only problem is that they never establish why they deserve marriage but gay people do not...the typical argument is that straight people have gotten married for a long time, and since it is tradition we shouldn't change it. so i guess we also shouldn't allow mixed race couples, since that was tradition for hundreds of years, and we were wrong to mess with tradition.

You're a puppet of Lardtrophia aren't you, troll?
He is formerly known as Dark Fututre

White people, black people, Asian people, Hispanic people, straight people, gay people, lesbian people, transvestites, living side by side happily. Oh, if only we had a country like that.
-Alastia

You have one. We're straight north from where you live.

Did I ever tell you how much I love your sly wit and acid sarcasm? ;)
possibly, but i never get tired of hearing about how wonderful i am...one of these days my ego is going to grow so large that it will squash this entire debate. and something would have to be bloody HUGE to squash the gay debate.

My children watching gay people!! :headbang: :mad: :sniper: its just wrong!

well I read all 8 pages so I can post after reading all the posts.
Gay Marriage will resul in gay adoption these children will then be taught to be gays their children will ect. until it christainity vs. gays and lets face it you like gays more than you like christains most of you anyway becasue we frankly don't agree with your gay philosphy and so you dislike us we dislike you create a war I don't want to touch but you almost always bring up how it "doesn't" hurt anyone becasue thats your best argument, and its not a very good one.

Hold on. Let me *TRY* to translate that.

Well, I read all 8 pages, so don't bug me about "not reading before posting." Gay marrige will bring gay adoption, and these children will then be taught to be gay (Message from translator: actually, that's completely untrue, they'll be taught to be THEMSELVES. Only hetro shitheads force their kids to be of a sexual preference). Then their children, and so on. Eventually, it will end up as Christianity vs Gays (Message from translator: More likily a fringe group not unlike the KKK and all those crazy-ass white supremesists will emerge. THe majority will eventually move on with life), and let's face it, you like gays more then you like christians-most of you, anyway, because frankly, we don't agree with your "gay philosophy"(Message from translator: Is this similer to the "gay agenda" that's complete bullshit?). You dislike us, we dislike you, and a war is started-but I don't want to touch that point(Message from translator:But I was interested on how a holy crusade would fall on America-between that and the RAHOWA, we're up to bloody here with fake crusades). This proves that you're main reason of "it doesn't hurt anyone" is really a bad reason to go with.

so answer the question. should infertile heterosexuals, heterosexual who don't want kids, women past menopause, couples too old to produce children, etc, be denied marriage or have divorce imposed on them?

That caused me to rethink.

I might have been wrong.

I can't say that all of those shouldn't be allowed to marry. You got me with the "couples too old to produce children", "women past menopause" examples.

But the desire to bring children into the world, if feasible, I think should be a requirement.

But I do retract the the statement, "ability to procreate should be a requirement for marriage", since it does not include those worthy examples you mentioned above.

And I do like cheesecake.

I'm not that weird.

the argument i usually hear is that these folk feel allowing gays to marry will somehow devalue their own unions, like how giving away diplomas to unqualified people would devalue the education of somebody who deserves it. the only problem is that they never establish why they deserve marriage but gay people do not...the typical argument is that straight people have gotten married for a long time, and since it is tradition we shouldn't change it. so i guess we also shouldn't allow mixed race couples, since that was tradition for hundreds of years, and we were wrong to mess with tradition.

You're preaching to the choire, Bottle.


And NO! I did not reference the choire as a prime-hunting ground for fresh, disease-free sexual slaves! I'm as good as married god-dammit! :D

Gay people should NOT have the right to adopt children... the children might get traumatized!! :mp5:

I am not arguing from a religious viewpoint.

I am arguing from a sociological viewpoint.

I never once referenced religion.
All right, we'll toss religion. Wanna tackle the other 4 pooints?

That caused me to rethink.

I might have been wrong.

I can't say that all of those shouldn't be allowed to marry. You got me with the "couples too old to produce children", "women past menopause" examples.

But the desire to bring children into the world, if feasible, I think should be a requirement.

But I do retract the the statement, "ability to procreate should be a requirement for marriage", since it does not include those worthy examples you mentioned above.

And I do like cheesecake.

I'm not that weird.
well, we're making progress. but you're still saying that a heterosexual couple who CHOOSES to adopt rather than to have their own kids should not be allowed to marry. why is that? what if a couple wants to take in one of the children already waiting for a family, instead of bringing a new child into the world? should we punish them for that act of supreme generosity and love, by denying them the right to wed and make a family with the child or children they take in?

Gay people should NOT have the right to adopt children... the children might get traumatized!! :mp5:

Fat people should NOT have the right to adopt children ... the children might get traumatized!! :mp5:

Ugly people should NOT have the right to adopt children ... the children might get traumatized!! :mp5:

Christians should NOT have the right to adopt children ... the children might get traumatized!! :mp5:

[Insert name of whatever ethnic group, minority or cultural group, poeple with any distinguishing physical caracteristics and so on] face it, children are cruel and you're going to get laughed at in Junior High no matter what. Deal with it and try to raise YOUR children tolerant so they won't join in whenever someone's being bullied.

You're preaching to the choire, Bottle.

just trying to connect all the dots, here. it's hard enough to follow the homophobe's line of thought, so i usually have to write it down as i go.


And NO! I did not reference the choire as a prime-hunting ground for fresh, disease-free sexual slaves! I'm as good as married god-dammit! :D
hmm, interesting that you should get so defensive...is that an alterboy i see in your pocket?! you're not allowed to take those with you unless you're wearing a cassock!

quote(starshadow):Gay Marriage will resul in gay adoption these children will then be taught to be gays their children will ect. until it christainity vs. gays and lets face it you like gays more than you like christains most of you anyway becasue we frankly don't agree with your gay philosphy and so you dislike us we dislike you create a war I don't want to touch but you almost always bring up how it "doesn't" hurt anyone becasue thats your best argument, and its not a very good one.

lets turn that around..
Christian Marriage will resul in Christian adoption these children will then be taught to be Christians their children will ect. until it christainity vs. gays and lets face it you like Christians more than you like gays most of you anyway becasue we frankly don't agree with your christian philosphy and so you dislike us we dislike you create a war I don't want to touch but you almost always bring up how it "doesn't" hurt anyone becasue thats your best argument, and its not a very good one.

Damn.
Herod should have killed Jesus while he had the chance ;)
oh I was so waiting for that oh and about the last part herod tryed.
christains are not a change they don't devalue anything theyve been around thousands of years, you should no becasue A.D. in the years of our lord count em 2004, they are in the words of evolution a productive member of society who repruduce and increase evoultionary standards attempt to have children ect. not steal them from other people they are in the least a force of power able to crush most movements like bugs when they deicided against stuff unfortuanrly not all christains under stand gays are wrong we don't read much anymore

It would eliminate a precedent for unequal treatment before the law, which potentially has very big personal effects on me.

ditto other than that.... well scince im an ordained minister i guess it would mean I could earn some xtra money which is always a good thing

On the original question:
It wouldn't affect me personally, but I suppose it might make a career in divorce lawyership more attractive.

Fact is, you've got no more business telling me what marriage ought to be than I have telling you the same thing.

Well, the problem with that is that you assume that both of us are equally wrong, while I assume that there is a correct answer, and that either you or me, or possibly neither of us, has it. Do you think there is a right answer to what marriage ought to be?

My moral and ethical worldview has room in it for people with your mindset. Can you say the same thing?

I can say yes, and you can be skeptical; I can blow you off, saying the question is retarded and doesn't mean anything, and you'll blow me off; and I can say no, and you'll be insulted, and wonder about my sanity. There's no way to answer this question.

Marriage is no longer exclusively a religious argument. Once the government started defining tax brackets and inheritance laws around married and single, it became a secular institution too.

It was secular well before it was religious. The reasons for marriage ceremonies being overseen by religious authorities is outside my scope of knowledge.

I'm sorry, what was your point again? Oh yeah, only your view is correct.

Most of us proceed with the point of view that our point of view is correct.

hmm, interesting that you should get so defensive...is that an alterboy i see in your pocket?! you're not allowed to take those with you unless you're wearing a cassock!

Damn, you pierced my evil world-domination agenda's activities again! Curse you, Bottle! Someday, I will have my sweet revenge over all of you heterosexuals (and bisexuals, I seem to recall you're bisexual)!

You'll see, the time of the pink domination is almost at hand! No male is safe from our greedy claws! No woman can run from our squad of lesbian-assassins! WE WILL RULE THE WORLD! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[/Bullshit]

WE WILL RULE THE WORLD! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!That's like my entire life in a nutshell...

Damn, you pierced my evil world-domination agenda's activities again! Curse you, Bottle! Someday, I will have my sweet revenge over all of you heterosexuals (and bisexuals, I seem to recall you're bisexual)!

You'll see, the time of the pink domination is almost at hand! No male is safe from our greedy claws! No woman can run from our squad of lesbian-assassins! WE WILL RULE THE WORLD! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[/Bullshit]
dude, i must be bisexual, because the idea of a horde of lesbians in stealth ninja assassin gear is totally the opposite of frightening to me...*drool*...

That's like my entire life in a nutshell...

I have a right-hand man position to fill in. If you're interested, send me you resume on pink paper in a scented enveloppe, please.

How Does Homosexual Marriage Affect You?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I have a question that I haven't ever heard answered. What possible effects would allowing homosexual marriages affect you personally? What other reason could there possibly be to outlaw homosexual marriages?



What possible effects would allowing polygamy affect you personally?

What possible effects would allowing marriage-to-fruit affect you personally?

What possible effects would allowing marriage to 2 year olds affect you personally?

Are these not equally legitimate questions..?!

dude, i must be bisexual, because the idea of a horde of lesbians in stealth ninja assassin gear is totally the opposite of frightening to me...*drool*...

*falls on his ass laughing* :D

The establishment of homosexual marriages would mean the redefinition of marriage.
It would affect marriages in general by changing what the point of marriage is.
Bzzzt! Wrong!
It would change the legal definition of marriage. Marriage would still mean the exact same thing it does now. A pledge between two people that love each other, to love each other. It helps people to start families, to visit their significant other should they be hospitalized, for a dependent spouse to not be made destitute by the passing on of their supporter. And before someone says it, homosexuals most definitely can start families. Even in heterosexual relationships, adoption, surrogacy, and artificial insemination are not uncommon practices. Because of this, any argument based on the presumed childlessness of a homosexual couple is baseless if not outrightly false.

In a legal context, the only thing that is being lobbied for change is the specification that a marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman instead of between any two consenting people. And the phrase "any two consenting people" does not open the doors for legalized pedophilia, nor for incestuous marraiges, nor for beastiality, nor does it enable people to marry inanimate objects. These each have legal strictures that are separate from what we are trying to change.

Did interacial marriage open the door for the legalization of gay marriage? Before that, it was unthinkable to propose that two homosexuals could be married.
You do know that by citing interacial marriage as a predescent for your slippery slope argument you only make yourself sound racist as well as homophobic, right?


Marriage is a religious institution, not something that Government should be involved in changing.
If I were to agree with that statement, wouldn't it then be true that Marriage shouldn't have any legalities attached at all, much less ones the government can legislate? I'm gonna take that idea and run with it for a while. A purely religious marriage would serve only as a symbolic ritual, and any actual legal contract between the two people, whether they be samely or differently gendered, would have to be in the form of a civil union. This is what logically follows from your statement. If this is the way you think things should be, I'm not going to argue. Total equality is all that I'm concerned with. Separate is never equal.
(I don't however believe your statement to be true. I believe that marriage is a social institution, and thus not subject to relegation by any religious institution.)

A "civil union" provides any couple the same rights to property, etc.
Okay, give us a federal mandate on civil unions, and we'll stop bitching for a little while at least. Dancing in the streets there would be.

The problem that we have today is that everyone wants "special rights" (one example: hate laws) because they belong to some specific minority, when, in fact, they are protected by the same laws as everyone else. You should not be entitled to any special rights because of sexual orientation, race, gender, or creed, nor should you be discriminated against because of sexual orientation, race, gender or creed.
Agreed. Now tell me how same sex marriage grants anyone "special rights". And you can't use hate crime legislation as an example, because while you may think it is an example of "special rights" (I'm not gonna argue that here, that's a debate for a different thread) it has nothing to do with gay marriage.

After the careful consideration of about .01 seconds, I've decided not to dignify Lardtrophia with a direct response.

Here is my activist oneliner:
The government shouldn't regulate civil rights, it should uphold and protect them.

#1 The purpose of marriage is to bring up the children concieved by sex in a stable situation.
Their are unstable ways to bring up children. Unmarried mothers who rear their children themselves have a very tough time of it. They have to balance the moneymaking, plus the childcare. It's not easy.

#2 It makes no sense because you haven't considered the possibility of marriage being for more than love for the other person.


Being hetrosexual in absolutely no way defines you as a good parent. You can turn on the local news on any given night and see that. Why does being gay automatically deem you as unfit to be a parent? This idea of traumatizing the child raised by gay parents is simply an opinion and is based on no facts what so ever.

As far as marriage being for more than love, if that is the case, then they shouldn't be married in the first place. Love isn't a guarantee that a marriage will work. Not being in love highly increases the chances of divorce which can traumatize a child. Thats a proven fact. Anyone who gets married "for the child's sake" is making a mistake. For their own lives and the life of the child. That odds are that it won't last and the child will be caught in the middle.


I guess thats worse than being raised by two parents that love each other, want to be married, and love the child, and, oh, just happen to be of the same sex.

What possible effects would allowing polygamy affect you personally?

What possible effects would allowing marriage-to-fruit affect you personally?

What possible effects would allowing marriage to 2 year olds affect you personally?

Are these not equally legitimate questions..?!
polygamy: no effect at all

fruit or children: since neither can consent, it is impossible for them to form a legally binding contract, and therefore impossible for them to enter a marital union.

I believe everyone has the right to be married if they feel that's what they want to do. I could care less, and it won't affect me in any way, shape, or form.

well, we're making progress. but you're still saying that a heterosexual couple who CHOOSES to adopt rather than to have their own kids should not be allowed to marry. why is that? what if a couple wants to take in one of the children already waiting for a family, instead of bringing a new child into the world? should we punish them for that act of supreme generosity and love, by denying them the right to wed and make a family with the child or children they take in?

I'm thinking that the presence of both a male and a female is the most effective way to raise children. Do you disagree with this?

Calling me a homophobe is scary - I've been watching the other participants in this discussion, and some of them truly appear to be homophobes - do you really think I fear gays, or do you label anybody like me a homophobe without knowing what it really means?

Is outlawing speeding a phobia? If it is right to outlaw gay marriage (and I stress if, because even though I may be advancing a point of view, that doesn't mean I won't change it if sufficient evidence is given, as you have already witnissed) - If it is right, than I am not a phobic.

It's like me calling you irrational and a polygamy-lover. It does nothing to fix this disagreement, and there is not evidence to support such an accusation.

OK new rule for the thread
YOU CAN NOT USE THE AGUMENT I DISSAGREE BECAUSE MY RELIGON SAYS SO.

or any variation there of

ok now that all the stupid arguments are null and void who anti-gay argument(s) is/are left....

well


anyone

nobody well that settles that then

I'm thinking that the presence of both a male and a female is the most effective way to raise children. Do you disagree with this?

Calling me a homophobe is scary - I've been watching the other participants in this discussion, and some of them truly appear to be homophobes - do you really think I fear gays, or do you label anybody like me a homophobe without knowing what it really means?

Is outlawing speeding a phobia? If it is right to outlaw gay marriage (and I stress if, because even though I may be advancing a point of view, that doesn't mean I won't change it if sufficient evidence is given, as you have already witnissed) - If it is right, than I am not a phobic.

It's like me calling you irrational and a polygamy-lover. It does nothing to fix this disagreement, and there is not evidence to support such an accusation.
is there a reason you totally ignored my question?

fruit or children: since neither can consent...

HEY! I'm a fruit, and I can consent!

[/Mocks insult]

The legalization of same sex marriage would affect me in that it would someday allow me to marry a person I loved.

HEY! I'm a fruit, and I can consent!

[/Mocks insult]
shut up, you stupid, stupid passion-fruit!

(get it? get it? i made a funny!)

Aack....so many answers, so little screen space.



Being hetrosexual in absolutely no way defines you as a good parent.

I quite agree.

Why does being gay automatically deem you as unfit to be a parent? This idea of traumatizing the child raised by gay parents is simply an opinion and is based on no facts what so ever.

I didn't say the child would be traumatized. I never said anything about that.

As far as marriage being for more than love, if that is the case, then they shouldn't be married in the first place. Love isn't a guarantee that a marriage will work. Not being in love highly increases the chances of divorce which can traumatize a child. Thats a proven fact. Anyone who gets married "for the child's sake" is making a mistake. For their own lives and the life of the child. That odds are that it won't last and the child will be caught in the middle.

Love is essential to marriage.
I never said anything conflicting with that statement.
In face, I confirmed it a few posts back.
Your assertion that marriage isn't about children has no basis, currently. <y postion does have a basis.

shut up, you stupid, stupid passion-fruit!

(get it? get it? i made a funny!)

:p

Don't ridicule my attemps at humor. I have feelings you know...

The legalization of same sex marriage would affect me in that it would someday allow me to marry a person I loved.

Welcome to the club :)

polygamy: no effect at all

fruit or children: since neither can consent, it is impossible for them to form a legally binding contract, and therefore impossible for them to enter a marital union.
not a real answer, you say it doesn't effect well child adult marriage doesn't effect you.

not a real answer, you say it doesn't effect well child adult marriage doesn't effect you.
the alteration of contract law to allow non-consenting things/people to somehow enter binding contracts would effect me seriously, as well as everyone else in the country.

is there a reason you totally ignored my question?

Sorry.

Because homosexual partners, loving each other, although willing to adopt a child and love that child and take care of that child, would not be the proper parents for that child.

And adoption is a supremely loving, charitable act to do, and I can only hope to emulate those couple around me who have adopted children, especially those who have found that they can't have children.

Because homosexual partners, loving each other, although willing to adopt a child and love that child and take care of that child, would not be the proper parents for that child.Do you have ANY REASONING AT ALL to back that up?

Bzzzt! Wrong!
It would change the legal definition of marriage. Marriage would still mean the exact same thing it does now. A pledge between two people that love each other, to love each other.

But marriage doesn't mean just that, and it shouldn't if it does.

Sorry.

Because homosexual partners, loving each other, although willing to adopt a child and love that child and take care of that child, would not be the proper parents for that child.

And adoption is a supremely loving, charitable act to do, and I can only hope to emulate those couple around me who have adopted children, especially those who have found that they can't have children.
what about HETEROSEXUAL couples who choose to do that, even if they are able to have biological children? my aunt and uncle did just that; they are physically capable of having their own kids, but they chose to adopt instead. should their marriage be invalidated because they chose not to have kids of their own?

oh I was so waiting for that oh and about the last part herod tryed.
christains are not a change they don't devalue anything theyve been around thousands of years, you should no becasue A.D. in the years of our lord count em 2004, they are in the words of evolution a productive member of society who repruduce and increase evoultionary standards attempt to have children ect. not steal them from other people they are in the least a force of power able to crush most movements like bugs when they deicided against stuff unfortuanrly not all christains under stand gays are wrong we don't read much anymore

Yea, i know, but Herod should have tried harder. jk. again.
I was just reversing your own words to show you how dumb it sounded.

Christianity has improved life of people in general, until they try to force what other people should think. But there is no use convicing those religious nuts, which have caused xenophobia, the crusades, and terrorism.

whoops, off topic.

Gay marriage is gooood!(I like pie)

oh I was so waiting for that oh and about the last part herod tryed.
christains are not a change they don't devalue anything theyve been around thousands of years, you should no becasue A.D. in the years of our lord count em 2004, they are in the words of evolution a productive member of society who repruduce and increase evoultionary standards attempt to have children ect. not steal them from other people they are in the least a force of power able to crush most movements like bugs when they deicided against stuff unfortuanrly not all christains under stand gays are wrong we don't read much anymore

English translatooooooor, to the rescue!

I was hoping someone would make that argument! Oh, and for that last part-Herod tried.
Christians are not a change (Message from Translator: Everything is a change, the christians today are vastly different from the christians in Peter's time), they don't devalue anything (Message from Translator: Are you kidding? They devalue sex, homosexuality, women, people of other races...the list goes on), they've been around thousands of years (Message from Translator: Homosexuals have been around longer), you should know because AD means "in the Lord's year" (Message from Translator: Ano Domina (I think), it means "Year of our Lord," correct. However, this calander is very flawed when comparing it to the start of Jesus's life. Furthermore, 2000 isn't really that long in comparison to most religions.), They are-in the words of evolution-a productive member of society (Message from Translator: Not neccesiarily, there are a lot of homeless, jobless, and uneducated christians out there. Furthermore, one could make the argument that attempting to fight gay marrige would be couner-productive) Who reproduce and increase evolutionary standards (Message from Translator: Unless they're a part of the vast majority-then they fight against evolution as much as possible. And, as many have said they do, forcing a child to adhere to certin limitations and restrictions would, if anything, set back evolutionary standards)and attempt to have children(Message from Translator: Artificial insemination. Anyone can do THAT. Except the christians who are old, the christians that cannot have children biologically, or the christians who have gotten their tubes tied or whatever.). They do NOT steal them from other people (Message from Translator: Of course not, only gypsies do that. That's a joke, by the way. Seriously though, are you suggesting that gay people STEAL CHILDREN? THat's a pretty outrageos theroy. Care to back it up?). Christians are, in the very least, a force of political power to crush movements they oppose (Message from Translator: Incidentily, did you know that's illegal? Seperation of Church and State. Of course, if you mean "we group up to attack things we don't understand," then it's legal. Just stupid.). Unfortunatly, not all christians understand gays are wrong (Message from Translator: Some people can be wise); We don't read much anymore (Message from Translator: Judging by your ignorance, yeah, I can see that.)


dude, i must be bisexual, because the idea of a horde of lesbians in stealth ninja assassin gear is totally the opposite of frightening to me...*drool*...

That would be so incredibly awesome. I'd break the law just to have them come after me :D

I didn't say the child would be traumatized. I never said anything about that.



Love is essential to marriage.
I never said anything conflicting with that statement.
In face, I confirmed it a few posts back.
Your assertion that marriage isn't about children has no basis, currently. <y postion does have a basis.


You did not say that a gay person would be unfit. Someone else did.

Marriage isn't about children. Marriage is enhanced by the presence of children. You can be married and not have children. I work with a guy who's been married for 16 years to his wife and they have decided not to have any children until he leaves his current job. Their marriage is great. Better than most I've seen, and there isn't a child in the picture.

not a real answer, you say it doesn't effect well child adult marriage doesn't effect you.

*Sigh*

At general request, I shall now introduce a new concept in this thread:

This concept is called "A victim". Now let us define "a victim". According to my dictionnary(among other definitions) "A victim" is a person or group who suffers from someone's hostility or actions.

It is typical for our governments to try to protect everyone's right and try to avoid anyone becoming a victim of someone else's actions or hostility. That is why most laws are passed.

Now that we cleared that up, let us realize something:

-The laws against child-adults marriage exist to avoid children becoming victims of adult's choices, because children are dependant of adults to decide for them up until adulthood. A child therefore would have no say in wheter s/he wanted to marry. Moreover, even if we did grant them the legal right to decide for themselves, children are universally recognized to lack the maturity to commit in such a fashion. Hence why they can't drive, marry, sign contracts, drink, buy lottery, etc.

- Laws against same-sex marriages protect no one, since there is no victim in a same-sex marriage.One could always argue for the possibility of abusive same-sex relationships, but that would also undermine the validity of heterosexual marriage.

Scince gays can already grant each other power of attorney, meaning they have ALL the legal privliges of a married couple, shouldn't this be up to the churches if they want to marry gay couples?

I believe the fuss is over the state co-opting a tradition that long predates secular style governments. marriage as a binding traditon betwen man and woman was first introduced by the jewish peoples i believe 4000 years ago, and lasted until today. (not a biblical scholar, but polygamy was the practice until then). this is the state coming in and redefining marriage to suit its' own ends. (admittedly, the institution i distrust the most by far in the world today is government) This would explain, in my view, why the legal rights (civil union) receives far less resistance that simply the legal co-opting of the legal term marriage, which happens to have a great deal more significance attached to it to christian and jewish people.....why does the state have the right to co-opt it? i frankly could care less, what other people do is their business, i freely admit i will never look at same sex unions as normal, but wouldn;t spend an ounce of energy to prevent anybody from doing what they want long as they don;t hurt me. Why the insistence on defining it as marriage? civil unions are the same legal rights....has nothing to do with a church.....steps to the side of the tradition...and the argument over "equal"? sorry, the faith isn't going to change to accomodate homosexuals, nor really, should it, and nor is a this particular issue going to change peopls' minds, though how anybody can help what they are attracted to is beyiond me, or why they should even try, i don;t, lol. some christian denominations do, though.....frankly, legalize a civil union and realize the simple fact that same sex and opposite sex mariage are "equal" before the law but to some religions and people, because the other way is an example of the "force feed" which people object to, who otherwise would be utterly ambivalent to homsexuals.

and a few notes on the "outdated" system of marriage, as some have put on here. not a single form of unit statistically is as successful in any measurement as a child born to a mother who is married to the father. check 'em, it;s simply true. and sorry, but children, to me, are the most important resource of any society, they are the future, the future benefits payers, taxpayers and decision makers who will try to deal with our screw ups. how many non drug needle using monogomous couples get aids, for instance? none. zero. zilch. and rates of happiness among married people who do not divorce are higher than the average single person, according to a usa today poll i found shocking, not that that means it is a fact.

marriage is still a pretty cool thing, but it is time the legal rights are extended to any adult making a choice of their free will to enter a civil union or marriage. to be honest, i am utterly ambivalent, the gay political agenda just isn;t important to me with everything going on the world today. i just wanted to enter a neutral opinion, there is A MIDDLE GROUND, which polarized ass America today seems to be unable and unwilling to acheive.....take the civil rights, work on the marriage later, right now ya got nuthin'......

But marriage doesn't mean just that, and it shouldn't if it does.

I love how you ignore the rest of the post you just quoted. But I'll forget that for a few minutes for the sake of curiousity.

What else do you think marriage should mean?
I've already answered this question, and I want to hear you do it now. If you found my answer(from the post you quoted) to be insuficient, please let me know in what way you find it to be lacking. But give your own too.

Scince gays can already grant each other power of attorney, meaning they have ALL the legal privliges of a married couple, shouldn't this be up to the churches if they want to marry gay couples?
power of attourney is only one of over a thousand legal rights granted by a marriage license. also, it costs money (hundreds if not thousands of dollars) to go through all the legal processes to get those rights, and some of them can't be bought by a gay couple for any amount of money...while Brittany Spears got all of them for free one drunken night in Vegas.

Do you have ANY REASONING AT ALL to back that up?

Ahh. The hard part. And where my postion will fall apart, if anywhere.

History: Never before has society considered two people not of opposite genders to be qualified upbringers of children.

Psychology: Not my forte, but the joining of male and female is the only way to produce children, so I'm thinking that it could logically follow that two parents, male and female, is the most effective way, developementally, to rear children. DISCLAIMER: I'm not competent to argue here. There are quite a few professionals who would argue for either side, and those would be the people to turn to.

There is no practical evidence right now for or against the effectiveness or gay parents rearing children - the time frame is too small for science to decide for or against. The only way to argue this is theoretically.

Ahh. The hard part. And where my postion will fall apart, if anywhere.

History: Never before has society considered two people not of opposite genders to be qualified upbringers of children.

Psychology: Not my forte, but the joining of male and female is the only way to produce children, so I'm thinking that it could logically follow that two parents, male and female, is the most effective way, developementally, to rear children. DISCLAIMER: I'm not competent to argue here. There are quite a few professionals who would argue for either side, and those would be the people to turn to.

There is no practical evidence right now for or against the effectiveness or gay parents rearing children - the time frame is too small for science to decide for or against. The only way to argue this is theoretically.


History has been proven wrong before.

As for Psychology, not true-it isn't having two people, or having a male/female that matters, but having two loving parents that nurture a child and lead him/her through the developmental process in the most effecient manner. This can be done by both opposite and same sex unions.l

Gayness is not a new thing. It has been around for a while. Alexander the Great was Gay(School History Video).

Why not gay marriage?

Sorry.

Because homosexual partners, loving each other, although willing to adopt a child and love that child and take care of that child, would not be the proper parents for that child.

And adoption is a supremely loving, charitable act to do, and I can only hope to emulate those couple around me who have adopted children, especially those who have found that they can't have children.

to qoute another poster BZZZT WRONG

I'M a SPED and Went to A school for SPeds (it will makes sence in a sec i swear)
a large % of my frends and classmates were adopted or in foster care 2 in particular M & L M was the second of two children adopted by a family from NH she was taken in treated like trash sent as far away as possable and when she graduated she was put in a amartment told she had a mounth to find a job or she was sol last i heard she was working at a supermarket for minimum (which is a shame because she was a very talented photographer)

L is actally better off Now i won't go into his wohle thing but the short ver is he was adopdet acedently(iT makes sence when he explains it i swear) he and his sister were raised jewish and are now both pagen she has pink hair he has more hair than ozzy they're both adopted

Pause.

I'm overwhelmed. I've been skipping objections and parts of posts, which is bad, and people have objected.

Right now, it's a lot against a little, which I don't mind, but I can't bite of more than I can chew. Please consolidate objections, or the debate will spin out of control.

Okay, I'll stick my head out.

I've heard this argument uttered. I'd like you guys to take it apart. That would do me a great sevice.

A sociological argument against gay marriage.

(Sociology is the studying of society.)

Society is made up of individuals. These individuals form groups within society. A group that is most common, and very effective as a stablizing force for society (allows society to continue for a multiplicity of reasons), is marriage.

But the crux of marriage being so important is that marriage is one of the few effective, and only universal, method for succesfully raising children (propagation of society).

Anything that defeats or impedes this method is sociologically unsound. It would be unhealthy for society. Therefore, society as a whole should reject it.

Now, so far so good. You probably agree with the above, except some of you may attack the idea of marriage having been established for the propogation of children. Good luck.

The weak point of this argument comes when the person says that gay marriages weaken marriage as a sociological institution.

How does gay marriage not weaken marriage as a whole?

Keep in mind that marriage, here, is determined by its success in propagating and raising children.

Marriage actually started out once tribes settled down and accumulated property as a way of ensuring that what one man earned in his life didn't go to some other man's child, because ofcourse it is natural for a person to want to keep the things he's earned within his family or bloodline. The woman didn't have to worry, 'cause she knew it was her kid.
Before settling down into towns and villages, there wasn't such a thing as marriage. Obviously marriage isn't the only way to raise a child, because otherwise humans would have long died out.
Only when the monotheistic religions sprang up was marriage associated with religion and spirituality. Before it was an economic and political allegiance that coculd be changed according to different needs.
Marriage is and has always been an economic and political contract, and if a man and a woman are allowed to enter marriage, there is no reason two consenting adults of the same gender shouldn't be able to do it.

And to the other person who thought allowing gay marriage would cause everything to degrade into allowing pedophiles and blah blah, marriage would still be by two consenting adults who are not related within (blank) amount of generations.

Um... off-topic, I think. Oh well.

and frankly i really don't hav a problem with Poligamy bigamy or polandry

anyone who thinks thay can sucsesfully make mutible partners happy more power to em


and for the record i like the idea but on paper on set of inlaws would be bad enough :eek:

Gayness is not a new thing. It has been around for a while. Alexander the Great was Gay(School History Video).

Why not gay marriage?


Indeed, gayness is not a new thing. But two things have happened recently that are quite new:

#1 Gayness has been accepted by a society as a whole - a good thing.

#2 Gay marriage has been accepted by a society as a whole (or close to it) - the good/bad of that we are trying to decide.

to qoute another poster BZZZT WRONG

I'M a SPED and Went to A school for SPeds (it will makes sence in a sec i swear)
a large % of my frends and classmates were adopted or in foster care 2 in particular M & L M was the second of two children adopted by a family from NH she was taken in treated like trash sent as far away as possable and when she graduated she was put in a amartment told she had a mounth to find a job or she was sol last i heard she was working at a supermarket for minimum (which is a shame because she was a very talented photographer)

L is actally better off Now i won't go into his wohle thing but the short ver is he was adopdet acedently(iT makes sence when he explains it i swear) he and his sister were raised jewish and are now both pagen she has pink hair he has more hair than ozzy they're both adopted

I'm not against acceptance.

I'm not against tolerance.

I'm not against loving families.

I'm not against people loving children enough to adopt them.

I'm saying that people, in the loving, sacrificial attempt to adopt children, might be doing the wrong thing for the children.

Partnerships are completely different than marriages. One of the biggest disadvantages that many people fail to mention is that you are not allowed to see your 'partner' in the hospital should they be injured. That sucks a lot, doesn't it, knowing that the person you love is hurt in a bed and you can't see them at all, huh? How would you like it if you couldn't see your wife or husband because you wern't allowed to marry just because you like someone that's the opposite sex? And furthermore, marriage should have nothing to do with religion anymore. Married couples get special treatment from the government such as lower taxes and other things..partnerships may also get this, but probably not as much. The moment something gets special treatment by the government it falls into public domain. People from other religions get married and are viewed as such, what's so special about Christianity that they can say that gays can't get married?

And then we get awesome insight from the conspiracy nut, knowing all about the gay 'agenda'. Yay.

We at Fox are opposed to gay marriage because it would cheapen the sanctity of marriage, and we would never, ever want that. Now, next on Fox, Marry a Complete Stranger Based on the Whims of the Audience!

what about HETEROSEXUAL couples who choose to do that, even if they are able to have biological children? my aunt and uncle did just that; they are physically capable of having their own kids, but they chose to adopt instead. should their marriage be invalidated because they chose not to have kids of their own?

I have no idea. A lot of things I have no idea about. That particular case has elements specific to it, and render me incapapble of competently addressing it.

It would mean that my ex-wife would have a chance to get divorced again. :D

Well played.

You did not say that a gay person would be unfit. Someone else did.

Marriage isn't about children. Marriage is enhanced by the presence of children. You can be married and not have children. I work with a guy who's been married for 16 years to his wife and they have decided not to have any children until he leaves his current job. Their marriage is great. Better than most I've seen, and there isn't a child in the picture.

Two things -

Marriage is about children, because marriage is about sex (correct me if I'm wrong).

and, the quality of a marriage (whether they love each other), I have repeatedly said should not be the only lightning rod as to the appropriateness of the marriage.

Indeed, gayness is not a new thing. But two things have happened recently that are quite new:

#1 Gayness has been accepted by a society as a whole - a good thing.

#2 Gay marriage has been accepted by a society as a whole (or close to it) - the good/bad of that we are trying to decide.

In some societies Gays had been already accepted. But I agree, after european world domination ;) , gays mostly kept to themselves.

Why not gay marriage? Two people love each other. Its up to us to just accept it or chase them to Canada.

Either way, they'll get married

BTW, where in the bible does it say gay marriage is bad?
(come back, religious people!)

Marriage is about children, because marriage is about sex (correct me if I'm wrong).


Only for religious people..

Frisbeeteria
Fact is, you've got no more business telling me what marriage ought to be than I have telling you the same thing.Well, the problem with that is that you assume that both of us are equally wrong, while I assume that there is a correct answer, and that either you or me, or possibly neither of us, has it. Do you think there is a right answer to what marriage ought to be?No, I assume both of us are equally right, which is an entirely different thing. I don't believe in single correct answers, and so far the world has verified that for me in pretty much everything.
I'm sorry, what was your point again? Oh yeah, only your view is correct. Most of us proceed with the point of view that our point of view is correct.
You conveniently left out the word 'only'. I don't believe I have a monopoly on the truth. I don't beleive you do either.

I think you, Vaulted Loneliness, can abhor homosexuality with or without my consent. I think that I, Frisbeeteria, can accept homosexuals as people, as parents, but most essentially as fellow citizens. I don't see a conflict. Your worldview does not invalidate mine, but it seems mine invalidates yours.

The difference appears to be defining solutions as Absolutes. You see 'em, I don't. I like my shades of grey, and even a few colors in there. For you, it's black or white. You have an impasse. I have just one more viewpoint to include in my own.

Trouble is, you want to make your viewpoint the Law of the Land, or so I assume. I want the Law of the Land to recognize that it already has a requirement to treat all citizens equally under the Law, as it did for negroes, women, immigrants, native Americans, and the rest of our inclusive population. That particular slippery slope has worked pretty well insofar as granting rights to those who were wrongfully excluded, and I see no reason to put up barriers now.

Two things -

Marriage is about children, because marriage is about sex (correct me if I'm wrong).

and, the quality of a marriage (whether they love each other), I have repeatedly said should not be the only lightning rod as to the appropriateness of the marriage.

Well depends on where you are at. There are some that belive the Bible says sex is only for producing children. It's fun so it must be bad! :rolleyes:

No, I assume both of us are equally right, which is an entirely different thing. I don't believe in single correct answers, and so far the world has verified that for me in pretty much everything.

How can we be equally right if we are disagreeing? It doesn't make any sense. Does it make sense to any of you other guys reading this?


[quote]You conveniently left out the word 'only'. I don't believe I have a monopoly on the truth. I don't beleive you do either.

The ability to hold a postion, and then to abandon that position if a more sensible position arrives, is an ability that I have demonstrated, do you disagree?

I think you, Vaulted Loneliness, can abhor homosexuality with or without my consent. I think that I, Frisbeeteria, can accept homosexuals as people, as parents, but most essentially as fellow citizens. I don't see a conflict. Your worldview does not invalidate mine, but it seems mine invalidates yours.

Your worldview that a person can abhor or accept without another person's consent is not in conflict from mine.

Your worldview that both of us can be right about a issue on which we have a disagreement sounds illogical to me.

The difference appears to be defining solutions as Absolutes. You see 'em, I don't. I like my shades of grey, and even a few colors in there. For you, it's black or white. You have an impasse. I have just one more viewpoint to include in my own.

Oversimplification. Judging before knowing. I thought you people were always accusing "homophobes" of this.

Trouble is, you want to make your viewpoint the Law of the Land, or so I assume. I want the Law of the Land to recognize that it already has a requirement to treat all citizens equally under the Law, as it did for negroes, women, immigrants, native Americans, and the rest of our inclusive population. That particular slippery slope has worked pretty well insofar as granting rights to those who were wrongfully excluded, and I see no reason to put up barriers now.

Expand on this. I think you may be getting somewhere.

Well depends on where you are at. There are some that belive the Bible says sex is only for producing children. It's fun so it must be bad! :rolleyes:

Indeed, a sad opinion. Those people can never really appreciate life.

Only for religious people..

Religious people marry so they can have sex.
Non-religious people marry for love.

Does that mean that non-religious people don't think sex is part of marriage?

History has been proven wrong before.

History has been proven wrong before. History has also been proven right before. It is by precedent that the judicial system works.

As for Psychology, not true-it isn't having two people, or having a male/female that matters, but having two loving parents that nurture a child and lead him/her through the developmental process in the most effecient manner. This can be done by both opposite and same sex unions.l

Loving and nurturing isn't enough.

You have love and nurture properly.

Even if you have the best of intentions, you can still mess stuff up badly. This is demonstrated every day in life.

Religious people marry so they can have sex.
Non-religious people marry for love.

Does that mean that non-religious people don't think sex is part of marriage?

Well if they're non-religious people then they may or may not. That value is mostly pushed by the churches, is it not? Being pure for marriage? Non-religious people could just use marriage as a way for them to extend their love, and sex just another part of the relationship - it would have nothing to do with marriage.

Religious people marry so they can have sex.
Non-religious people marry for love.
I believe I speak on behalf of me and maybe some other people when I say: "Wha...?"

I don't quite see where you get that idea. (Then again, this thread's average post is practically illegible, so maybe I shouldn't complain just because the whole argument has sort of flopped over like an improperly made cake.)

History has been proven wrong before. History has also been proven right before. It is by precedent that the judicial system works.
History has been proven both right AND wrong. To judge something based on traditions, however, is completely incorrect. If you were to judge off of pure history, then I'd say America-which already borrows a bit off of greek/roman culture-should follow them on the issue of homosexuality. Ever man has a wife, a mistress, and a male lover :p


Loving and nurturing isn't enough.

You have love and nurture properly.

Even if you have the best of intentions, you can still mess stuff up badly. This is demonstrated every day in life.

Yes, it is demonstrated by heterosexual couples constantly. Take my parents for example :p.

The thing is, there's no evidence that homosexual couples raise kids worst then heterosexual couples.

Marriage is about children, because marriage is about sex (correct me if I'm wrong).


I would like to correct you on that. To make your reasoning sound and true, you have to base it on the fact that sex is about children: it's not.

Let me explain: children is a possible outcome of sex, at least in fertile heterosexual couplings. But unless you're a catholic zealot, you're bound to end up having sex not only for procreation, but also for pleasure, expressing your love, or simply lust and relief of bodily functions.

What that means is that you are correct while saying marriage is about sex(I think pretty much everyone agrees that sex is somehow involved in marriage). But on the other hand, since sex isn't always or only about children, you can't say marriage is as well. All you can say is that marriage CAN be about children or SOMETIMES is about children.

marriage = sex
sex NOT = children (as in NOT ONLY or NOT ALWAYS)
Therefore marriage NOT = children(as in NOT ONLY or NOT ALWAYS)

I'm not sure if I was able to clearly convey my point, if I'm not making enough sense tell me and I'll reformulate...

I'd be able to marry the person I loved, and raise children, and generally live like I'd like to. I hope people realize that while the bible says homosexuality is "an abomination before the eyes of the lord"...it says the same thing about women who wear pants.

I believe I speak on behalf of me and maybe some other people when I say: "Wha...?"

I don't quite see where you get that idea. (Then again, this thread's average post is practically illegible, so maybe I shouldn't complain just because the whole argument has sort of flopped over like an improperly made cake.)

I didn't believe it either. Forgive my lack of indicating my sarcasm.

Trouble is, you want to make your viewpoint the Law of the Land, or so I assume. I want the Law of the Land to recognize that it already has a requirement to treat all citizens equally under the Law, as it did for negroes, women, immigrants, native Americans, and the rest of our inclusive population. That particular slippery slope has worked pretty well insofar as granting rights to those who were wrongfully excluded, and I see no reason to put up barriers now. Expand on this. I think you may be getting somewhere.
Let's start with the Amendments to the Constitution then.Article XIV.
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.
By my reckoning, the United States has granted a priviledge or immunity to married persons. They have the right to inheritance without making an appeal through the courts. The have the right of Power of Attorney with regards to their spouse in many circumstances, including that most vital of choices, the right of life and death in infirmity. They have privileges with regard to favorable taxable status, and some that aren't favorable to counterbalance the others. They have the right to arbitration or judicial intervention when they dissolve their marriage.

These rights are not afforded to all citizens. Homosexuals do not have the right to enter into the contract of marriage, but any man may marry any woman by signing a form and paying a small fee at any courthouse. To replicate the sum total of all the rights and privileges would take many thousands of dollars, and it still would not be equal in the eyes of the IRS or the law. Spouses are accorded something similar to 5th Amendment rights against spousal incrimination. That cannot be purchased at any lawyer's office.

A native American may marry a son of a slave, despite the fact that the Constitution values one as perhaps three-fifths of a person, and the other not as a person at all. These rights have been granted as this country has matured. Through amendment and common law, these fundamental ineqities have been corrected.

Why now, when you see a governmental inequality not forseen by the founders, do you not step up and say, "Grant these people their rights! Are they not also citizens of this nations?"

I could go on for quite a bit longer, but I think I've made my point. Whadda ya say?

Almost forgot. Here's another cheescake.

I didn't believe it either. Forgive my lack of indicating my sarcasm.

Did you get a chance to see my previous post? Any thoughts on it?

I'd be able to marry the person I loved, and raise children, and generally live like I'd like to. I hope people realize that while the bible says homosexuality is "an abomination before the eyes of the lord"...it says the same thing about women who wear pants.

Hey, wait, what's this about women going around pantless? I'm starting to like this idea :p

I would like to correct you on that. To make your reasoning sound and true, you have to base it on the fact that sex is about children: it's not.

Let me explain: children is a possible outcome of sex, at least in fertile heterosexual couplings. But unless you're a catholic zealot, you're bound to end up having sex not only for procreation, but also for pleasure, expressing your love, or simply lust and relief of bodily functions.

What that means is that you are correct while saying marriage is about sex(I think pretty much everyone agrees that sex is somehow involved in marriage). But on the other hand, since sex isn't always or only about children, you can't say marriage is as well. All you can say is that marriage CAN be about children or SOMETIMES is about children.

marriage = sex
sex NOT = children (as in NOT ONLY or NOT ALWAYS)
Therefore marriage NOT = children(as in NOT ONLY or NOT ALWAYS)

I'm not sure if I was able to clearly convey my point, if I'm not making enough sense tell me and I'll reformulate...


No, you were quite clear.

I agree quite so with you, sex can be both for the purpose of procreating, or it can be for pleasure, etc.

My differing with you is that I think all sex should be open to procreation, since that is its primary function. I don't think all sex should be for procreation, I wouldn't get to have any fun nor would I become "proficient", heh heh, but it should be "open to the possibility of creating life".

History has been proven both right AND wrong. To judge something based on traditions, however, is completely incorrect. If you were to judge off of pure history, then I'd say America-which already borrows a bit off of greek/roman culture-should follow them on the issue of homosexuality. Ever man has a wife, a mistress, and a male lover :p

:p Wouldn't that be fun....


Yes, it is demonstrated by heterosexual couples constantly. Take my parents for example :p.

The thing is, there's no evidence that homosexual couples raise kids worst then heterosexual couples.

No there is no evidence, because it is a very new phenomenon. The jury is still out.

It would mean that no matter what I could marry the person I want to marry regardless of what sex they are.
Unfortunately for me the Australian government has made the decision for me, now I'm not even able to get married to my same sex partner in another country and have it recognised here or adopt a child with him from overseas. Personaly I am not that concerned as I'm not ready to get married, but i'd still like the option.

Hey, wait, what's this about women going around pantless? I'm starting to like this idea :p

*splits sides laughing* :D

Damn, why do the hets and lezzies get all the fun? *pouts*

I want pantless men too! Equality of sexes and all...

So, why is it wrong? Why can't it be legal? I haven't seen a good answer yet.

I agree quite so with you, sex can be both for the purpose of procreating, or it can be for pleasure, etc.

My differing with you is that I think all sex should be open to procreation, since that is its primary function. I don't think all sex should be for procreation, I wouldn't get to have any fun nor would I become "proficient", heh heh, but it should be "open to the possibility of creating life".

But by saying you think all sex should be open to procreation, are you also saying that condom usage, or women taking contraceptive pills should be forbidden inside the bounds of marriage? Because married couples frequently use those means when they don't want to have children(may that be because they don't want children at all, or because they don,t want any more than they already have, or because they want to wait - there can be many reasons for this).

I understand, and greatly respect the fact that you believe that in a marriage, *ideally* there should be sex open to procreation, but I'm sure you'll agree with me that putting it into law would be trying to regulate what poeple do in bed. In that light, I have no qualms about you advocating procreation in the bounds of marriage. I just don't want it to be forced, you know?

And if you take a look at the present situation, some hetero couples DO already have protected sex in marriage. So clearly that's not a valid argument as far as not legalizing homosexual marriage is concerned, do you not agree?

Let's start with the Amendments to the Constitution then.
By my reckoning, the United States has granted a priviledge or immunity to married persons. They have the right to inheritance without making an appeal through the courts. The have the right of Power of Attorney with regards to their spouse in many circumstances, including that most vital of choices, the right of life and death in infirmity. They have privileges with regard to favorable taxable status, and some that aren't favorable to counterbalance the others. They have the right to arbitration or judicial intervention when they dissolve their marriage.

These rights are not afforded to all citizens. Homosexuals do not have the right to enter into the contract of marriage, but any man may marry any woman by signing a form and paying a small fee at any courthouse. To replicate the sum total of all the rights and privileges would take many thousands of dollars, and it still would not be equal in the eyes of the IRS or the law. Spouses are accorded something similar to 5th Amendment rights against spousal incrimination. That cannot be purchased at any lawyer's office.

A native American may marry a son of a slave, despite the fact that the Constitution values one as perhaps three-fifths of a person, and the other not as a person at all. These rights have been granted as this country has matured. Through amendment and common law, these fundamental ineqities have been corrected.

Why now, when you see a governmental inequality not forseen by the founders, do you not step up and say, "Grant these people their rights! Are they not also citizens of this nations?"

I could go on for quite a bit longer, but I think I've made my point. Whadda ya say?

I see (I hope) what you're saying. I belive that what you're saying is important.

I don't think I'm qualified to address really, the those issues, except to say a few bland things.

There are various privileges (as you ahve documented above) that society is granting to small groups that are helping to propogate it. Heterosexuals, as they benefit society, should be privileged by it; Homosexuals, as they benefit society, should be rewarded by it.

You notice that there are no benefits to marriage, and marriage itself, that are not barred to homosexuals. In that sense, there is no inequality. In the sense that, right now, homosexuals are not allowed to marry those that they love, and heterosexuals are, that is a injustice.

But, it is only an injustice if the only barring to marriage is, and only is, the professed capacity and reality of love for each other.

You notice that there are no benefits to marriage, and marriage itself, that are not barred to homosexuals. In that sense, there is no inequality. In the sense that, right now, homosexuals are not allowed to marry those that they love, and heterosexuals are, that is a injustice.

But, it is only an injustice if the only barring to marriage is, and only is, the professed capacity and reality of love for each other.
I'm missing your entire point here, I believe. I spent two paragraphs showing the inequities. I'm not talking sociological points, nor reproductive points, nor issues of love and commitment. I'm only talking about the LAW.

In my opinion, the United States government has no business being in the marriage business execpt as it pertains to the rights and privileges granted to married persons. They are not the Church, they are not the definers of society, they are not the arbiters of love. The United States and the various States themselves have granted certain legal and contractual privileges to married people that do not apply to single people. And while any two single opposite-sex persons of legal age may avail themselves of those priveleges, same-sex couples may not.

The argument before Congress and the Courts should have only to do with governmental obligation and matters of law. They shouldn't be passing value judgements on the moral aspects of this issue ... because it's NONE OF THEIR DAMN BUSINESS. They didn't vet my horrible choice of a bride 7 years ago, but they accepted the contract of marriage without a whimper. When I paid through the nose to divorce her three years later, I legally broke the contract. That's the ONLY role my government should have in this affair - defining and upholding contract law.

You can argue societal implications until you're blue in the face, and you're welcome to try to convince gays not to marry. But it shouldn't be LAW. Not when the privilege exists for only a select group.

But by saying you think all sex should be open to procreation, are you also saying that condom usage, or women taking contraceptive pills should be forbidden inside the bounds of marriage? Because married couples frequently use those means when they don't want to have children(may that be because they don't want children at all, or because they don,t want any more than they already have, or because they want to wait - there can be many reasons for this).

I understand, and greatly respect the fact that you believe that in a marriage, *ideally* there should be sex open to procreation, but I'm sure you'll agree with me that putting it into law would be trying to regulate what poeple do in bed. In that light, I have no qualms about you advocating procreation in the bounds of marriage. I just don't want it to be forced, you know?

And if you take a look at the present situation, some hetero couples DO already have protected sex in marriage. So clearly that's not a valid argument as far as not legalizing homosexual marriage is concerned, do you not agree?

Not really.

There are several facets to your argument, all of them quite valid and reasonable.

#1. That sex being open to procreation would mean the disusage of condoms, contraception, etc.

#2. That putting into law such a idea would be inherently unjust (invading privacy) and unworkable.

#3. That the fact that such things are already practiced means that I shouldn't argue against it.

(That may be an unjust summary).

Sex open to procreation does mean the disusage of condoms, contraceptives, etc. It is true. I do not plan to use such things during sex. I think that those devices cheapen sex, and don't allow it to be fully glorious. I do have a very idealistic view of humanity; the joy of having a child, having sex with one person your entire life...and that there are alternatives to artificial ways of making sure not to have children. I wonder whether my belief in the humanity of the child yet to be born reflects that idealistic view of life, or whether such a view of life comes from believing in the humanity of that person.

To outlaw contraceptives might be the wrong way to go. I don't know. I do know that contraceptives do block the essential meaning of sex, the function of the various stages of sex - without getting needlessly gory, the essential function of sex is to join egg and sperm. But when homosexuals marry, it's almost as though they mock the real meaning of sex. Making laws about what goes on in the bedroom - in one sense, I totally agree with you, in a nother sense - do we outlaw some things that go on just between two people and don't harm any other people? How about I guy with all his kith and kin dead and with nobody else caring about him, and who gets murdered in some bedroom? It doesn't affect anybody but those two; why is it wrong?

Unfortunately, some heteros do practice protected sex in marriage. I don't plan to, because I have this nieve vision about how things are supposed to be, and /of course/, anything that goes against how I think it's supposed to be is wrong. :)

Now, rip me to shreds :p

You can argue societal implications until you're blue in the face, and you're welcome to try to convince gays not to marry. But it shouldn't be LAW. Not when the privilege exists for only a select group.

She essentially says what I've been trying to convey in my last post. While it's anyone's right to try to convince gays not to marry(good luck, though :D ), it's just not right for anyone to try to pass it into law.

On that note, even though this discussion is interesting, I'll have to say farewell for tonight, as it draws late in my space/time continuum. I'll try to be back tomorrow to see if any thoughts/reactions have been added to what is already here.

I'm missing your entire point here, I believe. I spent two paragraphs showing the inequities. I'm not talking sociological points, nor reproductive points, nor issues of love and commitment. I'm only talking about the LAW.

In my opinion, the United States government has no business being in the marriage business execpt as it pertains to the rights and privileges granted to married persons. They are not the Church, they are not the definers of society, they are not the arbiters of love. The United States and the various States themselves have granted certain legal and contractual privileges to married people that do not apply to single people. And while any two single opposite-sex persons of legal age may avail themselves of those priveleges, same-sex couples may not.

The argument before Congress and the Courts should have only to do with governmental obligation and matters of law. They shouldn't be passing value judgements on the moral aspects of this issue ... because it's NONE OF THEIR DAMN BUSINESS. They didn't vet my horrible choice of a bride 7 years ago, but they accepted the contract of marriage without a whimper. When I paid through the nose to divorce her three years later, I legally broke the contract. That's the ONLY role my government should have in this affair - defining and upholding contract law.

You can argue societal implications until you're blue in the face, and you're welcome to try to convince gays not to marry. But it shouldn't be LAW. Not when the privilege exists for only a select group.

Hmm.

Isn't the Law a tool of government, and isn't government part of society?

Hmm.

Isn't the Law a tool of government, and isn't government part of society?
It is a tool of government that runs on agreed-upon precepts. The core of those precepts is the Constitution and its Amendments. If you wish to discard the 14th Amendment and the concept of equal protection under the law, be my guest in that crusade. But until then, it stands as the law of the land, and I think we ought to observe it.

She essentially says what I've been trying to convey in my last post. Hey now! I'm a single, heterosexual male.

Here. Have a cheescake.

Unfortunately, some heteros do practice protected sex in marriage. I don't plan to, because I have this nieve vision about how things are supposed to be, and /of course/, anything that goes against how I think it's supposed to be is wrong. :)

I know I said I was going to bed, but I just have to answer to this before I go.

First of all, your summary's correct. I'm glad I correctly expressed my thoughts.

As for what is above, which I believe is of the utmost importance as it is what seems to me to be the base of your argumentative at the present time:

Basically, you're saying you have a very idealist view of marriage. I believe this is a good thing, and I encourage you to cling to your ideals: they're what makes you YOU. However, are you prepared to say that your ideals, no matter how noble they are to you, are the ONLY way to go? Not only that, but are they the only way to go for EVERYONE else? I think that's the core of the issue!

You can(and should, and probably will) make your marriage what you want it to be, granted that you find a partner that shares a sensibly similar vision of marriage(I wish you as much). That means that you hopefully will find a wife with whom you'll have lots of sex for pleasure without contraception, and welcome a child if it comes out of it. Up until now, we're all well and good, aren't we?

But other poeple view marriage differently than you. Some poeple use contraception. Some poeple cheat on their spouses. Some poeple even have open marriages, which means that both spouses occasionnally have sex with others outside the marriage. There are a great variety of types of marriages out there, and each and every one of them is as valid in the eyes of the law as yours.

Same-sex marriage is just like those above types of marriage: a different way to see how to live your marriage. But the difference is, it's not legal, in my opinion because of long-standing prejudice against the practice of homosexuality.

Bottom of the line: what you're arguing in your post are not reasons to OUTLAW gay marriage: they're reasons why YOU should not take part in a gay marriage! And, believe it or not, I respect your right to want NOT to be married to a man ;) Seriously though, reread your posts if need be: you're giving reasons why you don't want to marry a man, not reasons why no man should marry another man. Realize this, and it gives a whole new light to your reticences.

Nobody's trying to convince you to contract a gay marriage: in fact, I just encouraged you earlier to make your marriage what you want it to be. I just want to have the opportunity to make MY marriage what I want it to be. The state should only be seeing to the contractual aspect of marriage: the rest of it is to be determined by the two persons signing this contract(which can optionnally be influenced by their religious convictions, if any).

Think on it tonight, and tell me what you get out of it tomorrow.

Hey now! I'm a single, heterosexual male.

Here. Have a cheescake.

*munches cheesecake* Sorry, I seem to mistake every straight guy in this thread for a woman anyway.*Munch*

It means I can never get married to my girlfriend. :(

I wasn't about to read 15 pages of this. Did anyone actually anwser the initial question?

The way i see it is that you have to take something apart to fix it. Something is wrong with marriage. Take it apart, find out the problem and put it back together again. Gay marriage might be rebaned after we fix it, if it wasn't part of the problem.

Did anyone actually anwser the initial question?
I did, before I got dragged off into Constitutional Law class. A repeat:
Well, since this has turned into yet another flamefest on gay marriage, I'll just answer the original question.If they allowed gay marriage, my lesbian neighbors might get married and go on a honeymoon.

When they go on vacation, I usually dogsit their pup.

Last time I dogsat for them, they gave me a nice cheescake.

I like cheesecake.

Therefore, gay marriage is good.

its just another way we are removing God and morals from our country. As far as adoption goes i know i shure wouldn't want to grow up to 2 moms/dads.

its just another way we are removing God and morals from our country. As far as adoption goes i know i shure wouldn't want to grow up to 2 moms/dads.
How about four parents? Or six? That's what you get when your parents divorce and remarry, sometimes multiple times, under 'God and morals from our country'. Before you discard the one, I'd like you to explain the other.

This is waaay back from the first page:

Pretend that gay man (the guy with Mr. Hat) fell in love with a woman and got married. They had three children. And then one day, the man sees another man. Things get hotter until the man decides to leave the family for this other man and get married.
What's to say that that would never happen in a hetorosexual marriage? I'd say that there'd be just as much stress on the kids.


The United States is NOT a theocracy. There is and always has been a seperation between church and state. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that marriage is spesifically between a man and a woman.

Therefore, it should automatically be legal. However, the religious right is somehow claiming that it isn't, just because their religion declares it so.

How does gay marriage affect me? Well, it would give me peace of mind that this country isn't completely devoid of modern civil rights, but other than that, it doesn't.

Lets see if i can get the basics down...

Gay Marriage Legalization Pros&Cons
(Counter Arguments)

Pros
1. Homosexuals will get the right to marry who they love and the basic ecomnomic advatages from marriage. (They could do they same though civil unions or something like that)

2. Marriage for Heterosexuals and not Homosexuals and is another example of Inequality/Discrimination. (Marriage is a sacred ceremony, important to almost all who wed, and don't want to be redifined)

3. People shouldn't care what gay people or any people are doing (but it is intefering with morals and religion, like murder)

Cons
1.Gay people as a couple would, naturally, want children, and would have to adopt or create test tube babies. These children will probably get teased and/or grow up in a bad environment. (Not proven, heterosexuals might do same too)

2. Againist Religion/Morals. Throughout history it has been Man and Woman. Marriage comes from the basis of churches and religion. (wait, does that mean athiests can't get married? Also, Seperation of church and state)

3. Slipery Slope. Eventually this will allow polygamy or someone wedding a toaster (Highly Unlikey)



I think there are some holes, but whaddya think?

Homosexual marriage affects me presonally by reminding me that the government is mucking around in what is essentially a moral issue between two consenting adults and I'm sick of hearing about it. As a christian, I believe homosexuality is wrong, but in God's eyes a sin is a sin is a sin and all of these bible thumping, finger pointers should worry about tending their own families and quit worrying about what their neighbors are doing. It is none of my business what other people do. The "breakdown" of our society is not caused by gays it is caused by a refusal to take responsibility for one's own life and choices. The idiot finger pointer worried about gay marriage is sitting in church with his third wife staring at his mistress in the next pew while his children are out doing drugs. People want to blame homosexuals for everything because it is easier than dealing with their own problems.

On a purely selfish level I wish they would make gay marriage legal so I wouldn't have to hear about it anymore..I have a family to raise. :eek:

If we legalize gay marriage, many more people will be happy. And there will be many more families. Which are good for society, no?

Pros
1. Homosexuals will get the right to marry who they love and the basic ecomnomic advatages from marriage. (They could do they same though civil unions or something like that)

2. Marriage for Heterosexuals and not Homosexuals and is another example of Inequality/Discrimination. (Marriage is a sacred ceremony, important to almost all who wed, and don't want to be redifined)
I'm not wedded (heh) to the idea that same-sex unions should be called 'Marriage', but I think it's essential that it be the same term for hetero- or homo- from a legal standpoint. We've been down the road of 'separate but equal' before, and I think Brown vs. the Board of Education pretty well settled that. You can't have 'separate but equal' if the definitions actually differ.

Let's call ALL government contracts 'Civil Unions'. Then straight Baptist and Catholic couples can go to church and get 'married' in the eyes of God, followed by a trip to the Courthouse. If the Episcopals want to offer the same service to gays, that's their faith and their choice. If a straight couple wants to remain single in the eyes of the IRS but married in the eyes of the church, so be it. They don't automatically inherit or have Power of Attorney, but that's their choice. It ain't the government's business.

It's two separate things. Let's treat it as two separate things.

Homosexual marriage affects me presonally by reminding me that the government is mucking around in what is essentially a moral issue between two consenting adults and I'm sick of hearing about it. As a christian, I believe homosexuality is wrong, but in God's eyes a sin is a sin is a sin and all of these bible thumping, finger pointers should worry about tending their own families and quit worrying about what their neighbors are doing. It is none of my business what other people do. The "breakdown" of our society is not caused by gays it is caused by a refusal to take responsibility for one's own life and choices. The idiot finger pointer worried about gay marriage is sitting in church with his third wife staring at his mistress in the next pew while his children are out doing drugs. People want to blame homosexuals for everything because it is easier than dealing with their own problems.

On a purely selfish level I wish they would make gay marriage legal so I wouldn't have to hear about it anymore..I have a family to raise. :eek:

Praise God for the fact that there are more intelligent christians like me. Thank you very much, and you have already said everything else.

If we legalize gay marriage, many more people will be happy. And there will be many more families. Which are good for society, no?


Right, because one of the problems facing the world today is not out-of-control population growth in the world. And after all, since we have so many jobs floating around right now in the US, we definitely need a lot more people.

gay marriage would affect me because marriage in general goes against the separation of church and state. how can priest have political power just by being a preist? i say take government out of marriage all together! that way any 2 people who want to be joined legally can have equal rights. and if they want a religous ceremony then let the church decide if they want to marry the couple. and while we are at it, let anyone marry any one or thing. just as long as it is a mutual agreement.

Right, because one of the problems facing the world today is not out-of-control population growth in the world. And after all, since we have so many jobs floating around right now in the US, we definitely need a lot more people.

If you really feel that way...

Do as China does!
One Baby Per Family!
Abortion for all others! ;)


(BTW, my chinese nationalist side says: Its not really like that, you aren't forced to have abortions, but the government takes away perks if you do. China is really overpopulated, we have 1/5 of the world population)

Back on topic...
Support Gay Marriage, that reasoning is flawed

Marriage is a sanctimonious institution, lets not cheapen it with allowing deviants to parttake in it. Before I get accused of being a religious zealot, save your breath with the flames, as I was just answering the question that was posed.. not here to debate with people that are for homo marriage

Ummm, Do you know what the meaning of sanctimonious is? Cause the context you are using it in is contrary to the meaning unless you are being ironic.

Sanctimonious: adj, Hypocriticaly Pious


you prolly meant some thing like marrage is a sacred institution.

However, there is no provision in the law that allows for impotence or inability to have a child (i.e. hysterectomy or what have you) as grounds for divorce.

But just as an amusing fact. that is a Valid reason for a Catholic annulment. another noticable difference between church and state.

I'd personally feel more comfortable having children in a society where I knew that they were free to love openly and marry whoever they chose. I'm also bisexual and feel that Bush's comments on homosexuals and marriage are demeaning on a personal level and would feel quite molified politically if this ammendment to outlaw gay marriage was shot down. I also have a large personal stake in Church and State remaining separate as a wiccan. Oh yeah, and many close personal friends of mine would also be far happier than they are now.

If you state that you disagree with incest, etc then you discrimination is the same as though opposing gay marriage. Society discriminates for a reason. That reason is to protect the people in that society.

Troll or not, Lard has an issue that I'd like to address.

Discrimination: 1. The act of discriminating.
2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather that individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.

It's the third definition I'm focusing on. Merit is the key word. What we have here is a confusion on the merit of a homosexual as opposed to a pedophile or zoophile. A homosexual's merit in a non-religious view is neutral. There's nothing particularly good or bad when choosing between a homosexual or a heterosexual (I've defended this before, there's no need to go through it again). They've made a choice on who they want as companions, and there's nothing illegal or immoral about it.

A zoophile's and pedophile's merit when compared to a heterosexual's merit is lacking. They force sexual acts on unwilling participants.

Conclusion: A homosexual is not lacking merit, and therefore any consideration on their part would be discrimination. A zoophile is lacking in merit, so consideration is not discrimination.

The consequences are that homosexual marriage promotes a non discrimination agenda which taken to its logical conclusion will mean that we also must allow other things that we may find abhorrent such as incest or polygamy. We will have to allow this because we have set the precedent of not being able to stop something because of non-discrimination laws.

Gay couples can enter into a partnership agreement to protect property rights, gay people have the right to live as a gay couple now, so what possible benefit does allowing gay marriage create. The answer is none. Thereby the real question is why do they want it? The answer is above.

Also we must consider the fact that gay people will then demand the right to adopt children as they cannot make any naturally. This is a natural progression of their non-discrimination rights. A gay persons lifestyle is promiscuous by choice, the only thing stopping gay people being more promiscuous is the possibility of disease,(aids and the likes). The best way to reduce this risk is to have sex with young virginal children. By opening the door to gay adoption as a natural progression from gay marriage, we put children at risk by exposing them to people with an undesirable motive.

This is how gay marriage will affect everyone in society. Are we prepared for the consequences? Have we thouroughly examined all the angles.

Do you realize how hypocritical the last statement was?
1. We want to be in a committed relationship. You are stating that we want to be promiscuous. WE WANT TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT THAT IS A COMMITMENT TO ONE PERSON.
2. We are not pedophiles and have no desire to be with children. If you were to study the profile of a pedofile you would find out they are straight males who often are turned down by females. See the catholic church for your example or the christian grandfather that molested my step sister at a young age. EDUCATE yourself.
3. Not all gay people have std's, in fact that numbers is reducing due to the sex education within teh community.
4. Last of all, most of the people I am around don't like to date people a couple years younger or older then themselves. We are normal people we just happen to be gay.
5. Did I mention pedofilia has no connection with homosexuality.

I find it funny that your emotional outbursts block you from reading the message.

Let me say it again. Gay marriage is about removing discrimination. If you remove discrimination for one thing, it naturally follows that you must remove discrimination from another because a precedent has been set.

Gay marriage, two adults vowing their love for eachother, nothing more.

This removal of discrimination will lead to new excesses being promoted such as incest, polygamy, etc. That is the door you are opening. Gay people may stand up and scream in outrage but they know their agenda and so do I.

I certainly have no agenda but to be with the one I love.

You want to change the fabric of morality by normalising the abnormal. This will allow you to promote new debauchery into the world. You claim emotive catch cries such as discrimination and the rights of minorities and yet your motives are plain for anyone who hasn't yet been cowed by the politically correct left.

I went to church four times a week, I am honestly gay. Had a great life in a religous family.

If you state that you disagree with incest, etc then you discrimination is the same as though opposing gay marriage. Society discriminates for a reason. That reason is to protect the people in that society.

The point being, what are they protecting you from? Two adults being in love and happy. Two adults chosing lifetime partnership? You don't answer how this really affects you? It doesn't you have to bring in all these other things like incest and polygamy because you have no real valid argument about homosexuality. Otherwise you could just talk about homosexuality.

I wish they would let homosexual people get married and adopt children, it would only make more people happy it isnt really going to hurt anyone and allowing it will just stop people feeling opressed. Besides if homosexual peolpe people are allowed to live together they may as well be allowed to marry each other.

its just another way we are removing God and morals from our country. As far as adoption goes i know i shure wouldn't want to grow up to 2 moms/dads.

1) God was never in our country
2) neither do we force morals on someone else
Wow, your first sentace had two points, and they're BOTH wrong. But lets go deeper.
3) you believe that because of how you were raised; your opinion is invalid

Holy crap, three for three! You're out, bucko.

I oppose it due to the fact more people will be in stable legally recognized realtionships and it would serve to destigmatize homosexulaity making it no longer a sexual subculture. Soon if we're not careful seedy bathhouses and gay bars and cruise spots will be deserted adn those dirty young adolescent homosexuals might actually think they could have a normal life as part of society. [/sarcasm]

1) God was never in our country.
However the US refers to itself as "Gods own country." So obviously god plays a major role. The pledge of alligence contains the mentioning of god and on any Dollar you see: "In God we trust."
So obviously those factors of religious believe and moral were and are very important for America.

I'd clap my hands, and celebrate on behalf of the homosexual people. Though not homosexual myself, i'm on their side, since they're rarely bigots.

But i think marriage sucks on the other hand, so... Hehe =) If i were homosexual, i'd stick to registered partnership, it's much better in my opinion if you look at the paragraphs for it. That chuch marriage thing is overrated, and you end up binding your valuables to another person :S