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?

Hmmmm. If gays were allowed to get married and society were to put pressure on gays to be in monogamous relationships it would take away my Gawd given right to hate homersaycterwals. Yeeegodie! Glory!

After all monogamy would lessen the chances of people spreading cooties
to other gawd fearin folks and give us fewer excuses to hate those that are an abomination to the Lard! And us worshipers of the one true dog Jebus Crust knows that Gawd wants us to hate homersectwalls. Gawd damn it! I cant even spell it right its such an abomination!

The other reason is if we dont ban these kinds of mariages we will be back peddling away from our most important agenda and thats banning gays period! Glo-Ray to Gawd!

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.

Certain fundamentalist Christians are lyers and thieves seeking only your vote or patronage of their church.

The United States of America is not and never was founded on the christian religion. Fundies are either woefully ignorant or are out right lyers when it comes to this subject.

At this website look at the Treaty of Tripoly!
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html (http://)
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

QUOTATIONS THAT SUPPORT THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH/STATE
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html (http://)

Is America a Christian Nation?
http://ffrf.org/nontracts/?t=xian.txt (http://)

JAMES MADISON ON SEPARTION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm

THE FAITH OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS
http://www.postfun.com/worbois.html (http://)

Urban Legends Reference Pages
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp (http://)

SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS by John E. Remsberg.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/index.shtml (http://)

Since I can not bring the library to you folks I have given you some links.
Check the references at your local libraries. I am waisting my breath on the fundies I realize.

Well, I think I'll answer the original question: How Does Homosexual Marriage Affect Me?

Homosexual marrage affects me by giving me one less thing to gripe about. I am all for changing the definition of marriage to being between two people in love :fluffle: . Then again, I live in Canada, so I don't need to worry about that. Already legal :) . Oh, and for the record, I'm a male heterosexual.

By the by all you christian fundy oinkers out there. I personaly know someone who is 17 is heterosexual has a girfriend and was raised by his dad and his dads male significant other for the last 12 years.

Why isnt this teen gay? He has a healthy relationship with his male parents.
He also has never been in trouble with the law.

This teen is a decent feller and is kind to folks most of the time.
I am glad to have him and his family as freinds as they are all honorable people.

When are you Fundamentalist Christians gonna get it through your fat heads that laws are better when they protect citizens from harm.

Laws that enforce morality can at times be needlesly opressive.

And dont give me any lip about majority rule. The Bill of Rights protects folks from the tyrany of the majority. America is not just a democracy. Its a Democratic Republic with a Constitution AND a Bill Of Rights.

Let folks do thier thing so long as they harm no one.

By the by all you christian oinkers out there. I personaly know someone who is 17 is heterosexual has a girfriend and was raised by his dad and his dads male significant other for the last 12 years.

Why isnt this teen gay? He has a healthy relationship with his male parents.
He also has never been in trouble with the law.

This teen is a decent feller and is kind to folks most of the time.
I am glad to have him and his family as freinds as they are all honorable people.

When are you christians gonns get it through your fat heads that laws are better when they protect citizens from harm.

Laws that enforce morality can at times be needlesly opressive.

And dont give me any lip about majority rule. The Bill of Rights protects folks from the tyrany of the majority. America is not just a democracy. Its a Democratic Republic with a Constitution AND a Bill Of Rights.

Let folks do thier thing so long as they harm no one.

Hey, easy now. I agree with all that, and I'm Catholic. I also have homosexual and bisexual friends. Don't be quite so quick to judge.

Hey, easy now. I agree with all that, and I'm Catholic. I also have homosexual and bisexual friends. Don't be quite so quick to judge.

I most humbly appolgize friend.
You are a liberal Christian and I forget about the few decent Christians.
I am surounded by Fundy christians in real time.

Again I am sorry. I will edit my post imediately. Sorry friend.

The United States of America is not and never was founded on the christian religion.
It was based on the principal of deism. And it was dominated by christian believes. Not of a specific church, but of religion.
There is a strict seperation between church and state but not between religion and state. Facts like the pledge of allegiance, the "In God we trust" on the Dollar, the mentioning of god in many ways underline that fact.
You can´t escape the fact that the US is a deeply religious country in difference to Europe. Therefore religion is playing a bigger role. The current administration underlines this fact.

I most humbly appolgize friend.
You are a liberal Christian and I forget about the few decent Christians.
I am surounded by Fundy christians in real time.

Again I am sorry. I will edit my post imediately. Sorry friend.

That's cool. It just seemed like you've had a lot of frustration on your hands. I wasn't trying to one-up you or anything.

It was based on the principal of deism. And it was dominated by christian believes. Not of a specific church, but of religion.
There is a strict seperation between church and state but not between religion and state. Facts like the pledge of allegiance, the "In God we trust" on the Dollar, the mentioning of god in many ways underline that fact.
You can´t escape the fact that the US is a deeply religious country in difference to Europe. Therefore religion is playing a bigger role. The current administration underlines this fact.

Give me links with sources and references and less lip fundy.

And I do like cheesecake.

I'm not that weird.
i dont like cheesecake, but im all for gay marriage - am i wierd :confused:

Certain fundamentalist Christians are lyers and thieves seeking only your vote or patronage of their church.

The United States of America is not and never was founded on the christian religion. Fundies are either woefully ignorant or are out right lyers when it comes to this subject.

At this website look at the Treaty of Tripoly!
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html (http://)
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

QUOTATIONS THAT SUPPORT THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH/STATE
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html (http://)

Is America a Christian Nation?
http://ffrf.org/nontracts/?t=xian.txt (http://)

JAMES MADISON ON SEPARTION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm

THE FAITH OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS
http://www.postfun.com/worbois.html (http://)

Urban Legends Reference Pages
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp (http://)

SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS by John E. Remsberg.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/index.shtml (http://)

Since I can not bring the library to you folks I have given you some links.
Check the references at your local libraries. I am waisting my breath on the fundies I realize.

BUMP. OOPS DID I DO THAT?

i dont like cheesecake, but im all for gay marriage - am i wierd :confused:

You are beyond wierd. There is no desert above cheesecake, and I would kill you where you stand with my own two hands. If I wasn't such a pathetic wimp...

Facts like the pledge of allegiance, the "In God we trust" on the Dollar, the mentioning of god in many ways underline that fact.

Hmm to my knowledge the phrase 'under God' in the pledge was added during either the 40's or 50's. It usta simply say 'one nation, indivisible'

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm <- a short history... which amazingly enough doesnt talk about the addition of under god.

http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/flag/1bfc_pledge.html <- but this one does :D

I want to marry a toaster.
Sorry, darling... I told you, I can only think of you as a good friend...

Give me links with sources and references and less lip fundy.
I´m neither American nor religious. Stop flaming.
But it is a fact that the US highly bases itself on christianity and christian principles.
Link:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1777/fathers.html

From the founding fathers till today. Mainstream America goes to church every Sunday. There is hardly a country in the western world which is so religious as the US.
You may not like it but that is your culture and cultural environment.

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 doesn't affect me personally, because I'm not homosexually oriented, but there are a few other reasons why I'm against homosexual marriage.
I don't know if other countries do handle marriage the same way like germany, but in germany married people have some considerable advantages above people who are not married the most important ones are they are (as long as I know) considered as one person for paying taxes instead of two persons and if they have children they get a lot of money from the states to make it easier to grow 'em up.
In my opinion those advantages should be only availabe to people (couples?) who are willing and able to grow up the next generation and therefor ensure the continued existance of a nation (state/country/clan whatever).

Ok now... umm... Well i guess that was only one reason after all, but I think its a good reason.

Give me links with sources and references and less lip fundy.

You do not know the first thing about Deism. I am a Deist.
Some Deists cherry picked and took only what was rational and loving out of the bible and threw away the parts about God revealing itself to mankind, the divinity of jesus christ, and the eleged miracles of the bible. Many Educated people from before and during and after the birth of the American Nation loved a few of the gems that are in the Bible and ignored the other less palatable parts. They were Deists among others. Some were Atheists if I remember right. Aslo read The Bible made by Thomas Jefferson. "The Jefferson Bible"

Other Deists Like Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklyn were not fans of the bible or christians for that matter. Read Thomas Pains "The Age of Reason before you spew your ignorance about deism, fundy.

I second the statement of Destroyer Command.

You do not know the first thing about Deism. I am a Deist.
Some Deists cherry picked and took only....
Yes and you take everything out of context in order to suit your cause.
Right.
You can´t get away from the WASP - the dominating group in the US. President Bush makes shure that you can´t.

I´m neither American nor religious. Stop flaming.
But it is a fact that the US highly bases itself on christianity and christian principles.
Link:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1777/fathers.html

From the founding fathers till today. Mainstream America goes to church every Sunday. There is hardly a country in the western world which is so religious as the US.
You may not like it but that is your culture and cultural environment.

Your link provides no sources or references and only tells half truths.
Also Separation of church and state only means that religion should not be taxed or funded by taxpayers. Everyone is free to worship God in thier own way so long as other tax payers arent footing the bill.

Your link provides no sources or references and only tells half truths.
Also Separation of church and state only means that religion should not be taxed or funded by taxpayers. Everyone is free to worship God in thier own way so long as other tax payers arent footing the bill.
Doesn´t change the fact that it is the dominant religion and certain aspects of it highly influence American politics.

Yes and you take everything out of context in order to suit your cause.
Right.
You can´t get away from the WASP - the dominating group in the US. President Bush makes shure that you can´t.

No tthat is a fundy tactic. taking things out of context. Your site only tells half truths to make your case.
Just like Fundy Bible Scholars tell half truths to protect thier dogma.

It doesn't affect me personally, because I'm not homosexually oriented, but there are a few other reasons why I'm against homosexual marriage.
I don't know if other countries do handle marriage the same way like germany, but in germany married people have some considerable advantages above people who are not married the most important ones are they are (as long as I know) considered as one person for paying taxes instead of two persons and if they have children they get a lot of money from the states to make it easier to grow 'em up.
In my opinion those advantages should be only availabe to people (couples?) who are willing and able to grow up the next generation and therefor ensure the continued existance of a nation (state/country/clan whatever).

Ok now... umm... Well i guess that was only one reason after all, but I think its a good reason.


Umm, you should be aware 'equivalent to spouse' tax status is available to be deignated to a range of persons aside from the legal definiton of spouse. This includes dependant children or even elderly parents.

OMG the tax code supports incest!!!!

Doesn´t change the fact that it is the dominant religion and certain aspects of it highly influence American politics.

America was not founded on the Christian religion.
However Americas culture is christian. But that has nothing to do with The Declaration of Independance or our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Umm, you should be aware 'equivalent to spouse' tax status is available to be deignated to a range of persons aside from the legal definiton of spouse. This includes dependant children or even elderly parents.

OMG the tax code supports incest!!!!
I´m as well unaware about taxation laws in that respect. But I agree with Destroyer Command: Tax advantages like the marriage splitting (meaning that both incomes are added together and the two can be taxed together - especially an advantage when the income of the two partners differ) should only be given to married couples. And marriage is - as defined in the law - between one man and one woman. And it is right that way.

BUMP. OOPS DID I DO THAT?

Yes I did!

Certain fundamentalist Christians are lyers and thieves seeking only your vote or patronage of their church.

The United States of America is not and never was founded on the christian religion. Fundies are either woefully ignorant or are out right lyers when it comes to this subject.

At this website look at the Treaty of Tripoly!
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

QUOTATIONS THAT SUPPORT THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH/STATE
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html

Is America a Christian Nation?
http://ffrf.org/nontracts/?t=xian.txt

JAMES MADISON ON SEPARTION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm

THE FAITH OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS
http://www.postfun.com/worbois.html

Urban Legends Reference Pages
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS by John E. Remsberg.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/index.shtml

Since I can not bring the library to you folks I have given you some links.
Check the references at your local libraries. I am waisting my breath on the fundies I realize.



I dont just surf the web fundy I go to the library to make sure I can trust what I read on the web. You are a trusting little sheep that doesnt question your own beliefs.

America was not founded on the Christian religion.
However Americas culture is christian. But that has nothing to do with The Declaration of Independance or our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
However statements of your founding fathers prove that they themself give christianity a central role in that process. That is part of your history whether your like it or not. You may would like to change things. But since the 1970s the development in the US is going in a different direction (with the born-again christians). That is the reality.

However statements of your founding fathers prove that they themself give christianity a central role in that process. That is part of your history whether your like it or not. You may would like to change things. But since the 1970s the development in the US is going in a different direction (with the born-again christians). That is the reality.
No it does not. Folks had to get along and that is why James madison and Thomas Jefferson Worded things the way they did.

However statements of your founding fathers prove that they themself give christianity a central role in that process. That is part of your history whether your like it or not. You may would like to change things. But since the 1970s the development in the US is going in a different direction (with the born-again christians). That is the reality.

Natures God is the God of Deists not the christian jesus or jehovah.
Read Thomas Paines Age of Reason or the Jeffereson Bible by Thomas Jefferson if you want to see a part of what deism was.

No it does not. Folks had to get along and that is why James madison and Thomas Jefferson Worded things the way they did.
No, it does. Especially if President Bush gets four more years which seems to be most likely.

However statements of your founding fathers prove that they themself give christianity a central role in that process. That is part of your history whether your like it or not. You may would like to change things. But since the 1970s the development in the US is going in a different direction (with the born-again christians). That is the reality.
actually, no. they specifically and deliberately voted NOT to have God in the Constitution:

When the war was over and the victory over our enemies won, and the blessings and happiness of liberty and peace were secured, the Constitution was framed and God was neglected. He was not merely forgotten. He was absolutely voted out of the Constitution. The proceedings, as published by Thompson, the secretary, and the history of the day, show that the question was gravely debated whether God should be in the Constitution or not, and, after a solemn debate he was deliberately voted out of it. ... There is not only in the theory of our government no recognition of God's laws and sovereignty, but its practical operation, its administration, has been conformable to its theory. Those who have been called to administer the government have not been men making any public profession of Christianity. ... Washington was a man of valor and wisdom. He was esteemed by the whole world as a great and good man; but he was not a professing Christian. - Rev. Dr. Wilson

No, it does. Especially if President Bush gets four more years which seems to be most likely.
ROFL! ARE YOU CANADIAN OR AUSTRALIAN? HAHAHA. Yes you are correct.

(logical agrument againist gay marriage)
I'd like to hear one though.

Sorry if this is off-topic by now, but I couldn't be bothered to look at the whole thread.

As far as I know, MARRIAGE (in England, at least) is a CHRISTIAN procedure, and as such a CHRISTIAN bond. It takes place in a church, is overseen by a vicar, and in England there is no other way around. Christianity is a generally accommoatingreligion, so you don't have to be a christian to marry, however it CLEARLY states in the bible (leviticus 18) that sex outside of marriage with an unrelated human member of the opposite sex is a SIN, therefore no preist or vicar will ever endorse gay marriage by marrying two men: lev 18:22 "You must not have sexual relations with a man as you would a woman. That is a hateful sin." God quite clearly doesn't like gay marriage, which makes it WRONG.

yay! My first post!

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.
the regular use of "In God We Trust" on US coins did not begin until 1908, "In God We Trust" was not made an official motto of the United States until 1956, and the motto did not appear on paper money until 1957. the Pledge did not include God until the Cold War moved politicians to use religion as another factor for hating the godless Commies.

so the US was founded as LESS Christian than it is today, yet you want us to recognize our Christian roots...interesting.

actually, no. they specifically and deliberately voted NOT to have God in the Constitution:

When the war was over and the victory over our enemies won, and the blessings and happiness of liberty and peace were secured, the Constitution was framed and God was neglected. He was not merely forgotten. He was absolutely voted out of the Constitution. The proceedings, as published by Thompson, the secretary, and the history of the day, show that the question was gravely debated whether God should be in the Constitution or not, and, after a solemn debate he was deliberately voted out of it. ... There is not only in the theory of our government no recognition of God's laws and sovereignty, but its practical operation, its administration, has been conformable to its theory. Those who have been called to administer the government have not been men making any public profession of Christianity. ... Washington was a man of valor and wisdom. He was esteemed by the whole world as a great and good man; but he was not a professing Christian. - Rev. Dr. Wilson

The links that I gave cover that. I should have copied and pasted. I dont have the best memory in the world but my intuition serves me just fine in knowing were to get the answers.

Sorry if this is off-topic by now, but I couldn't be bothered to look at the whole thread.

As far as I know, MARRIAGE (in England, at least) is a CHRISTIAN procedure, and as such a CHRISTIAN bond. It takes place in a church, is overseen by a vicar, and in England there is no other way around. Christianity is a generally accommoatingreligion, so you don't have to be a christian to marry, however it CLEARLY states in the bible (leviticus 18) that sex outside of marriage with an unrelated human member of the opposite sex is a SIN, therefore no preist or vicar will ever endorse gay marriage by marrying two men: lev 18:22 "You must not have sexual relations with a man as you would a woman. That is a hateful sin." God quite clearly doesn't like gay marriage, which makes it WRONG.

yay! My first post!
you're not off to a good start. marriage is not Christian in the US, so we don't care what Christians think of it. Christian churches are free to marry who they want, but our government is not Christian and has no reason to follow the laws of the Christian superstition.

Sorry if this is off-topic by now, but I couldn't be bothered to look at the whole thread.

As far as I know, MARRIAGE (in England, at least) is a CHRISTIAN procedure, and as such a CHRISTIAN bond. It takes place in a church, is overseen by a vicar, and in England there is no other way around. Christianity is a generally accommoatingreligion, so you don't have to be a christian to marry, however it CLEARLY states in the bible (leviticus 18) that sex outside of marriage with an unrelated human member of the opposite sex is a SIN, therefore no preist or vicar will ever endorse gay marriage by marrying two men: lev 18:22 "You must not have sexual relations with a man as you would a woman. That is a hateful sin." God quite clearly doesn't like gay marriage, which makes it WRONG.

yay! My first post!

The majority of your country men spit on your jesus. It will be only a matter of time before the decent folks of The U.K. allow such mariages if they are not all ready legal in your country. Gawd Bless.

the regular use of "In God We Trust" on US coins did not begin until 1908, "In God We Trust" was not made an official motto of the United States until 1956, and the motto did not appear on paper money until 1957. the Pledge did not include God until the Cold War moved politicians to use religion as another factor for hating the godless Commies.

so the US was founded as LESS Christian than it is today, yet you want us to recognize our Christian roots...interesting.
Very interesting indeed. But how much of the US population in 1776 was christian? Surely even more than today and church attendency was likely even higher than today. So the christian roots play a central role.
I think those roots are helping the US to go through difficult times - and that is a time the world is in know. Islamic extremism and terror, the spread of WMDs, the instability in the wider muslim world is shaking the world.
The world needs a strong US. And religion and the religious roots may be able to give that strenght.
I´m myself not religious. But I want a strong US and it seems to be more likely that it is strong when it is religious.

marriage is a religous thing it isnt necassarily spiritulistic alone i dont like the idea of gay marriage but in New Zealand their might be a civil union bill which gives gays the rights of hetrosexual couples.

marriage is a religous thing it isnt necassarily spiritulistic alone i dont like the idea of gay marriage but in New Zealand their might be a civil union bill which gives gays the rights of hetrosexual couples.
The same rights as mariages???
Well, in Germany there is also a stupid civil union bill. However it doesn´t give gays the same rights - not in taxation and adoption remains excluded.
At least there is the constituition which enshures that other instituitions don´t get the same rights as marriages.
And marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman. That is the law and there is no majority for changing that, fortunately.

Very interesting indeed. But how much of the US population in 1776 was christian? Surely even more than today and church attendency was likely even higher than today. So the christian roots play a central role.

actually, even the most generous estimates on Christian churhc attendance and observance from the early days of the country put it at no better than 20%. this is based on everything from letters to town charters to diaries to historical legal documents, and estimates as low as 8% have been turned in by reputable, RELIGIOUS researchers.


I think those roots are helping the US to go through difficult times - and that is a time the world is in know. Islamic extremism and terror, the spread of WMDs, the instability in the wider muslim world is shaking the world.
The world needs a strong US. And religion and the religious roots may be able to give that strenght.
I´m myself not religious. But I want a strong US and it seems to be more likely that it is strong when it is religious.
the US didn't need Christianity to FORM, nor did it need Christianity to hold together in its first and greatest test, the Civil War. we may use Christianity to hold together now, but that is more a sign of how we have degraded and lost our true strength than it is a defense of Christianity. if we can't find the secular reasons to hold together and value our nation, if we must turn to superstition to have patriotism and hope, then our nation is in serious trouble.

the US didn't need Christianity to FORM, nor did it need Christianity to hold together in its first and greatest test, the Civil War. we may use Christianity to hold together now, but that is more a sign of how we have degraded and lost our true strength than it is a defense of Christianity. if we can't find the secular reasons to hold together and value our nation, if we must turn to superstition to have patriotism and hope, then our nation is in serious trouble.
I don´t think a nation can hold together without it. Otherwise everybody only things about three things: Himself, himself, himself.
And that is not the way things can work in difficult times. The US is using this religious thing as an instrument quite often: an open show of religion by political leaders is the most common thing - like in the statement: God bless our country. This religious remarks where also used by Clinton, though since the Bush administration took over it is of course a more central issue.
France has actually a strict seperation between church and state and religion and state as well: no mentioning of god in the constituition, civil marriage (not religious marriage). But on the other hand: 90% of the population are catholics. And in Turkey religion and state are "seperate" - but 99% of the people are muslims. And the state appoints the imams actually. Well - better that way to make shure that radicals don´t rise up - which is a problem in Turkey as well. Islamism is still very strong. It was mainly the military which was able to keep it down during the last 80 yeary. I just say Kemal Mendres (prime minister 1950-60, executed for his islamism in 1961), military take-over in 1981 against the extreme left, one islamists prime minister (Erbakan in the 1990s), several bans of the Islamists parties in the 1990s (actually the current prime minister Erdogan belonged to Erbakans party).
So quite frankly spoken. Religion doesn´t go away. Turkey unsuccessfully tried that for 80 years. Only if people loose faith it is going away - like in many parts of Western Europe. But otherwise it is remaining an central issue. There is no way around it.

actually, even the most generous estimates on Christian churhc attendance and observance from the early days of the country put it at no better than 20%. this is based on everything from letters to town charters to diaries to historical legal documents, and estimates as low as 8% have been turned in by reputable, RELIGIOUS researchers.


the US didn't need Christianity to FORM, nor did it need Christianity to hold together in its first and greatest test, the Civil War. we may use Christianity to hold together now, but that is more a sign of how we have degraded and lost our true strength than it is a defense of Christianity. if we can't find the secular reasons to hold together and value our nation, if we must turn to superstition to have patriotism and hope, then our nation is in serious trouble.

I have a yahoo group that covers this. I would kill for links to forums were you have debated other people on this topic. If you have not debated people before I think you should because you are very Good at remembering info it seems.
I love collecting debates on this topic. I can not debate as I lose my temper and can not remember everything. Thats why I post links. People can always go to the public libraries to verify what they read on the web.
But I can share info that

I don´t think a nation can hold together without it.


really? China has held together for thousands of years without Christianity. maybe you should look into that.


Otherwise everybody only things about three things: Himself, himself, himself.

again, Communist China would like to have a word with you. not to mention that i personally don't think that way, and i am very firmly not Christian. to claim that selflessness is only to be found in Christianity is insulting and ignorant, and i'm embarassed for you that you would publicly make such a claim.


So quite frankly spoken. Religion doesn´t go away. Turkey unsuccessfully tried that for 80 years. Only if people loose faith it is going away - like in many parts of Western Europe. But otherwise it is remaining an central issue. There is no way around it.
exactly: religion cannot be TAKEN away. trying to force people to give something up just strengthens their resolve; we covered that when we did Prohibition, remember? but religion IS going away in the US; numbers of Christians in this country are falling more dramatically than any other group, and the fastest growing religious orientation is "atheist, agnostic, or otherwise secular."

I have a yahoo group that covers this. I would kill for links to forums were you have debated other people on this topic. If you have not debated people before I think you should because you are very Good at remembering info it seems.
I love collecting debates on this topic. I can not debate as I lose my temper and can not remember everything. Thats why I post links. People can always go to the public libraries to verify what they read on the web.
But I can share info that
i'm popped up on most of the "Is America Christian" topics around here, so if you flip through old threads with those titles i'm sure you'll find me some place.

it's not so much that i remember information as that i never throw anything away; in addition to all the books i have accumulated, i have a saved Word file where i have pasted all the references and links for this debate. i've got one for most of the repeat topics around here, so that i can look things up more quickly, and i have links for basic reference sources saved in Explorer. computers are so very handy.

i'm popped up on most of the "Is America Christian" topics around here, so if you flip through old threads with those titles i'm sure you'll find me some place.

it's not so much that i remember information as that i never throw anything away; in addition to all the books i have accumulated, i have a saved Word file where i have pasted all the references and links for this debate. i've got one for most of the repeat topics around here, so that i can look things up more quickly, and i have links for basic reference sources saved in Explorer. computers are so very handy.
Right on. thanks. I will do that. You are a mild mannered feller. Its funny how a lota folks think atheists have no morals or are evil. Why is it I get along better with atheists? I have my own brand of God belief (never judge other deists by my personality flaws) But out of all the atheists I know they have never mocked my beliefs or made me to feel like a heritic or sinner.

really? China has held together for thousands of years without Christianity. maybe you should look into that.." I was referring to religion in general not to christianity in particular. China has its own religion and the principals of Konfuziansim (spelling?).

again, Communist China would like to have a word with you. .."
China today is not anymore that communists. Religious cults are growing like Falung gong. That could threaten the regime. Catholicism played a major role in the fall of communism in Poland (Pope John Paul II (alias Karol Woityla) and even in mainly atheist East Germany the protestant church was the centre of the opposition against the regime.
And by the way: have you ever thought about the fact that communism is a pseudo-religion? It is indeed. It promises the end of history and the paradiese on earth (well: before you reach that you have to go through hell - which is called socialism. You never get out of that though.).
China has de facto left that way: the only thing that is communists is the name of the party, China develops a market-economic system since the reforms under Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s.

not to mention that i personally don't think that way, and i am very firmly not Christian. to claim that selflessness is only to be found in Christianity is insulting and ignorant, and i'm embarassed for you that you would publicly make such a claim..."
I never said that: I referred to religion in general. I´m myself not religious. And I think that on an individual basis it can work. But in a society I doubt it. There has never been a society full of atheists.


exactly: religion cannot be TAKEN away. trying to force people to give something up just strengthens their resolve; we covered that when we did Prohibition, remember? but religion IS going away in the US; numbers of Christians in this country are falling more dramatically than any other group, and the fastest growing religious orientation is "atheist, agnostic, or otherwise secular."
Back up your claims. As a matter of fact christianity is rising in the US since the 1970s, especially the more extreme directions.
That is the development.

Right on. thanks. I will do that. You are a mild mannered feller. Its funny how a lota folks think atheists have no morals or are evil. Why is it I get along better with atheists? I have my own brand of God belief (never judge other deists by my personality flaws) But out of all the atheists I know they have never mocked my beliefs or made me to feel like a heritic or sinner.
well, to be specific, i'm not an atheist, i'm an agnostic. but i also tend to get along with the non-religious, perhaps because i find non-religious people are more likely to have put serious thought into religion, belief, faith, and the meaning of life. that's not always the case, just a general trend i have experienced.

Ye gods you people post fast--I started reading when this was four pages long, and only just now got to the end. And I'm not a terribly slow reader.

Anyway, I would just like to add this. People keep getting their terminology wrong. When discussing civil/governmental/legal aspects, you are talking about civil union, which is currently open to all heterosexuals (secular marriage, essentially). When discussing religious aspects, it's marriage. Now, (here's where people need to pay attention) various religious institutions have dominion over THEIR OWN MARRIAGES. That is to say, the religious portion; the legal/civil portion (which carries the rights) is separate. The Christian institutions have dominion over Christian marriages, Jewish institutions have dominion over Jewish marriages, Buddhist institutions have dominion over Buddhist marriages, Wiccan institutions have dominion over Wiccan marriages, and so on. However, NONE of these religious institutions have dominion over civil unions. NONE. Separation of church and state and the fact that we (Americans) do not live in a theocracy (thank the gods) ensure that. Personally, I say give homosexuals civil unions, and let each individual religious institution decide on their own (not legally binding in any way) marriages. That way, nobody is stepping on anybody else's toes.

I would also like to clarify what this argument means for discussion. It means that:

1. Religiously-based arguments for or against civil unions are irrelevant and can be ignored.
2. Legally-based arguments for or against religious marriage are irrelevant and can be ignored.

(editted for length)

my point was that Christianity isn't the only (or even the best) way to get selflessness and national strength. if Communism, a system of government, produces those things (which can be argued, i will grant you), then we have also established that non-religion can produce the values you seem to like. so you've failed to support your claim that religion is necessary for selflessness and national strength.


Back up your claims. As a matter of fact christianity is rising in the US since the 1970s, especially the more extreme directions.
That is the development.
University of Chicago study, confirming Protestantism is dropping to an all-time low in the US. This study also shows that from 1991 to 2002, "None" increased from 6.3% to 13.9%.
http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/issues/PROTSGO8.pdf

ARIS (http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/aris_index.htm) has data showing "non-religious" to be the second largest religious group in the US, bigger than all other non-Christian religions combined. between 1991 and 2000 the number of non-religious grew by 110%, but ARIS shows that "the proportion of the [American] population that can be classified as Christian has declined from 86% in 1990 to 77% in 2001."

"...the number of Protestants soon will slip below 50 percent of the nation's population." National Opinion Research Center's General Social Survey, 2004.

according to the US Census, 14.1% do not follow any organized religion. this is an unusually rapid increase -- almost a doubling -- from only 8% in 1990. there are more Americans who say they are not affiliated with any organized religion than there are Episcopalians, Methodists, and Lutherans taken together.

From 1972 to 1993, the General Social Survey of the National Opinion Research Center found that Protestants constituted 63% of the population. This declined to 52% in 2002.

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

Marriage is no longer a religious occasion it is a Legal one. Why do you think people sign Pre Nups for instance? My Dad doesnt call my mother's mother "mother in Christ" or "mother in God"- shes his mother in LAW.

If marriage were purely religious, then there would be no need for witnesses, or signing anything. Marriage is a contract, and some people choose to allow God into that contract.

Comments about people marrying their televisions are ludicrous. Society pushes boundaries of acceptance each and every day- but some things will ultimately stop. For example, in 100 years time, euthanasia may be legal everywhere, yet murder wont be. Society pushes barriers, but knows when to stop. I mean, tens of thousands of years ago, cave-men didnt say "if we kill and eat this deer, then in a few centuries everyone will be eating each other". They killed the deer- and people do not eat each other (except in incredily rare cases, and its illegal anyway).

Stop scaremongering- Christianity is not the force it used to be, no matter how much we may want it to be (Im a christian). Allow non-Christians to have their rights- they dont believe in Christ or God, or Allah or Brahma or reincarnation or whatever. So why should we force those values upon them? What right do we have to tell people how to live their lives? Surely that is the most damaging form of oppression- and Christians who are true Christians can never oppress others.

you're not off to a good start. marriage is not Christian in the US, so we don't care what Christians think of it. Christian churches are free to marry who they want, but our government is not Christian and has no reason to follow the laws of the Christian superstition.

Bottle dont worry, its like that over here as well. You dont have to be a Christian to marry in Church- neither of my parents were, yet they were married in Church (im the only christian in my family lol).

As I have explained in my previous post, marriage is purely a legal process. The only issue that people have with homosexual marriage, is that they might have to explain to their kids why two men are holding hands whilst walking down the street (or two women, but generally the homosexual revulsion is targeted towards men).
It is time to wake up and realise that people of whichever sexual preference have the same rights. After all, are we not all equal before God? I hate what some Christians do to my religion- they force people away from it, and make them hate it.

Bottle dont worry, its like that over here as well. You dont have to be a Christian to marry in Church- neither of my parents were, yet they were married in Church (im the only christian in my family lol).

As I have explained in my previous post, marriage is purely a legal process. The only issue that people have with homosexual marriage, is that they might have to explain to their kids why two men are holding hands whilst walking down the street (or two women, but generally the homosexual revulsion is targeted towards men).
It is time to wake up and realise that people of whichever sexual preference have the same rights. After all, are we not all equal before God? I hate what some Christians do to my religion- they force people away from it, and make them hate it.
good, i certainly didn't get a scary-uber-religious vibe when i traveled across the pond last summer, so i was hoping that poster was just one of the unfortunate flukes of idiocy we get around here from time to time. i have to admit that if i lived in a place like England i would probably be more interested in being married in a physical church, because there are so many historical and beautiful works of architecture over there...i still would not want a religious ceremony, but those locations are very tempting.

my point was that Christianity isn't the only (or even the best) way to get selflessness and national strength. if Communism, a system of government, produces those things (which can be argued, i will grant you), then we have also established that non-religion can produce the values you seem to like. so you've failed to support your claim that religion is necessary for selflessness and national strength..
But communism doesn´t work: Soviet Union has collapsed. China is moving away from it to avoid that, moving back to its own older cultural and religious background. So: your point is unproven.



according to the US Census, 14.1% do not follow any organized religion. this is an unusually rapid increase -- almost a doubling -- from only 8% in 1990. there are more Americans who say they are not affiliated with any organized religion than there are Episcopalians, Methodists, and Lutherans taken together. ..
14% is still a ridicously low number. It means that on the other hand 86% follow a religion.

From 1972 to 1993, the General Social Survey of the National Opinion Research Center found that Protestants constituted 63% of the population. This declined to 52% in 2002.
And do you think that Catholics are less religious? On the conterary: they stand even more for moral values than protestants do, especially in questions like abortion or gay marriage. Ireland and Poland are both catholic countries who would never allow gay marriage. In Ireland even a divorce wasn´t possible up until a few years. And abortion is of course illegal.
So: They could become a solid base for the religious right in the US.
In moral issues (except in the issue of the war in Iraq) President Bush is more close to the pope and to mainstream catholicism than the catholic John Kerry.

Ye gods you people post fast--I started reading when this was four pages long, and only just now got to the end. And I'm not a terribly slow reader.

Anyway, I would just like to add this. People keep getting their terminology wrong. When discussing civil/governmental/legal aspects, you are talking about civil union, which is currently open to all heterosexuals (secular marriage, essentially). When discussing religious aspects, it's marriage. Now, (here's where people need to pay attention) various religious institutions have dominion over THEIR OWN MARRIAGES. That is to say, the religious portion; the legal/civil portion (which carries the rights) is separate. The Christian institutions have dominion over Christian marriages, Jewish institutions have dominion over Jewish marriages, Buddhist institutions have dominion over Buddhist marriages, Wiccan institutions have dominion over Wiccan marriages, and so on. However, NONE of these religious institutions have dominion over civil unions. NONE. Separation of church and state and the fact that we (Americans) do not live in a theocracy (thank the gods) ensure that. Personally, I say give homosexuals civil unions, and let each individual religious institution decide on their own (not legally binding in any way) marriages. That way, nobody is stepping on anybody else's toes.

I would also like to clarify what this argument means for discussion. It means that:

1. Religiously-based arguments for or against civil unions are irrelevant and can be ignored.
2. Legally-based arguments for or against religious marriage are irrelevant and can be ignored.

Makes sense to me. People should (regardless if the couple are Gay/Lesbian) should be able to legaly marry and recieve the responsibilities and benifits that go with marriage.
There is no logical reason why Homosexuals can not marry.
There are already living examples of children who have been raised by Gays and Lesbians who do not turn out to be child molesters or law breakers period!

No one can show that homesexuality is harmful or can be taught to children.
No one can show that there is anyhing wrong with homosexuality period.
And as far as disease goes that has to do with unpretected sex and having many different sex partners. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with being promiscuous. Individuals are promiscuous. Sexual orientation is not a part of the equation. Monogamy is key if people do not want to have unprotected sex.
I agree That religion or the laws have not one good argument for cheating Gays and Lesbians out of thier persuit of happiness which for some is marriage.

But communism doesn´t work: Soviet Union has collapsed. China is moving away from it to avoid that, moving back to its own older cultural and religious background. So: your point is unproven.

i don't want to turn this into a debate on Communism, since i personally don't even support Communism, but the political structure of both China and Japan prove my point amply; they used Imperial thrones to hold people together, and China later used a Communist regime. whether or not you LIKE them, or you think they work in the long run, they have been working for quite a while, and produce the only characteristics you have laid out: selflessness and national cohesion.


14% is still a ridicously low number. It means that on the other hand 86% follow a religion.

we were talking about growth of religion. at some point you also switched over from using Christianity as your argument base to arguing religion in general...that's a nice trick, but you're still not right ;).


And do you think that Catholics are less religious? On the conterary: they stand even more for moral values than protestants do, especially in questions like abortion or gay marriage. Ireland and Poland are both catholic countries who would never allow gay marriage. In Ireland even a divorce wasn´t possible up until a few years. And abortion is of course illegal.
So: They could become a solid base for the religious right in the US.

how do you figure that Catholics "stand even more for moral values" than anybody? Catholics stand for immoral values, by the standards of more than half the people on Earth; indeed, all major religions other than Catholicism specifically state that principles at the center of Catholic belief are immoral. they don't stand for any more moral beliefs than anybody else.

also, my over-all numbers for Christianity show that Catholicism is dropping, too; do the math, hon, if you look at the sum of Protestantism and Catholicism as equalling the over-all numbers of Christians, you can see that BOTH declined.


In moral issues (except in the issue of the war in Iraq) President Bush is more close to the pope and to mainstream catholicism than the catholic John Kerry.
what is your point? so Bush is a lot like the Pope...according to the majority of people in America, that makes him LESS moral; people who aren't Catholic don't use allignment with the Pope as a standard for how moral somebody is, rather the contrary. personally, i think somebody is inherently less moral the more they resemble the Pope, so i don't get where you are coming up with this "more moral" and "less moral" stuff.

PS: i noticed you didn't acknowledge how thoroughly i OWNED your claim that "As a matter of fact christianity is rising in the US since the 1970s, especially the more extreme directions." that's okay, you don't have to admit you were wrong, i showed it pretty clearly on my own.

persuit of happiness.
What a stupid thing! Can the government make your happy? There is no instituition which can make you happy.
Period. Especially not government. I always wonder why Americans who are otherwise for small government or even no government at all come up with such a silly thing.
There should be freedom, the rule of law and democracy. Whether there is happiness in once personal life depends on your destiny, on luck and also on yourself (but not only on yourself).
It is nothing society can give you, that idea is crap.

What a stupid thing! Can the government make your happy? There is no instituition which can make you happy.
Period. Especially not government. I always wonder why Americans who are otherwise for small government or even no government at all come up with such a silly thing.
There should be freedom, the rule of law and democracy. Whether there is happiness in once personal life depends on your destiny, on luck and also on yourself (but not only on yourself).
It is nothing society can give you, that idea is crap.
now THAT i agree with. it is not my government's job to make me happy.

I know this is off-topic to the original topic, but I had to answer a mis-quote.

Marriage is a Christian procedure and as such, a christian bond....

Hmm...

1) Before christianity arrived on the shores of england, do you honestly believe that the celts and the pagans did not have their own marriage ceremonies? I can inform you that they did, and still do. It is called handfasting, rather than marriage.

2) There are MANY religions in the world, all have some form of marriage ceremony. There are also MANY atheists and agnostics who also marry.

3) Marriage ceremonies in this day and age are much different from what they used to be. Marriage USED to be more akin to an acquisition of property. The woman was given to the man with a 'sort-of' contract that made her like a piece of property. Nowadays, the marriage ceremonys have been changed to allow an equality between the 2 individuals. Laws have also been changed to allow inter-racial marriages.

4) Marriages used to be 'arranged' by the family. This generally means that 'marriage' and 'love' were NOT the same thing. Arranged marriages were usually motivated by financial security, social standing and the progression of family status. Sometimes, marriages were arranged solely to put an end to conflict. (In this day and age, marriages are usually the START of conflict. hehe)

Now, back to the original topic...

How Does Homosexual Marriage Affect You?

Being honest, it only REALLY affects those involved.
I am gay myself. *shock horror* As such, I would LIKE the opportunity to share my life with a significant individual who shares my views and ideals. However, I am realistic and understand that the bigoted, dictatorship attitudes of 'the haters' will not allow this to be. (not in my lifetime anyway)

One spurious and illogical argument I have seen on this thread is the idea that gay marriages will bring about the passing of laws which enable people to marry inanimate objects and household pets. I would like to point out that people ALREADY have sexual relationships with inanimate objects. They are called sex toys and are very popular in modern-day society, so I believe. As for 'marrying' one of these toys... or a pet.... please excuse me while i try to stop myself from laughing in your face. Perhaps the ceremony would go like this...
Priest : Do you, Tom Smith, take this cute adorable puppy to be your lawfully wedded wife?
Tom : I do.
Priest : Do you, Trixie, take this sad and lonely man to be your lawfully wedded deviant... erm.. husband?
Trixie : Woof!
Priest: I now pronounce you man and dog. You may kiss the bitch.
Priest: Can we please clear the church? I have a woman marrying a vaccuum cleaner in five minutes. Thankyou.

It would only affect me in that some of the Catholics I live with (at my boarding school) would whine about it for ages (classic quote: " I've got nothing against gays, I just think it's wrong!"). The prevention of it would leave me uncomfortable in the fact that I would be living in an unfair world. It wouldn't affect my chance to get married (as much as I know so far!) and this is the position the majority of people would find themselves in if they really thought about instead of following what their stupid, incompetent right-wing leader tells them.

I would just like to show my support for Bottle's last comment and add a few things...

The ignorance he speaks of, I'm afraid does not just come from Christians. It comes from religion itself. By default religious people are more ignorant as they tend to believe they're religion is right and that other views must be wrong (i.e. It must be wrong because The Bible Or The Khoran says so!'). This is born from indoctrination (the power supply of religion), in which children are taught religious views while they are still gullible and won't notice the large holes, errors and contradictions in religious views.
Given this does not happen to ALL religious types, it DOES happen to the vast majority and is the main reason religion still exists.

Most religious views come from ancient books of a time well past where discrimination was rife. The modern science-based world we live in now is VERY different from then, so to many in the modern world it seems illogical to follow a religion, as it only fuels inequality and seperation in the human race.
OK, they're can be some advantages to religion, but disadvantages (such as discriminating against Gay people) often outweight the advantages. By the way religion directly or indirectly causes close to 90% of the wars.

I myself do not believe religion itself is right, however, unlike religious types I DO NOT go around imposing my beliefs on them (mostly because it falls on deaf ears), expecting them to change overnight.

I think it is quite right for gay marriages to happen as I am open-minded and not do not have a religiously-clouded view. Might I add before reading this forum I was unsure about this question (being Heterosexual) but as I am open-minded I believe the homosexuals have made a decent argument and I've concluded it's quite OK for gay marriage...

Sorry for being quite off the original point, but I had to add to Bottle's comment and support my disagreement and discust at religious fanatics (that's right fanatics, ALL of them)!!!

thanks, though i don't see myself as especially intelligent, just a student with far too much free time and a penchant for citing sources on ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING :P.

What a stupid thing! Can the government make your happy? There is no instituition which can make you happy.
Period. Especially not government. I always wonder why Americans who are otherwise for small government or even no government at all come up with such a silly thing.
There should be freedom, the rule of law and democracy. Whether there is happiness in once personal life depends on your destiny, on luck and also on yourself (but not only on yourself).
It is nothing society can give you, that idea is crap.
You are dishonest. I said the persuit of happiness. Not just happiness by itself. This means that the goverment should allow folks to persue what makes them happy so long as they damage no one. Thats what Our Bill Of Rights is for. It is funny how earlier you accused me of taking things out of context. I wasnt saying the government owes us happiness. The government just should not get in our way of persuing happiness. Bill Of Rights.
You smell like a fundy.

i don't want to turn this into a debate on Communism, since i personally don't even support Communism, but the political structure of both China and Japan prove my point amply; they used Imperial thrones to hold people together, and China later used a Communist regime. whether or not you LIKE them, or you think they work in the long run, they have been working for quite a while, and produce the only characteristics you have laid out: selflessness and national cohesion..
I disagree with your assumption: Japan has its own religious and philosophical concept. Communists Russia collapsed and China is moving back to its own traditional religious roots.
That is not atheism, though. So: due you want to take-over the Japanese roots and principles of the Samurai? Do you want to take over the principals of Konfuzianism?
Or do you want to take a concept which is a concept of our cultural background: and that is christianity. Without it I doubt society can be stable in the long-run. I´m actually very concerned about the stability in Europe and in my country as well. We wouldn´t have gone through the period of fear after 9/11 as courageously and determined and willing to defend yourself as your nation did if we were attack. That is said but that is the reality. Look at Spain: they withdraw from Iraq after the terrorists demanded it. And they even withdrew faster after terrorists in Iraq demanded it. Such a decision is only encouraging the terrorists.



we were talking about growth of religion. at some point you also switched over from using Christianity as your argument base to arguing religion in general...that's a nice trick, but you're still not right ;)...
I didn´t switch. You misunderstood my arguments.


how do you figure that Catholics "stand even more for moral values" than anybody? Catholics stand for immoral values, by the standards of more than half the people on Earth; indeed, all major religions other than Catholicism specifically state that principles at the center of Catholic belief are immoral. they don't stand for any more moral beliefs than anybody else...
So you speak for half of the world. Faithful muslim are closer to a faithful catholic than to you. That is a given.
You are obviously from a WASP-background. Especially people in England are staunchly anti-catholic. That idea sprang over to the US like the language. But that is not the perception of catholicism in other countries - even non-christian countries.


Also, my over-all numbers for Christianity show that Catholicism is dropping, too; do the math, hon, if you look at the sum of Protestantism and Catholicism as equalling the over-all numbers of Christians, you can see that BOTH declined.;)...
You get a lot of Latino migration, so it is supposed to rise in the future. Probably you all have to learn Spanish, hehehe. It is already becoming the second language in many parts of the US.


what is your point? so Bush is a lot like the Pope...according to the majority of people in America, that makes him LESS moral; people who aren't Catholic don't use allignment with the Pope as a standard for how moral somebody is, rather the contrary. personally, i think somebody is inherently less moral the more they resemble the Pope, so i don't get where you are coming up with this "more moral" and "less moral" stuff..;)...
You seem to be very anti-catholic. Why actually? What have they done to you?
Anyway: President Bush is adressing both: the evangelists, the born- again christians and the catholics. He has his base not only on one group. If the Democrats aren´t carefull they loose the base to be able to compete against the republicans in future. That is the truth. I assume that President Bush is going to win four more years because of this strategic weakness of the Democrats.


PS: i noticed you didn't acknowledge how thoroughly i OWNED your claim that "As a matter of fact christianity is rising in the US since the 1970s, especially the more extreme directions." that's okay, you don't have to admit you were wrong, i showed it pretty clearly on my own.
You have not disproven that the more extreme directions are rising like the born-again christians. They are rising.

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.

Thanks you magnatoria for being a voice of reason here. Even though I am very much straight as an arrow, I happen to agree with you; Lardtrophia's brain seems to be MADE of lard. For you Lardtrophia I just have this to say: Go find your crucifix, do a few hail marys and crawl back into the nuclear shelter you must have just come from in order to say such a completely inaccurate, DUMB, and ultimately idiotic thing.

Wow, I feel much better now!

I disagree with your assumption: Japan has its own religious and philosophical concept. Communists Russia collapsed and China is moving back to its own traditional religious roots.
That is not atheism, though. So: due you want to take-over the Japanese roots and principles of the Samurai? Do you want to take over the principals of Konfuzianism?

i'd love to see your sources on the religiosity of China.

no, i don't especially want to take over traditional Japanese or Chinese culture. never said i did. remember, i am refuting your claim that only religion brings national cohesion and selflessness.



I didn´t switch. You misunderstood my arguments.


"However statements of your founding fathers prove that they themself give christianity a central role in that process. That is part of your history whether your like it or not. You may would like to change things. But since the 1970s the development in the US is going in a different direction (with the born-again christians). That is the reality. "

"As a matter of fact, christianity is rising in the US since the 1970s, especially the more extreme directions."

gee, where would i have gotten the idea you were arguing in support of Christianity in the US? perhaps because you never suggested any other religion or spiritual orientation for this country?


So you speak for half of the world. Faithful muslim are closer to a faithful catholic than to you. That is a given.
[/quote
so you admit you were wrong to claim that Catholics are more moral than people of other religious orientations?
[QUOTE=Kybernetia]
You are obviously from a WASP-background. Especially people in England are staunchly anti-catholic. That idea sprang over to the US like the language. But that is not the perception of catholicism in other countries - even non-christian countries.

nope, i'm not from WASP background. as a matter of fact, only one branch of my family, back four generations, was protestant. but hey, nice try at profiling over the internet.


You get a lot of Latino migration, so it is supposed to rise in the future. Probably you all have to learn Spanish, hehehe. It is already becoming the second language in many parts of the US.

what does that have to do with anything? though i certainly don't have a problem with Americans learning other languages; i speak passable Spanish, myself.


You seem to be very anti-catholic. Why actually? What have they done to you?

they tell me i am an abomination and will burn in a torture dimension for all eternity. in addition to that, they are spreading AIDS through deliberate misinformation, perpetuating pre-mediated lies throughout the world, attempting to use their influence to control American politics and political leaders, and hindering the progress of science and medicine that can save thousands (if not millions) of lives world wide. that's the short list.

but, to be precise, i don't hate Catholics. i think the Catholic Church is one of the most evil institutions of all time, but i don't necessarily hate Catholic individuals.


Anyway: President Bush is adressing both: the evangelists, the born- again christians and the catholics. He has his base not only on one group. If the Democrats aren´t carefull they loose the base to be able to compete against the republicans in future. That is the truth. I assume that President Bush is going to win four more years because of this strategic weakness of the Democrats.

i think the Dems are pretty worthless at this point, so you won't get any argument from me here. to lose to Bush even ONCE is an indication of how pathetic they have become, and if they do it again we are in serious trouble.


You have not disproven that the more extreme directions are rising like the born-again christians. They are rising.
sure i have. look at the stats. CHRISTIANITY OVER-ALL, INCLUDING EXTREMIST GROUPS, IS DECLINING. if you want to claim otherwise, find your own numbers to support that. and yes, i notice that you suddenly have further qualified your statement, since i proved the original one wrong...you really love doing that, don't you? :)

You are dishonest. I said the persuit of happiness. Not just happiness by itself. This means that the goverment should allow folks to persue what makes them happy so long as they damage no one. Thats what Our Bill Of Rights is for. It is funny how earlier you accused me of taking things out of context. I wasnt saying the government owes us happiness. The government just should not get in our way of persuing happiness. Bill Of Rights.
You smell like a fundy.
I´m against gay-marriage. For you everybody who is against it seems to be a fundamentalists. Actually most people on this planet are against gay marriage. Have you ever thought that it is you who might be a fundamentalists?
And yes I see the idea of "persuit of happiness" as unnecessary. It puts an hedonists element into the US. I think people should life a decenden life and should also take care for others. An hedonists life style - like there is no tomorrow - ruthlessness and egoism (in the search of onces own happiness) is a big problem.
I think if people would less try to force things to be reach the "promised" happiness it would be much more likely that more people would be happy. And even if not they would lead a better and more decent life than when they ran behind an idea and concept and try to force it on others. So this fanatic gay movement is actually an example for it: why don´t you just life you lifes and don´t bother others with it with demands like gay marriage?

I´m against gay-marriage. For you everybody who is against it seems to be a fundamentalists. Actually most people on this planet are against gay marriage. Have you ever thought that it is you who might be a fundamentalists?
And yes I see the idea of "persuit of happiness" as unnecessary. It puts an hedonists element into the US. I think people should life a decenden life and should also take care for others. An hedonists life style - like there is no tomorrow - ruthlessness and egoism (in the search of onces own happiness) is a big problem.
I think if people would less try to force things to be reach the "promised" happiness it would be much more likely that more people would be happy. And even if not they would lead a better and more decent life than when they ran behind an idea and concept and try to force it on others. So this fanatic gay movement is actually an example for it: why don´t you just life you lifes and don´t bother others with it with demands like gay marriage?
No I dislike dishonest people that use the same tactics as fundys do to win thier case. instead of being dishonest and taking my post out of context why not just plainly make your case against gay mariage instead of taking what people post out of context. You are a headless chicken who makes naked assertions.

no, i don't especially want to take over traditional Japanese or Chinese culture. never said i did. remember, i am refuting your claim that only religion brings national cohesion and selflessness.:)
So what else except christianity can bring national cohesion to the US?


nope, i'm not from WASP background. as a matter of fact, only one branch of my family, back four generations, was protestant. but hey, nice try at profiling over the internet:).
Well: you need to give more information about you. What background are you? Catholic? Well, that would explain your anti-catholic outburst, since your lifestyle is in violation to their religious believes.

what does that have to do with anything? though i certainly don't have a problem with Americans learning other languages; i speak passable Spanish, myself.:).
It has to do with the likelihood of a rise of catholicism in the US in future.


they tell me i am an abomination and will burn in a torture dimension for all eternity. in addition to that, they are spreading AIDS through deliberate misinformation, perpetuating pre-mediated lies throughout the world, attempting to use their influence to control American politics and political leaders, and hindering the progress of science and medicine that can save thousands (if not millions) of lives world wide. that's the short list.:).
Well: and what do other religions do? Judaism, Islam and Christianity are all condeming homosexuality. So, why this anti-catholic outburst.
Protestants are also preaching abstinence - especially in the US and it are the born-again christians who attack the evolution theory, not the catholics. The catholic church has already made peace with much of science. Though not with things who are ethical problematic of course like abortion, cloning or other things.

but, to be precise, i don't hate Catholics. i think the Catholic Church is one of the most evil institutions of all time, but i don't necessarily hate Catholic individuals..:).
You´re proving that you are a catholic hater.
Why don´t you hate Protestantism, Islam or Judaism by the way: they have the same position in many points you attack the catholic church for.


i think the Dems are pretty worthless at this point, so you won't get any argument from me here. to lose to Bush even ONCE is an indication of how pathetic they have become, and if they do it again we are in serious trouble..:).
It only shows the reality of America. Every nation has the government it deserves - that is my believe. By the way: I don´t think that my country has a good government either. I´m unhappy about it but I have to accept it till the next election but hopefully not longer.
But obviously we deserved this government: well, we did actually.

sure i have. look at the stats. CHRISTIANITY OVER-ALL, INCLUDING EXTREMIST GROUPS, IS DECLINING.
No, you haven´t proven that. The evangelist movements are on the rise since the 1970s and 1980s.

No I dislike dishonest people that use the same tactics as fundys do to win thier case. instead of being dishonest and taking my post out of context why not just plainly make your case against gay mariage instead of taking what people post out of context. You are a headless chicken who makes naked assertions.
And I dislike people who don´t comment on arguments given in a posts. And I don´t like people who are insulting other posters. That is quite annoying. But with this behaviour you are only judgingn and condeming yourself.

We wouldn´t have gone through the period of fear after 9/11 as courageously and determined and willing to defend yourself as your nation did if we were attack. That is said but that is the reality. Look at Spain: they withdraw from Iraq after the terrorists demanded it. And they even withdrew faster after terrorists in Iraq demanded it. Such a decision is only encouraging the terrorists.
Ahem...

First of all, I fail to see any connection between the quote and the topic of the thread. Anyway, I'm getting tired of hearing how Spain retreated from Iraq and so on and so forth.

Please note that less than 10% of the population over here (yep, I'm from Spain) supported the war. The government, however, decided to support the US by sending troops. There were lost of protest against that decission.

There was a change in the government. The PSOE won, and did as they promised even before the train bombings of March 11th. So they brought the troops back home.

Nothing to do with lack of moral fiber or lack of religion (I guess you know Spain has a majority of Catholics), it was just doing what the people wanted to be done. Period.

Sorry for hijacking the thread, I just wanted this to be clear. Thanks.

How does homosexual marriage affect me?

Well, I get to go to more weddings!! =)

I don't have to worry about my friends ending up in the hospital without their loved ones are being kicked to the curb when they have to pay inheritance taxes on something that already belongs to them.

I probably get to be a godmother/surrogate aunt to more little kiddies. =)

And, if I ever break up with my boyfriend and somehow fall in love with a girl, I get to marry her.

And I dislike people who don´t comment on arguments given in a posts. And I don´t like people who are insulting other posters. That is quite annoying. But with this behaviour you are only judgingn and condeming yourself.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I´m against gay-marriage. For you everybody who is against it seems to be a fundamentalists. Actually most people on this planet are against gay marriage. Have you ever thought that it is you who might be a fundamentalists?
And yes I see the idea of "persuit of happiness" as unnecessary. It puts an hedonists element into the US. I think people should life a decenden life and should also take care for others. An hedonists life style - like there is no tomorrow - ruthlessness and egoism (in the search of onces own happiness) is a big problem.
I think if people would less try to force things to be reach the "promised" happiness it would be much more likely that more people would be happy. And even if not they would lead a better and more decent life than when they ran behind an idea and concept and try to force it on others. So this fanatic gay movement is actually an example for it: why don´t you just life you lifes and don´t bother others with it with demands like gay marriage?

Wait a minute. your english isnt very good. No wonder you took my post out of context. You do not understand english well. sorry it just dawned on me.

Regardless you should just make your case against gay mariage instead of attacking what I said about Government should allow people to persue happiness. (or maybe I spelled persue wrong.)

At any rate you did take what I said out of context and fundys do that often enough in my experience. It seemed to me you were using fundy tactics of taking things out of context to ridicule what I posted.

No I do not think that all people that are against gay marriage are fundys.
I only think that they are lowly bigoted and hateful creatures.
Gays and Lesbians only want equal rights just like anybody else.
You are a headless chicken with no logical argument against gay marriages.
You only spew ignorance and bigotry yet have no logical arguement to back up your beliefs.
You are a much more proficient troll than I am.

I´m against gay-marriage.

Perhaps i am against bigotry, but that does not stop you from spouting it.


And yes I see the idea of "persuit of happiness" as unnecessary.

So everybody is to STOP trying to be happy? It is not necessary to feel content with your life? I am sorry, but if you create a world where no-one is happy, then you will have a real problem on your hands.


I think if people would less try to force things to be reach the "promised" happiness it would be much more likely that more people would be happy. And even if not they would lead a better and more decent life than when they ran behind an idea and concept and try to force it on others.

By definition, YOU are trying to force a lifestyle upon others. By denying a group the right to marry, you are FORCING your CONCEPT upon a minority. Obviously hypocricy (sp?)is a way of life for some people.

So this fanatic gay movement is actually an example for it: why don´t you just life you lifes and don´t bother others with it with demands like gay marriage?
Is it fanatical to stand up for your rights? I live my life everyday and am constantly belittled and insulted by the obnoxious opinions of some 'fanatical' heterosexuals and religious nuts. However, I do not generalise and put ALL heteros or religious types into the same 'category'. I do not DEMAND gay marriage. However, I DO DEMAND that my rights are acknowledged.

In a world where the term 'gay' has recently been adopted as a derogatory retort, I am forced to live my life by the standards of heterosexuals, or be ridiculed or outcast. If some of the anti-gay fools would just get off their dictatorship pedestal, then perhaps I (and people like me) would stop feeling the need to defend ourselves. Remember, at the moment it is people like yourself that are currently imposing your views. NOT the other way around. The gay population is merely trying to reach a point of equality.

Ahem...
First of all, I fail to see any connection between the quote and the topic of the thread. Anyway, I'm getting tired of hearing how Spain retreated from Iraq and so on and so forth.
Please note that less than 10% of the population over here (yep, I'm from Spain) supported the war. The government, however, decided to support the US by sending troops. There were lost of protest against that decission.
There was a change in the government. The PSOE won, and did as they promised even before the train bombings of March 11th. So they brought the troops back home.
Nothing to do with lack of moral fiber or lack of religion (I guess you know Spain has a majority of Catholics), it was just doing what the people wanted to be done. Period.
.
I know that: But Spain even fastened its withdrawl after attacks against it in Iraq. That was sending the wrong message to terrorists. It is no surprise that they know try to blackmail France.
And as a matter of fact the PSOE said that they would withdrawl without a new UN mandate. There was a new UN mandate when the interim government was installed. But Spain decided not to wait for it but to withdrawl immidiately.
Spain has also very low birth rates (like Italy, Austria, Germany, Poland, Czech, Republic, Britain, Russia and others). That is going to cause massive problems for our social security system in the future. I´m concerned about this development and I´m concerned about the islamic fundamentalism springing over to Europe. And before you say: Hey you are racists, just look to the facts. Germany has a big Turkish community. In the 1990s when the conflict between Turks and Kurds was heavy the PKK did also many terrorists attacks in Germany itself.
We are not immune to the developments in the Middle East. It can spring over to our continent. It is in the utmost of our interests to have a more stable Middle East and a more stable Iraq. Running away is not a solution.
Especially if a country went into a coalition at the beginning it shouldn´t run away like this. Well, ok. at least you sent more troops to Afghanistan - but only afterwards. I believe that Spain has lost a lot of credibility in the US. Even more than Germany or France (which after all is having since the 1960s (the Gaulle) ongoing and returning disputes with the US) who opposed the war right at the begining.

im all for it. and part of me believes that this will be more acceptable (and legal) as time goes on. it was only 30 years ago that interracial marriage in the US was illegal in many states.

I know that: But Spain even fastened its withdrawl after attacks against it in Iraq. That was sending the wrong message to terrorists. It is no surprise that they know try to blackmail France.
And as a matter of fact the PSOE said that they would withdrawl without a new UN mandate. There was a new UN mandate when the interim government was installed. But Spain decided not to wait for it but to withdrawl immidiately.
Spain has also very low birth rates (like Italy, Austria, Germany, Poland, Czech, Republic, Britain, Russia and others). That is going to cause massive problems for our social security system in the future. I´m concerned about this development and I´m concerned about the islamic fundamentalism springing over to Europe. And before you say: Hey you are racists, just look to the facts. Germany has a big Turkish community. In the 1990s when the conflict between Turks and Kurds was heavy the PKK did also many terrorists attacks in Germany itself.
We are not immune to the developments in the Middle East. It can spring over to our continent. It is in the utmost of our interests to have a more stable Middle East and a more stable Iraq. Running away is not a solution.
Especially if a country went into a coalition at the beginning it shouldn´t run away like this. Well, ok. at least you sent more troops to Afghanistan - but only afterwards. I believe that Spain has lost a lot of credibility in the US. Even more than Germany or France (which after all is having since the 1960s (the Gaulle) ongoing and returning disputes with the US) who opposed the war right at the begining.
Not only do you hijack this thread but you are a troll as well.

Not only do you hijack this thread but you are a troll as well.

Stupid question coming....

What is a troll? (I know only the mythological creature and am unsure how the term is used in this context.)

In case I am accused of going off-topic.... Gay Marriage = Equal rights

@DeFuny

I have presented my arguments quite often: you may look into the archives there are a lot of discussion about gay marriage.
I won´t repeat everything.
It is my believe - a believe which has developed historically - that marriage ought to be between one man and one woman. Marriage is closely linke to family and children. But children can only be created within an heterosexual relationship. POINT.
Therefore marriage is to be between one man and one woman and not between two man, two woman, man and dog, man and car, woman and cat, or anything else.

Here's food for thought....

If gay marriages are in fact allowed, how would the priest declare the couple as being married? He wouldn't be able to say "I now pronounce you man and wife, you may kiss the bride."

How about....

"I now pronounce you Pitcher and Catcher. PLAY BALL!!!"

If you are offended by this, quit taking everything so seriously.

.... Gay Marriage = Equal rights
Equality doesn´t mean to treat everything the same way. It means to treat the same things the same way AND DIFFERENT THINGS DIFFERENTLY.
Homosexuality is not heterosexuality. It has no biological sense. It can´t be considered equal because it isn´t equal.
And I reject your attempt to force that wrong assumption on others and on society which you do via the demand for gay marriage.

@DeFuny

I have presented my arguments quite often: you may look into the archives there are a lot of discussion about gay marriage.
I won´t repeat everything.
It is my believe - a believe which has developed historically - that marriage ought to be between one man and one woman. Marriage is closely linke to family and children. But children can only be created within an heterosexual relationship. POINT.
Therefore marriage is to be between one man and one woman and not between two man, two woman, man and dog, man and car, woman and cat, or anything else.
You have made no argument on this thread. and this thread is about gay marriage. You are a troll. (a troll is someone that fucks with people but has no real argument. They might take what people say out of context to try and make them appear foolish. Or they might try and hijack a thread.)

You have made no argument on this thread. and this thread is about gay marriage. You are a troll. (a troll is someone that fucks with people but has no real argument. They might take what people say out of context to try and make them appear foolish. Or they might try and hijack a thread.)

You are an idiot. There are many people that can not have children and they are heterosexual. should we tell them that they should divorce because they can not have children? Should we not allow women who can not have children to marry? you make no sense. you are a headless chicken that goes on and on but has no thought. oh yea and I am an idiot too because I just quoted my post and not yours. But at least I am not heartless. you do smell like a fundy.

Equality doesn´t mean to treat everything the same way. It means to treat the same things the same way AND DIFFERENT THINGS DIFFERENTLY.

Yes, you keep repeating this in every freaking thread. Doesn't change the fact that love between two gay people is no different than love between to straight people. Love between a couple should be treated the same because it is not different.

Homosexuality is not heterosexuality. It has no biological sense. It can´t be considered equal because it isn´t equal.

This statement has been disproved so many times that I'm actually surprised you're still repeating it. Of course, you've never shown a propensity for logic, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

And I reject your attempt to force that wrong assumption on others and on society which you do via the demand for gay marriage.

No one is asking you to like it, so no one is forcing any view on you. Nazis don't like the fact that black people get to vote, does that mean we should stop "forcing our views on them" ?

Marriage is what the law defines it is. Up until now, in most places, it is only allowed between a man and a woman. But laws can change.

I don't see any problem on homosexual marriages. I don't even see the point on people getting married, anyway (yes, I'm married, before you ask), except because, for some reasons I can't understand, married people has more legal rights than couples that didn't get married.

So if we accept everyone has equal rights before the law... shouldn't we let those who love a person of his/her same gender have those equal rights we support?

@Kybernetia
Not that I don't want to answer, but this is not the proper thread.

I dont agree with it on a philisophical basis, and thats all the explanation and reason you need.I don't agree with you on a philosophical basis, and therefore require an explanation.

I also don't agree with you on a spelling basis - look up the word philosophy.

(as to that, in another post you object to someone marrying their television. if your next door neighbor married his (or her) television - how would that negatively effect you? just because you don't like the idea? how would you like a law that says you can ONLY marry a television set?)

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.

POLYGAMY

polygyny would probably involve marrying a variety of geometric shapes...which is an interesting thought...

You are an idiot. There are many people that can not have children and they are heterosexual. should we tell them that they should divorce because they can not have children? Should we not allow women who can not have children to marry? you make no sense. you are a headless chicken that goes on and on but has no thought. oh yea and I am an idiot too because I just quoted my post and not yours.
Yes you obviously are.
My argument is based on the potential ability not the actual ability. And that exists in every heterosexual relationship but never in a homosexual one. Period.
You may not like that fact, but thats the way it is.
For today I resign from this debate.
Debatting with people like you makes now sense. You are gay-fundis who are insulting everybody who disagrees with you as religious extremists - which I´m not - or sometimes even as Nazi.
I don´t accept that.
With such statements you are only judging yourself and your kind.

Equality doesn´t mean to treat everything the same way. It means to treat the same things the same way AND DIFFERENT THINGS DIFFERENTLY.
Homosexuality is not heterosexuality. It has no biological sense. It can´t be considered equal because it isn´t equal.
And I reject your attempt to force that wrong assumption on others and on society which you do via the demand for gay marriage.

1) "Equality treats different things differently?" What sort of oddball sentence is that? Treating different things in a different way is DISCRIMINATION, not equality.

2) "Homosexuality is not Heterosexuality." Hmm. Another oddball sentence. I think even a ten year old would know that.

3) "It has no biological sense." Maybe it doesn't have a biological 'outcome', but perhaps the reason for homosexuality could be put down to 'satisfaction without risk of procreation.' Admittedly, homosexuality has no end-product.. other than happiness and contentment between two consenting adults.

4) "It can't be considered equal because it isn't equal." Again, an oddball statement with no reasoning to explain itself. It isn't equal because people like you SAY it isn't equal. All i know is, my ability to love is EQUAL to any other persons. My right to an existance with contentment is also EQUAL to any other persons. However, my rights are NOT equal. Please define why It isn't equal, so i may respond.

5) "And I reject your attempt to force that wrong assumption on others and on society which you do via the demand for gay marriage." Read my post again and please note that it has not been edited, so I have added nothing. You will find that I have quite clearly stated that I do NOT demand gay marriages. I demand nothing other than respect. Now, why do I get the feeling that you probably have the opinion that i am not deserving of respect?

@DeFuny

I have presented my arguments quite often: you may look into the archives there are a lot of discussion about gay marriage.
I won´t repeat everything.
It is my believe - a believe which has developed historically - that marriage ought to be between one man and one woman. Marriage is closely linke to family and children. But children can only be created within an heterosexual relationship. POINT.
Therefore marriage is to be between one man and one woman and not between two man, two woman, man and dog, man and car, woman and cat, or anything else.

You are a primitive human that worships tradition.
Times change. People change.

Your arguments do not hold water. There are many couples that can not have children. There are people who can not have children. should we tell all people that can not have children that they can not marry?
There are women that can not have children remember that.

As for raising children , there are already Gay couples that are not married but are raising healthy and honorable law abiding children who get good grades in school.

Also you have failed to show how Gays that marry eachother would hurt you.
How would gay marriage effect you.
That is the topic of this thread.
You have not made any argument as to how a gay married couple would effect you. That does not mean whether you think its right or wrong.
It means how would thier mariage hurt you.
You can not answer this question.
You are a troll. A troll with no argument.

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.

Actually, it is inbreeding...the chance of mutation doesn't change.

And so what if some guy or gal wants to marry 8 people? If they are all consenting adults that know about the other marriages, I say more power to em!

Yes you obviously are.
My argument is based on the potential ability not the actual ability. And that exists in every heterosexual relationship but never in a homosexual one. Period.
You may not like that fact, but thats the way it is.
For today I resign from this debate.
Debatting with people like you makes now sense. You are gay-fundis who are insulting everybody who disagrees with you as religious extremists - which I´m not - or sometimes even as Nazi.
I don´t accept that.
With such statements you are only judging yourself and your kind.

Potential ability? I just said that there are women that can not have children.
And I asked if they should be told that they cannot marry because of thier inability to have kids. you dodged that question you psuedo intellectual fundy.

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?

They don't effect me at all. I don't give a crap who marries who...I personally am a little weirded out if I see two guys making out, but guess what? It is a free country! So, if they can be in a relationship, then let them marry.

Although, I'm of the personal opinion that marriage is a religious issue, and should be handled by the religious communities and the government shouldn't have a hand in recognizing any of them...but there are too many religious people for that to happen any time soon.

So, yup, gay marriage won't effect me at all...with the possible exception that I might have to be a guest at a couple more weddings....ugh. :D

Thankyou for your definition of 'troll'.

I now feel like I have learned something today, rather than simply trawled through threads of bigoted arguments. Plus, I now know what to call people that have spurious 'flame provoking' arguments.

How would gay marriage effect you.
That is the topic of this thread.
You have not made any argument as to how a gay married couple would effect you. That does not mean whether you think its right or wrong.
.
Right: it would mean that they would be able to claim tax benefits of marriages. And that would mean that all others would need to pay higher taxes since the government always takes the money away from somewhere. So it would affect me.

Hah! Getting married means tax breaks? Only if you have kids, and you need them then.

I don't think gay marriage will affect my life in the slightest. I wish much luck to the happy couples, and I hope that they have more success at the endeavor than straight couples seem to be having.

1) "Equality treats different things differently?" What sort of oddball sentence is that? Treating different things in a different way is DISCRIMINATION, not equality.
So, treating different things differently is discrimination? Charging children lower fees is discrimination? Charging elderly lower fees is discrimination? Giving family tickets is discrimination?


3) "It has no biological sense." Maybe it doesn't have a biological 'outcome', but perhaps the reason for homosexuality could be put down to 'satisfaction without risk of procreation.' Admittedly, homosexuality has no end-product.. other than happiness and contentment between two consenting adults..
You can have that outside marriage. Noone is stopping you from that.
But marriage is a legal instituition, which serves a purpose.
And it is designed for one man and one woman to form a family.

4) "It can't be considered equal because it isn't equal." Again, an oddball statement with no reasoning to explain itself. It isn't equal because people like you SAY it isn't equal. All i know is, my ability to love is EQUAL to any other persons. My right to an existance with contentment is also EQUAL to any other persons. However, my rights are NOT equal. Please define why It isn't equal, so i may respond. ..
Well, what do you don´t understand. It is biologicaly different.

5) "And I reject your attempt to force that wrong assumption on others and on society which you do via the demand for gay marriage." Read my post again and please note that it has not been edited, so I have added nothing. You will find that I have quite clearly stated that I do NOT demand gay marriages. I demand nothing other than respect. Now, why do I get the feeling that you probably have the opinion that i am not deserving of respect?
I don´t have that opinion. But many gay-activists obviously think that people with a different opinion don´t deserve respect and that it is apropiate to insult them and to flame them. I don´t accept that and that behaviour. That shows the intolerant character of the gay-fundamentalists movement.

Right: it would mean that they would be able to claim tax benefits of marriages. And that would mean that all others would need to pay higher taxes since the government always takes the money away from somewhere. So it would affect me.

Really? This is what you base your argument upon?

By your own argument, I have been paying for heterosexual marriages and their offspring for all of my tax-paying years. have I complained? No, I have not.

I might start doing it now though. I mean, according to you.. I would be justified to do so.

My position on the subject can be summarised by this handy comic.

http://www.dustinland.com/archives/archives156.html

:cool:

Hah! Getting married means tax breaks? Only if you have kids, and you need them then.

Certainly depends on the country and its taxation system. In my country it means - in most cases - tax breaks.

Right: it would mean that they would be able to claim tax benefits of marriages. And that would mean that all others would need to pay higher taxes since the government always takes the money away from somewhere. So it would affect me.

Do you support homosexuals having to pay less tax so that they don't have to fund heterosexual marriage?

I would be offended by the further deterioration of the definition of marriage.

If gay people want to play house. Thats fine. Create their own institution.

The state has hijacked the original institution and loaded it with political and economic consequences. That doesn't mean we continue to destroy the original concept.

Resisting gay access to this institution may be like arranging deck chairs on the Titanic but I would still be offended having men dress up as women to get off the ship first!

So, treating different things differently is discrimination? Charging children lower fees is discrimination? Charging elderly lower fees is discrimination? Giving family tickets is discrimination?

This is an example of a 'troll' statement. (hehe, i managed to use the term)
It has no logical basis.
For example, how can charging children or pensioners a lower fee be classed as Equality? Really. if you are going to try and pick my posts to pieces, please try to have a rational and water-tight point. It might save you the embaressment of looking like a simpleton. Your original statement said that treating different things differently was equality!! I am still failing to see what your point is.


You can have that outside marriage. Noone is stopping you from that.
But marriage is a legal instituition, which serves a purpose.
And it is designed for one man and one woman to form a family.
I agree with this statement. HOWEVER. The lack of a 'marriage-like' contract or relationship is what gives the gay community this reputation of permiscuity. I would like to point out that homosexuals are not more permiscuous (sp?) than heterosexuals. We just lack the proof of devotion to one person.

Well, what do you don´t understand. It is biologicaly different.
Erm... I think i understand that it is biologically different. I won't elaborate, so you will just have to take my word on it.


I don´t have that opinion. But many gay-activists obviously think that people with a different opinion don´t deserve respect and that it is apropiate to insult them and to flame them. I don´t accept that and that behaviour. That shows the intolerant character of the gay-fundamentalists movement.
Maybe so, but I have not flamed anyone. I have also not insulted anyone. I am slightly disturbed by the way you keep referring to the gay-fundamentalists movement and the way you suggest that they are intolerant. Hmm. When you have lived in a life being imposed upon by other peoples intolerance, you tend to learn the same methods. Perhaps, if you stopped to think about how your opinions affect people, then you might not recieve so much intolerance in return. Hatred breeds hatred. Intolerance breeds intolerance.

However, this still does not answer the thread topic.

Resisting gay access to this institution may be like arranging deck chairs on the Titanic but I would still be offended having men dress up as women to get off the ship first!

I'd be offended if I was forced to stay aboard a doomed ship because of other peoples' twisted sense of morality that says I'm not allowed to leave because I'm a man.

I am a troll. Please give me some attention!

Why is anyone bothering to answer his posts anyway? I'm sure there can be a lot of sound, reasonable and intelligent discussions between all the other posters on this thread. Stop wasting your energy on him.

Do you support homosexuals having to pay less tax so that they don't have to fund heterosexual marriage?

Interesting viewpoint. Technically speaking, if marriage is only a religious institution whose sole goal is to produce children, who will grow to be good little Christian fundamentalists as well, I have no reason to support it. So why am I paying taxes?

Yes, I think I'll go with your idea and start a lobby group to lower the taxes homosexuals pay. Unless we get to marry too, of course, in which case we'll pay to support our marriages just like everybody else.

Why is anyone bothering to answer his posts anyway? I'm sure there can be a lot of sound, reasonable and intelligent discussions between all the other posters on this thread. Stop wasting your energy on him.

You're probably right, Skalador. Some of us who were on this thread's immediate ancestor thread should have learned our lesson then about feeding the troll. Ah well, sometimes it's good to have a troll around to remind ourselves of our own intelligence ;)

I would be offended by the further deterioration of the definition of marriage.

If gay people want to play house. Thats fine. Create their own institution.

The state has hijacked the original institution and loaded it with political and economic consequences. That doesn't mean we continue to destroy the original concept.

Resisting gay access to this institution may be like arranging deck chairs on the Titanic but I would still be offended having men dress up as women to get off the ship first!

1) Please define how the definition of marriage has deteriorated already. I am unsure of why you used the term.. 'further deterioration'.

2) Play house? Marriage and relationships are not a game.

3) The state has hijacked the original institution..... etc.. ..What consequences have been loaded into it? Again, with lack of an explanation it is hard to see your point.

4) I would still be offended having men dress up as women...etc..
Absolute rubbish. I bet that if you had been on the titanic, facing those freezing cold waters and certain death due to a lack of lifeboats, YOU would have been trying your hardest to get into those lifeboats. Once again, I am unsure what your point is supposed to be.

Ah well, sometimes it's good to have a troll around to remind ourselves of our own intelligence ;)

I know what you mean. It's good to have someone to look at and say "Damn, I'm really much more intelligent than this guy. And I have a life, which means I don't spend my time trolling a forum on gay marriage to forget my life sucks and I have self-esteem problems!".

Why do people think homosexuals are discriminated against by marriage laws? The laws say nothing of "love", they are designed to create a civil institution to aid in child rearing and to promote stability. A homosexual man has the same rite as I do to marry any woman who will is willing to do the same. The same holds true for homosexual women. The law doesn’t guaranty anyone the right to marry who they love, in fact it doesn’t guaranty anything (there are legal and practical limitations on who you can marry).

I know what you mean. It's good to have someone to look at and say "Damn, I'm really much more intelligent than this guy. And I have a life, which means I don't spend my time trolling a forum on gay marriage to forget my life sucks and I have self-esteem problems!".

He probably just needs a hug :p

Homosexuality is not heterosexuality. It has no biological sense. It can´t be considered equal because it isn´t equal.

This statement has been disproved so many times that I'm actually surprised you're still repeating it. Of course, you've never shown a propensity for logic, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

*cough*Snubis*cough*

This is an example of a 'troll' statement. (hehe, i managed to use the term)
It has no logical basis.
For example, how can charging children or pensioners a lower fee be classed as Equality? Really. if you are going to try and pick my posts to pieces, please try to have a rational and water-tight point. It might save you the embaressment of looking like a simpleton. Your original statement said that treating different things differently was equality!! I am still failing to see what your point is..
It is simple. Equality does not mean to treat everything the same way. It means to treat the same things the same way BUT DIFFERENT THINGS DIFFERENTLY. Because of that IT IS NOT a violation of the equality principle to charge children less (or adults more - however you want to look at it) or pensioners less than adults.
And because of that it is also not a violation of the equality principle to treat heterosexual relationships different to homosexual onces. They are not the same, they are different because they can´t biologically produce offspring.

And because of that it is also not a violation of the equality principle to treat heterosexual relationships different to homosexual onces. They are not the same, they are different because they can´t biologically produce offspring.
As usual, your argument is absurd. The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law. There is not one word relating to biological differences.
Orignally posted by Frisbeeteria
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 dont agree with it on a philisophical basis, and thats all the explanation and reason you need.

Actually, no, it isn't.

It is simple. Equality does not mean to treat everything the same way. It means to treat the same things the same way BUT DIFFERENT THINGS DIFFERENTLY. Because of that IT IS NOT a violation of the equality principle to charge children less (or adults more - however you want to look at it) or pensioners less than adults.
And because of that it is also not a violation of the equality principle to treat heterosexual relationships different to homosexual onces. They are not the same, they are different because they can´t biologically produce offspring.

equality
noun [U]
the right of different groups of people to have a similar social position and receive the same treatment:
equality between the sexes
racial equality

Please note that it says THE SAME treatment, not 'different treatment depending upon the circumstances'

If you want to read it for yourself, go to this site..
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

Homosexuality is a choice of PERVERSION. :mp5:

Homosexuality should be OUTLAWED. :sniper:

Obviously, those of you who are FOR it, don't have children.
Because if you did, you would understand the threat.

Historically, EVERY nation that has ever condoned homosexuality, has gone down the shitter in short order.

1man + 1woman = stability :fluffle: :)

Marriage is a sanctimonious institution, lets not cheapen it with allowing deviants to parttake in it.

Something to consider.

The television program "Married In America," in which contestants were matched sight-unseen with other single people, through a selection process in which viewers could text-message in their votes, a la "American Idol." The thus-matched couples declared their engagement, and then were brought to a posh resort and prepared their wedding -- which would have been an ENTIRELY LEGAL, OFFICIAL WEDDING -- and got to know each other -- in every sense of the word -- for the benefit of the cameras, as viewers and experts also voted them "out", a la "Survivor"; until only two couples remained. Whichever couple went through with the wedding to the person they had only known for one month would receive a cash prize.

Are you saying that THIS display did NOT cheapen the marriage sacrament, simply by virtue of the fact that all of the couples in question were heterosexual?

Why do people think homosexuals are discriminated against by marriage laws? The laws say nothing of "love", they are designed to create a civil institution to aid in child rearing and to promote stability. A homosexual man has the same rite as I do to marry any woman who will is willing to do the same. The same holds true for homosexual women. The law doesn’t guaranty anyone the right to marry who they love, in fact it doesn’t guaranty anything (there are legal and practical limitations on who you can marry).

So you married someone you don't love, just because it's not in the law??? I think normal people marry the one they love (or think they love if you see the number of divorces :)). Please keep your stupidities and give people the right to marry the one they love.


On the initial topic: Gay marriage changes only something for gays as a marriage is something between two people. Denying gays this right because you don't like it is totally crazy. Also 'society is not ready for it' is nonsense: if white people don't like black people, should we kick the black people out of the country? Or should they learn people to respect each other?

That's my 5 cent...

--
"Homosexuality, at its core, is about the emotional connection between two adult human beings. And what public institution is more central -- more definitive -- to that connection than marriage? The denial of marriage to gay people is therefore not a minor issue. It is the entire issue."
-- Andrew Sullivan, New Republic

1man + 1woman = stability :fluffle: :)
Obviously, news about divorce never reached your planet...

Why do people think homosexuals are discriminated against by marriage laws? The laws say nothing of "love", they are designed to create a civil institution to aid in child rearing and to promote stability. A homosexual man has the same rite as I do to marry any woman who will is willing to do the same. The same holds true for homosexual women. The law doesn’t guaranty anyone the right to marry who they love, in fact it doesn’t guaranty anything (there are legal and practical limitations on who you can marry).

I don't know about you, but where I live, the vows you say when you marry someone usually are:

"Do you promise to love and cherish one another until death parts you?"

And not:

"Do you promise to have children, to rear them and otherwise promote stability in your society?"

Read my posts from 10 pages ago: I've already beaten the "marriage is for children" argument to death. I won't do it again because you're too lazy to read the entire thread.

Homosexuality is a choice of PERVERSION.

Homosexuality should be OUTLAWED.

Obviously, those of you who are FOR it, don't have children.
Because if you did, you would understand the threat.

Historically, EVERY nation that has ever condoned homosexuality, has gone down the shitter in short order.

1man + 1woman = stability

Oh man, this is good stuff.

Why is it that when people have children, they suddenly start thinking of themselves as a pillar of moral integrity and a bearer of all wisdom?

Historically, EVERY nation has gone down the shitter. EVERY nation WILL go down the shitter. This is the way of human society. Yet even nations who condemned homosexuality went down the shitter!

In my opinion, bigoted parents are more of a threat to their own children then homosexuals.

Blah Blah Blah *insert trolling here* Blah Blah Blah

Man, how many of these are there around?

BEGONE, YE HIDEOUS TROLL! I BANISH THEE!

I don't know about you, but where I live, the vows you say when you marry someone usually are:

"Do you promise to love and cherish one another until death parts you?"

And not:

"Do you promise to have children, to rear them and otherwise promote stability in your society?"

Read my posts from 10 pages ago: I've already beaten the "marriage is for children" argument to death. I won't do it again because you're too lazy to read the entire thread.
The vows are religious, and many ministers will be willing to do that part for homosexual couples. I was referring to the civil aspect of marriage which is the only part the government can legislate on.

Man, how many of these are there around?


They come in limitless amounts, Skalador. I'm guessing that they have their COMPLETELY HETEROSEXUAL spawning ground around here somewhere.

Homosexuality is a choice of PERVERSION. :mp5:

Homosexuality should be OUTLAWED. :sniper:

Obviously, those of you who are FOR it, don't have children.
Because if you did, you would understand the threat.

Historically, EVERY nation that has ever condoned homosexuality, has gone down the shitter in short order.


Explain: why would homosexuality be a perversion?

If you have children, you should understand the threat of denying rights to gay people... what if one of your children turns out to be gay? Would you hate it for being gay or would you want your child to be happy?

Your knowledge of history seems rather little. There is no nation that has gone down because there were gay people and 'in short order' is also a weird statement as the ancient Greek civilization has existed for more than thousand years, although it has been a part of the Roman empire for a couple of hundred years. In fact we still have traces of the Greek culture in our society. It's not because one day there was a stronger army that the culture has vanished completely.
Apart from that, nations where homosexualtity was outlawed have gone down too, think of a lot of Indian nations. Also because someone conquered them by the way :)

--
Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?
-Ernest Gaines

So you married someone you don't love, just because it's not in the law??? I think normal people marry the one they love (or think they love if you see the number of divorces :)). Please keep your stupidities and give people the right to marry the one they love.


On the initial topic: Gay marriage changes only something for gays as a marriage is something between two people. Denying gays this right because you don't like it is totally crazy. Also 'society is not ready for it' is nonsense: if white people don't like black people, should we kick the black people out of the country? Or should they learn people to respect each other?

That's my 5 cent...

--
"Homosexuality, at its core, is about the emotional connection between two adult human beings. And what public institution is more central -- more definitive -- to that connection than marriage? The denial of marriage to gay people is therefore not a minor issue. It is the entire issue."
-- Andrew Sullivan, New Republic
How can you rite that reply and than accuse me of "stupidities"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kybernetia
And because of that it is also not a violation of the equality principle to treat heterosexual relationships different to homosexual onces. They are not the same, they are different because they can´t biologically produce offspring.


As usual, your argument is absurd. The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law. There is not one word relating to biological differences.

Quote:
Orignally posted by Frisbeeteria

Quote:
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?"


Yes, they are citizens.

Are they "marriable" under the law,.. No.

The constitution gives rights "under the law".

Don't like the law,.. have it changed.

Convince all you can, so as to have their votes.

Those who define marriage as "between man and women" will simply never be convinced.

You know what your task is.

Get to it.


If the question on the table truly is "How Does (Would!) Homosexual Marriage Affect You?", here is how it affects me.

It would not affect my marriage.

It would affect my "society".

It would redefine a word (and institution) that is "holy" to the majority of people, in favor of a minority definition.

It is a tyrany of the minority, imposed on the majority, in the realm of "holiness" to that majority.

The issue of race is not a "holy" one to the vast VAST majority of present day society.

To equate inter-racial marriage and homo-sexual marriage is thus in two different realms entirely, for these "holy marriage" types.

What would you call imposition of a law on a majority population that changes the very meaning of one of their sacred institutions.

In any other venue, that would be called "elitist imperialism by a powerful minority".

That is the way that many see it.

They see it as an "Apartheid of the Sacred".

A powerful minority imposing it's will on the pre-existing majority.

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.

OK. Think about what you just said, and then kill yourself. :headbang: Gay rights is about giving PEOPLE the right to marry other PEOPLE. There are no inatimate objects involved in the process.
I believe incest is already illegal, and at least it is not commonplace. What you (and other conservatives) are using to defeat gay rights is called a slippery slope arguement; it is a logical fallacy.
You say that allowing gay marriage will lead to X, Y, Z, and eventually the downfall of morality and Western Civilization as we know it. In reality, X, Y, and Z have nothing to do with gay marriage and would be HIGHLY UNLIKELY to be caused by anti-discrimination laws against gays.
Personally, I know many gay people (some of whom are in my family and I see on a regular basis). And you know what, at first it made me a little uncomfortable to be around them, and I consider myself a left-wing liberal! But they are great people, and no different from you and me. No gay person is going to bite your arm off if they are allowed to get married.

In answer to the question, because I don't want to be off topic, if gays were allowed to marry, I would probably have a lot of weddings to go to. :fluffle:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Many Rainbows
So you married someone you don't love, just because it's not in the law??? I think normal people marry the one they love (or think they love if you see the number of divorces ). Please keep your stupidities and give people the right to marry the one they love.


On the initial topic: Gay marriage changes only something for gays as a marriage is something between two people. Denying gays this right because you don't like it is totally crazy. Also 'society is not ready for it' is nonsense: if white people don't like black people, should we kick the black people out of the country? Or should they learn people to respect each other?

That's my 5 cent...

--
"Homosexuality, at its core, is about the emotional connection between two adult human beings. And what public institution is more central -- more definitive -- to that connection than marriage? The denial of marriage to gay people is therefore not a minor issue. It is the entire issue."
-- Andrew Sullivan, New Republic


How can you rite that reply and than accuse me of "stupidities"?

Why would denying marriage to a boy and his dog not be equally as crazy..!?

Why would denying marriage to a boy and his dog not be equally as crazy..!?

Okay, there is a post here making mention that the 'slippery slope' is a logical fallacy. It's not THAT far back, go and read it.

Honestly, it's like you people actually want boys marrying their dogs and women marrying their toasters.

Homosexuality is a choice of PERVERSION. :mp5:

Homosexuality should be OUTLAWED. :sniper:

Obviously, those of you who are FOR it, don't have children.
Because if you did, you would understand the threat.

Historically, EVERY nation that has ever condoned homosexuality, has gone down the shitter in short order.

1man + 1woman = stability :fluffle: :)

1) Homosexuality is not a CHOICE, it is a fact of life! An arguably natural fact of life.
2) Most perverts are heterosexual, NOT homosexual.
3) Guns should be outlawed. Prejudice should be outlawed. Trolls should be outlawed. Paedophiles should be castrated. Homosexuals should be accepted. (IMHO)
4) Correct, I do not have children. However, I would like to have children because I wish to impart what I consider to be decent morals and standards onto another generation. Any insinuation that I want children for any perverse means is extremely insulting to me.
5) Britain had no laws regarding homosexuality until Queen Victoria outlawed it between men. She did not outlaw lesbianism because she refused to accept it existed. It is interesting to point out that AFTER this point, the British Empire began to dissipate. (It is also alleged that King Henry VIII made homosexuality legal. This is the man who had lots of wives and even executed some of them.)
6) 1 man + 1 woman = stability??? Have you ever watched Jerry Springer? How stable are those people? If 1 man + 1 woman is so stable, then why are there so many divorces, domestic violence cases, affairs, single parents, agony aunt columns and emotionally scarred children? Have i missed anything?

The vows are religious, and many ministers will be willing to do that part for homosexual couples. I was referring to the civil aspect of marriage which is the only part the government can legislate on.

I'm glad you agree. Now that we've pu aside the religious part of it...

Please post your article of law on marriage. And pray underline or boldify the part where marriage is a contract about "producind and rearing children".

I'd be surprised if that part did exist, but I can't say for sure, since I don't know in what country you live in. But here in Canada, marriage is a legal contract that doesn't entail having or rearing children. Your argument is thus rendered void. Look up your civil code and check if it's the same for your country.

equality
noun [U]
the right of different groups of people to have a similar social position and receive the same treatment:
equality between the sexes
racial equality
Please note that it says THE SAME treatment, not 'different treatment depending upon the circumstances'

Not upon circumstance but it needs to be looked at the matter. For example incestous marriages aren´t possible either.
And I refer to the definition of the equality principle in german law: "To treat simular things the same way and different things differently."
So, it has two sides but many people forget that.
Its not that everything ought to be treated the same. Different things have to be treated differently.

Why would denying marriage to a boy and his dog not be equally as crazy..!?

*sigh*
There is no consent, at least from the dog :)
Furthermore: stupid argument, we gave women the right to vote, but did not give it to our dogs (not insulting women, just proving it does not have to go beyond reasonable borders :))

--
"In a world so filled with hatred and violence, you should be happy that I love, no matter who I love."
-Unknown

Why would denying marriage to a boy and his dog not be equally as crazy..!?

I'm not sure if you figured it out but you quoted my reply and not there statement (there statement takes the majority of my reply). If this was intended for me than your not making any sense.

They come in limitless amounts, Skalador. I'm guessing that they have their COMPLETELY HETEROSEXUAL spawning ground around here somewhere.

:D

Either that or it's the same guy switching between his puppet nations.

Honestly, it's like you people actually want boys marrying their dogs and women marrying their toasters.

And they say WE're the sick bastards.Sad. :p

Equality doesn´t mean to treat everything the same way. It means to treat the same things the same way AND DIFFERENT THINGS DIFFERENTLY.

Well, black people are different than white people. Does that mean I can treat them differently?

Blue M&Ms are different from red M&Ms, does that mean I shouldn't eat them.

Right: it would mean that they would be able to claim tax benefits of marriages. And that would mean that all others would need to pay higher taxes since the government always takes the money away from somewhere. So it would affect me.

So you think that gay marriage would be ok in the US, where a married couple actually ends up paying *more* taxes, rather than less?

It would redefine a word (and institution) that is "holy" to the majority of people, in favor of a minority definition.


In history, human sacrifices were holy too... and using religous arguments does not make sense as you cannot impose your belief onto other people.

[COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Comic Sans MS]
What would you call imposition of a law on a majority population that changes the very meaning of one of their sacred institutions.


If many people follow a generaly accepted superstition, it's fine for me, but I'm not a lemming who just follows the leader.

[COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Comic Sans MS]
A powerful minority imposing it's will on the pre-existing majority.

Wrong again. We, gay people, don't want others to marry someone of the same sex, we don't impose anything on anybody, we just ask the right to do what we want in a very personal matter. No one should choose who you can love and who not and a civilized nation should be capable of protecting its people and their freedom.

--
"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken

Well, black people are different than white people. Does that mean I can treat them differently?

Blue M&Ms are different from red M&Ms, does that mean I shouldn't eat them.

YES! It does mean you shouldn't eat them! Red M&Ms are a PERVERSION! If you had children, you'd understand. I'm affected when you eat red M&Ms, because soon I'll have to start paying more tax to support your red M&M habit, because the government will need to find new sources of red candy dye to appease the M&M corporation! Pretty soon, people will start wanting to MARRY red M&Ms and demanding that red M&Ms be given power over PEOPLE! Stop eating red M&Ms! It is UNHOLY!

Well, black people are different than white people. Does that mean I can treat them differently?

Blue M&Ms are different from red M&Ms, does that mean I shouldn't eat them.

Nah, what's flawed in his reasoning is how to determine what's similar and what's different.

All humans are the same. They're ALL equal. Period. Things or animals that are not human are different; but all humans are the same, no matter the color of their skin, their sexual identity, sexual orientation, religion, political affiliation or the country they live in.

Same with M&Ms. Red and Blue M&Ms are all M&Ms, not matter the color of their sugar coating. They all deserve to be eaten because they're all equally delicious.

YES! It does mean you shouldn't eat them! Red M&Ms are a PERVERSION! If you had children, you'd understand. I'm affected when you eat red M&Ms, because soon I'll have to start paying more tax to support your red M&M habit, because the government will need to find new sources of red candy dye to appease the M&M corporation! Pretty soon, people will start wanting to MARRY red M&Ms and demanding that red M&Ms be given power over PEOPLE! Stop eating red M&Ms! It is UNHOLY!

Honestly, I think I never quite realized, I mean really understand, how dumb some of the arguments against gay amrriage were until I read your M&M post.

You enlighten me. Thank you.

There are a ton of posts that I cant read thru. I tried to read till I heard a single good argument of how it affects someone personally and not some stupid short answer that doesnt explain anythign or why they think it is wrong, but there was nothing.

So can someone please tell me of a single argument put forth about how homosexual marriage affects someone personally (in a negative way that is)?

Why do people think homosexuals are discriminated against by marriage laws? The laws say nothing of "love", they are designed to create a civil institution to aid in child rearing and to promote stability. A homosexual man has the same rite as I do to marry any woman who will is willing to do the same. The same holds true for homosexual women. The law doesn’t guaranty anyone the right to marry who they love, in fact it doesn’t guaranty anything (there are legal and practical limitations on who you can marry).

The purpose of marriage is not simply to rear children. If it was, then we would be denying old or infertile couples marriage left and right. The government recognizes marriage because it is convenient for the married citizens and the government to do so. When two people combine their assets to such a point that neither they nor the government can really tell what belongs to whom, it is more convenient for both to declare them a single legal entity.

Obviously, this applies to children as well. They are not assets, per se, but if two people are raising a child as if they have equal responsibility for that child, then it is safer for the child and more convenient for everyone involved to recognize that both parents have equal custody of that child.

Now, gay couples do the exact same thing - they combine their assets in such a way that it is impossible to tell them apart. Yet we deny them the same protections that other couples get from the government.

Reposting this...hopefully you guys will stop insulting each other
View of Gay Liberal Hippies Vs. View of Evil Christian Fundies

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 people don't want it to be redifined)

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

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)

NOTE: THE ABOVE DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE OPIONON OF MYSELF. THE AGRUMENTS SHOWN ABOVE MAY BE FLAWED BUT ARE THE TYPICAL AGRUMENTS IN THIS ISSUE. WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VALIDITY OF THIS STATEMENT. BATTERIES NOT INCLUDED

[COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Comic Sans MS]Yes, they are citizens.

But you are relegating them to second-class citizen status.

Are they "marriable" under the law,.. No.

The constitution gives rights "under the law".

The constitution also provides for what laws are unacceptable - like ones that discriminate based on race, creed, color, or sex - sexual preference falls under the sex category.

[It would not affect my marriage.

It would affect my "society".

And your morals are set by your society? Pretty loose morals then, aren't they?

[It would redefine a word (and institution) that is "holy" to the majority of people, in favor of a minority definition.

"Holy" means nothing in the realms of the government. The government is not a religious institution.

[It is a tyrany of the minority, imposed on the majority, in the realm of "holiness" to that majority.

It is not tyranny of the minority, as no one would be forcing the majority to accept "holiness" of homosexual marraige. The issue on the table is legal marriage, not religious marriage.

[The issue of race is not a "holy" one to the vast VAST majority of present day society.

To equate inter-racial marriage and homo-sexual marriage is thus in two different realms entirely, for these "holy marriage" types.

Have you studied the race issue at all. The entire reason it was outlawed were those who thought that interracial marriages were 'unholy". Do you think we should've just sat around and waited until they changed their minds?

[What would you call imposition of a law on a majority population that changes the very meaning of one of their sacred institutions.

Again, the meaning of their sacred institutions don't change. No church is going to have to change it's view of marriage and no church is going to have to accept a legally binding contract between to homosexuals. This argument makes no sense.

Not upon circumstance but it needs to be looked at the matter. For example incestous marriages aren´t possible either.
And I refer to the definition of the equality principle in german law: "To treat simular things the same way and different things differently."
So, it has two sides but many people forget that.
Its not that everything ought to be treated the same. Different things have to be treated differently.

Ok, let's assume that the language barrier and the differences in definitions of certain words are at fault here.

English is the most widely used language in the world. It is certainly more commonly used than german. By 'most widely', I mean the most diverse as opposed to the number of people that speak it. I believe the most spoken language is cantonese or a form of mandarin, but I could be very wrong.
It was YOU that defined equality as something that treats different things differently. I defined your explanation as another way of saying Discrimination. If you like, I can post the dictionary definition of discrimination. Also, do not think it is beyond my means to post the german interpretations of both these words WITH translations.

Now, assuming that you agree that english is more commonly used than german. We can also agree that german would be considered a minority in comparison. For me to speak in german on this forum would be senseless as most people would not understand it. Regardless of my nationality, english is the way things are done on these forums (with regards to language).
"Eine bockwurst mit semf bitte"... who understood that?
"A hotdog with mustard please."... I bet a few more understood it worded that way.
So, we are left with two conflicting definitions of equality.
1) Giving people the rights to a similar social standing and allowing them to receive the same treatment (english)
2) Treating people who are different as different! (german... allegedly)

I struggle to see HOW option 2 can be concieved as a definition of equality, seeing as there is NOTHING equal in the answer. Different is the opposite of equal, whichever way you look at it.

Incestuous marriages are not allowed either.... Why do you say this? It is Irrelevant. This thread is about gay marriage, not incest, not bestiality and not 'toaster-love'. Trying to pull attention away from the issue, does not work with me. What generally happens, is that I research a long answer to an off-topic point. Please try and stay on topic, because I do not like being put in a position where i need to make an off-topic post like this.

How Does Homosexual Marriage Affect You?

Maybe I'll get invited to a wedding and have to rent a tux. That would be kinda bad, I suppose.

I really wondered about posting here, even after reading the whole thing, but I suppose I'll at least post my response to the original question: Legalising gay marriage would allow me, as a bisexual, to marry anyone I fell in love with, not picking and choosing based on the legal benefits. It would also mean that I could feel better about bringing children into the world if I end up in a hetero relationship or can find a surrogate, which is also a plus.

Some people seem to think that giving people rights contrary to their religion forces their religion to change. An example I have used before is a beach bum and a stripper trolling into a mosque and demanding marriage: They will be turned away, and there's not a jury in any land that will support a racial discrimination case for them.

Christians may be against gay marriage, and may define it as a productive relationship between a man and a woman, but what justification is there to force this definition on every denomination, let alone Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Shintoist, Confucians, Native Americans, Satanists, etc. etc.? What if I start a religion that only permits gay marriage? Not legalising gay marriage bars me from practicing my hypothetical faith. Or could I pull a trick like the Native Americans did to let them use peyote?

Christians may be against gay marriage, and may define it as a productive relationship between a man and a woman, but what justification is there to force this definition on every denomination, let alone Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Shintoist, Confucians, Native Americans, Satanists, etc. etc.? What if I start a religion that only permits gay marriage? Not legalising gay marriage bars me from practicing my hypothetical faith. Or could I pull a trick like the Native Americans did to let them use peyote?

Cool Idea. Lets start a religion. We could call it.... 'Fluffyness'... and have the Macarena as a hymn.

Aha, now I see why people don't want gay marriages. Gay weddings would be way too cool and would make the hetero ones look boring.

Cool Idea. Lets start a religion. We could call it.... 'Fluffyness'... and have the Macarena as a hymn.

Aha, now I see why people don't want gay marriages. Gay weddings would be way too cool and would make the hetero ones look boring.

Well, I suppose I have the look of a prophet- long hair, beard, etc.- and I'm not averse to the idea of travelling around with 12 men at my beck and call. This could be the start of something cool.

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.


I abjectly thank you for your civility.

Unlike the heterosexual trolls from the paths of ignorance...

In not wanting to marry a man, in wanting to marry a woman with my same views on sex and contraception and love, it is because I think there are universal principals which make the path that I am currently taking the most beneficial one for all humans. And I am willing to grant other people this universal principle that I believe in, and I think that anybody that disagrees with this universal principle is somehow mistaken

Before anybody charges with "intolerance" or something, most of you believe in a universal principle that a person should deserve to marry whoever they love, becuase that is most beneficial for all humans. And you are willing grant other people this universal principle that they believe in, and you think that anybody who disagrees with this universal principle is somehow mistaken.

But I do wish homosexuals the best in life, and that they find all the love and happiness they can, and would like to say that there are some homosexuals that believe as I do.

and skalador, nice word usage of reticences. I was so sure you had misused it, but you used it perfectly.

In not wanting to marry a man, in wanting to marry a woman with my same views on sex and contraception and love, it is because I think there are universal principals which make the path that I am currently taking the most beneficial one for all humans. And I am willing to grant other people this universal principle that I believe in, and I think that anybody that disagrees with this universal principle is somehow mistaken

It's great that we can all disagree.

Before anybody charges with "intolerance" or something, most of you believe in a universal principle that a person should deserve to marry whoever they love, becuase that is most beneficial for all humans. And you are willing grant other people this universal principle that they believe in, and you think that anybody who disagrees with this universal principle is somehow mistaken.

However, the universal principle you do not agree with has rational basis and does not restrict another's rights. If the government recognizes gay marriage, your right to think that your way of doing things is the best has not been abridged. However, if we go with your personal definition of morality, then we end up with a lot of people hurt.

But I do wish homosexuals the best in life, and that they find all the love and happiness they can, and would like to say that there are some homosexuals that believe as I do.

If this is true, then you would wish them to be able to have the same protections with their partner that other couples do.

Well, I suppose I have the look of a prophet- long hair, beard, etc.- and I'm not averse to the idea of travelling around with 12 men at my beck and call. This could be the start of something cool.

Hmm, now i need to decide who I want to be. Judas Escariot or Mary Magdallene. Oooh choices choices.

Oh, on second thoughts... we would not be able to start a religion. Religions are supposed to be non-prophet making organisations. *chuckles at his own joke*

However, the universal principle you do not agree with has rational basis and does not restrict another's rights. If the government recognizes gay marriage, your right to think that your way of doing things is the best has not been abridged. However, if we go with your personal definition of morality, then we end up with a lot of people hurt.

If this is true, then you would wish them to be able to have the same protections with their partner that other couples do.


Umm.

Your assertion that homosexuals have a right to marry comes from the belief that marriage is for the prime purpose of fulfilling your love for another human being. I am debating the beilef, and so your assertion is also suspect until the beilef is proved.

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

Just as the establishment of interracial marriage meant the "redefinition" of marriage.

Personal effects? I'd have at least two more possible future weddings to attend.

Umm.

Your assertion that homosexuals have a right to marry comes from the belief that marriage is for the prime purpose of fulfilling your love for another human being. I am debating the beilef, and so your assertion is also suspect until the beilef is proved.
There is more to this debate than the definition of love.

Last night, you showed your ability to be openminded in examining the possiblity that child-rearing was not necessarily a prime requisite of marriage, but you never followed up on my contention that governmental involvement in this issue is one of law, not morality or sociology. Please review these two posts:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6928648&postcount=221
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6928663&postcount=222

Whether or not society is ready or willing to accept the concept of Gay Marriage / Civil Union, I think we need to recognize the legality of the civil rights argument. The US has granted the rights of unpopular groups before, and I think it's time for the US government to do so again. Winning the hearts and minds, that I'm willing to leave to another day.

Umm.

Your assertion that homosexuals have a right to marry comes from the belief that marriage is for the prime purpose of fulfilling your love for another human being. I am debating the beilef, and so your assertion is also suspect until the beilef is proved.

No, my assertion comes from no such thing. My assertion that homosexuals have the right to marry comes from the fact that the government gives special protections, priviledges, and extra taxes to couples who choose to combine their assets and be viewed as a single entity by the government. If these protections, priviledges, and extra taxes are going to be extended at all, they must be extended equally, with no distinction made as to race, creed, color, or sex - as per the Constitution. And it has already been held that sexual orientation falls under sex in Constitutional protection.

The appeal to the fact that marriage is generally seen as a way of fulfilling your love for another human being is an emotive argument. While it is true, it does not really hold water with the law. The above argument does.

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.

But assuming the slippery slope doesn't happen... what's wrong with GAY MARRIAGE? we all agree with you on incest, probably most of us agree on polygamy, etc (although that's still a religious debate). The point is- gay marriage itself: how does it hurt you? How does it have an impact on anyone who isn't gay?
Where do you get your beliefs about what marriage is? is it from religion? Do you find it possible to respect other religions from your own, instead of insisting that everyone follow you're particular interpretation?

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.

Thing is, marriage is not just a religious institution, it is a legal one, endowed with certain rights. If it were soley relgious, we wouldn't be having this debate because government wouldn't have a say- it would be up to the individual church or sect (and UU membership would spike). Meanwhile... the government is allowed to perform marriages, so I suppose they're allowed to define which marriages they will perform. For the clarification: a law legalizing gay marriage would not require any church to perform them. It would just say you could if you wanted to (like the 2nd amendment doesn't require every citizen to bear arms...)

SillEeitaK, of all the posts in this topic to pick from, why did you bother with this Lardtrophian bit of trollery? There isn't a thing in that post that hasn't been proven false in a dozen other places in this very thread.

Best bet: Ignore the trolls, and debate with opponents who are capable of reasoning. And yes, such an animal does indeed exist.

Umm.

Your assertion that homosexuals have a right to marry comes from the belief that marriage is for the prime purpose of fulfilling your love for another human being. I am debating the beilef, and so your assertion is also suspect until the beilef is proved.

I would like to say that whatever anyone elses intentions for gay marriage are, mine do not come from the belief that marriage is for the prime purpose of fulfilling your love for another human being.

I am fully aware that marriage was originally for procreation. I have stated this already in an earlier post. However, times have changed and NOW marriage is a far cry from what it used to be. In fact, there are so many contrasting variations of marriage, the actual word 'marriage' has become a generalisation that can also mean the joining of two people in a registry office. Originally, marriage could have been interpreted as a slave-trade in front of the eyes of god. (Women were treated very much like slaves and were not allowed freedom, opinions or respect) Personally, I think it is great that women have gradually gained the respect and dignity that they deserve. This of course has, however, meant that marriage ceremonies and 'contracts' have changed over the years to become a consensual joining of two adults of human origin.... (and of opposing gender.)

So, what do I mean by marriage?
I would like to be able to form a stable unit with a partner that is recognised in the eyes of the law. I would like the right to be able to say, without risk of derogatory looks or remarks, that I am happily 'married', although I would not mind if the word was changed to something else such as 'united' or 'taken' or whatever. The word means nothing to me. The respect, the legal standing and the acceptance of my rights are what are important to me.
I want the security to know that, if I die tomorrow, my partner is not forced to move out onto the streets because our relationship was not recognised enough for the house to pass to him. I want to be able to chat with my neighbour over the garden fence and tell them how my 'husband' is getting on at his new job. Eventually, i would like to be able to raise a couple of children... adopted if possible, because I don't like the way that some children NEVER recieve a family when they enter a childrens home. (I am adopted myself, so I know the statistics... in England anyway) I would like to raise them without prejudice and in a loving society.
Nothing sinister. Nothing that will harm anyone in the slightest.

I do, however, realise that this is a pipe dream and will never happen in my lifetime. It does not mean I cannot try to move the world into a position where it is closer.

I do, however, realise that this is a pipe dream and will never happen in my lifetime. It does not mean I cannot try to move the world into a position where it is closer.

Don't be so sure - civil rights movements always move faster than general public opinion. And you guys have plenty of us (mostly) heteros on your side willing to fight for your rights too.

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.

Haha I was WAITING for a post like this!
I spent last weekend with a good friend and her two daddies. They're great guys. My friend is totally straight.
Do you know any gay people? And oh yes, because gays are so un-Christian...
By the way... quiz: anybody know where the Biblical phrase condeming gayness is? Answer in white below...

Genesis, Soddom and Gomorrah: A bunch of local men come over to this guys house and ask to have sex with the (male) angels the man is hiding inside. He says "No, you can't, but here, rape my young virgin daughters instead."

Not exactly the same words, but pretty close... And this is where we get our morals from?

No it does not. Folks had to get along and that is why James madison and Thomas Jefferson Worded things the way they did.


Thomas Jefferson wasn't a Christian. He was a Deist.

Just thought I'd let you kats know!

Thomas Jefferson wasn't a Christian. He was a Deist.

Just thought I'd let you kats know!
I'm pretty sure most of us already knew that, Katie.

Genesis, Soddom and Gomorrah: A bunch of local men come over to this guys house and ask to have sex with the (male) angels the man is hiding inside. He says "No, you can't, but here, rape my young virgin daughters instead."

IIRC Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because "But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly." Gen 13:13 (http://aol.bartleby.com/108/01/13.html#13)

Which really couldn't be homosexuality because we have some pretty sexually open cities at the moment which God hasn't destroyed.

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.

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.
There is no logic to suggest that legalising gay marriage will lead to legal incestuous marriage. That would be hazardous for society. Polygamy, that I'll give you. I don't know how polygamy harms society if everyone involved is consenting.

I'm no legal expert, but I think that marriage would grant gays further legal rights. If everyone could have the legal rights that you mentioned, why would anyone get married?

The real reason? Well, you have the aforementioned legal rights. Then there is also the issue of love. People often want to marry the person they love, whether they are straight or gay. Do you not think that homosexuals love each other as much as heterosexuals do? Aren't they human?

Correct, gay couples would probably ask for rights to adopt children. This is already legal in the Netherlands. There is no evidence to suggest that the children they raise are any worse off, or any more gay than other children. They're less bigoted, which is what you actually fear.

"A gay persons lifestyle is promiscuous" - where do you get this one from? Fictional TV shows? Homosexuals are no more kinky or promiscuous than straight people. I'd love you to give me some proof of your allegations.
Even if they are more promiscuous, surely letting them marry other gays would reduce levels of promiscuity.

Young virginal children... why do you think gays want to have sex with them? You're using the old dependable, and completely unproven and groundless assertion that
homosexuality = paedophilia

If you actually believe that the things you say, you should look up on how well the legalisation of gay marriage has worked out in countries like the Netherlands and Denmark.

My arguments are based in reality and proof. Your arguments are based in stereotypes, fantasy, and fiction.

However, if Bob and Bill get married I don't really care, ditto to Jane and Sue.

Doesn't affect me at all.

However, I am against homosexual marriage. But before anyone flames me, I am also against heterosexual marriage too. (Not people agreeing to start a family, just the governments involvement in it)

Replies to a number of posts (sorry, don't feel like researching who said each one, this time I was actually trying to finish the tread first)

First, to the 4th poster or so who said they didn't have to prove their beliefs, it should be enough that they were against gay marriage:
I agree with you insofar as no one should force you to have a gay marriage. In that, your ideas are plenty. However, if you go around trying to enforce what you belive upon others, I'm afriad you'll have to come up with some actual reasons why.

2nd: Sorry for responding to the trollery, I hadn't realized yet quite how much of it there was on this thread. *Sigh...*

3rd: Maybe a few of you knew Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, but a number of people were arguing that his Christianity was infused all throughout the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and thus the US is a Christian country. Just clarifying the facts.

4th: To the one who understood my username: You're either a genius or extremely dyslexic. It usually takes people months.

5th: If the point of marriage is really to procreate, why don't we allow polygamy, eh?

6th: How does gay marriage affect me? Llike most of the people posting, not much. I might be able to go to a few more weddings. A number of my friends would be under considerably less stress. I wouldn't have to listen to discussions like this- constantly.

*skips off happily upon competing the thread and inserting her own $0.15 or so...*

Umm, you should be aware 'equivalent to spouse' tax status is available to be deignated to a range of persons aside from the legal definiton of spouse. This includes dependant children or even elderly parents.

OMG the tax code supports incest!!!!

Well... ok I admit I'm not adept (is that the right word?) with such law thingies, but that's what many people i know tend to say,

"What?! I took the painfull burden of raising three (four, one or twenty, whatever seems fit) children, and those guy's get the same advantages without doin' anything for it?!"

...Now correct me if I'm wrong but to me it seems only fair that only those people who are willing to raise children and at least try their best to give them a good education, should get that bevore mentionet advantages...

It supports incest? This really IS sick. :mp5:

People with blond hair may not apply for a license to drive.

People with blue eyes may not shop in any store with an "M" in it's name.

People wearing brown socks may not have children. If you already have children, and put on brown socks, they will become wards of the state.

People over six feet tall may not vote in elections taking place in any year ending in the digit "7", unless that election is held at sea.

On Thursdays people with a beard (regardless of their gender) may not go outdoors.

But, seriously, folks - the real issue here is this: "To what extent are you willing to force your own values, morals, and ethics on someone else?"

The difficulty with discussions such as this one is that the people on both sides truly believe they are right.

Some people believe that there should be as much freedom as possible, as few legal restrictions on personal freedoms as possible. Other people are firmly convinced they know what is right and what is wrong, and that what they believe should be codified into a set of laws that all must follow.

My question is this: How can anyone study the history of the human race, and the infinite capacity of man to act inhumanly to man when following a belief fanatically, and yet still become fanatic?

It isn't GAY that hurts people. It isn't HOMOSEXUALITY that hurts people. It isn't HETEROSEXUALITY that hurts people. It isn't BLUE EYES, or BLOND HAIR, or BLACK SKIN, or GREEN PANTS.

It is people that hurt people. Usually because they're so damn sure they're right.

I'm glad you agree. Now that we've pu aside the religious part of it...

Please post your article of law on marriage. And pray underline or boldify the part where marriage is a contract about "producind and rearing children".

I'd be surprised if that part did exist, but I can't say for sure, since I don't know in what country you live in. But here in Canada, marriage is a legal contract that doesn't entail having or rearing children. Your argument is thus rendered void. Look up your civil code and check if it's the same for your country.
It's not there. I was referring to child rearing as one of the things marriages are legislated to simplify. The government wouldn’t (and couldn’t baring extensive modification of the constitution) force married people to have children, it simply recognizes that a stable marriage is the best place for a child to learn and grow and try’s to prevent other laws and regulation from impeding this process.

As for my argument being void by some stretch of homosexuals not being able to have children, not only did I not say that but it would be foolish for anyone to (what about infertile couples and people after menopause who obviously cant have children either). My argument says that a homosexual has the same rite to marry as I do. For further explanation, read my first post before you jump to conclusions.

My cousin is gay. He wanted children so before he came out of the closet he got amrried, and had 2 kids. His wife was found unstable. So he has custody of the kids and they are raised very well. both A students, and good athletes.

4th: To the one who understood my username: You're either a genius or extremely dyslexic. It usually takes people months.

Don't think your the first to try it.

Also, my Aunt and Uncle are married. My Aunt has a Genetic disease, that prevents her from having children. Does that mean they dont love each other? Of course not! They have adopted 2 daughters, and live happily.

People with blond hair may not apply for a license to drive.

People with blue eyes may not shop in any store with an "M" in it's name.

People wearing brown socks may not have children. If you already have children, and put on brown socks, they will become wards of the state.

People over six feet tall may not vote in elections taking place in any year ending in the digit "7", unless that election is held at sea.

On Thursdays people with a beard (regardless of their gender) may not go outdoors.

But, seriously, folks - the real issue here is this: "To what extent are you willing to force your own values, morals, and ethics on someone else?"

The difficulty with discussions such as this one is that the people on both sides truly believe they are right.

Some people believe that there should be as much freedom as possible, as few legal restrictions on personal freedoms as possible. Other people are firmly convinced they know what is right and what is wrong, and that what they believe should be codified into a set of laws that all must follow.

My question is this: How can anyone study the history of the human race, and the infinite capacity of man to act inhumanly to man when following a belief fanatically, and yet still become fanatic?

It isn't GAY that hurts people. It isn't HOMOSEXUALITY that hurts people. It isn't HETEROSEXUALITY that hurts people. It isn't BLUE EYES, or BLOND HAIR, or BLACK SKIN, or GREEN PANTS.

It is people that hurt people. Usually because they're so damn sure they're right.

Well, seems like he kinda has a point there, I still can't say I like gay couples being married (that's because of the advantages one gets through marriage, and the hard work it is to raise those little brats - or the lack lack of hard work not having children), but he has a point...

It's not there. I was referring to child rearing as one of the things marriages are legislated to simplify. The government wouldn’t (and couldn’t baring extensive modification of the constitution) force married people to have children, it simply recognizes that a stable marriage is the best place for a child to learn and grow and try’s to prevent other laws and regulation from impeding this process.

However, that is not the only reason, now is it? These days, by far the main reason the government recognizes marriage is for legal determination of who owns what. A married couple combines their assets in such a way that no one can tell what belongs to which person. It is more convenient for the government and for the couple to not have to worry about that distinction, and to simply exist as a single legal entity. That is the reason for civil marriage.

My argument says that a homosexual has the same rite to marry as I do. For further explanation, read my first post before you jump to conclusions.

No, they do not. You can get a legally binding contract with the life-partner you live with and share your assets with and declare yourselves a single legal entity. Homosexuals live in equal relationships where they combine their assets - but you deny them the right to be seen as a single legal entity.

Your mistake is in assuming that marriage is a right of an individual. This is silly, since one cannot marry oneself. Marriage is a right afforded to a *couple* and homosexual couples do not have the same rights that heterosexual couples do.

My cousin is gay. He wanted children so before he came out of the closet he got amrried, and had 2 kids. His wife was found unstable. So he has custody of the kids and they are raised very well. both A students, and good athletes.

So let me get this strait. Your cousin married a unstable woman who he obviously had no reel feeling for used her to bring children in to this world then her usefulness lost, he dumped her, took the kids, and finally told people he was Gay? I don’t care if he is gay, bi or strait, he’s a Creep who selfishly exploited a woman in order to get what he wanted then dropped her to deal with the extreme damage he surly caused. He is the worst kind of scum.

Well, seems like he kinda has a point there, I still can't say I like gay couples being married (that's because of the advantages one gets through marriage, and the hard work it is to raise those little brats - or the lack lack of hard work not having children), but he has a point...

Why do you not agree that gay couples should be able to be next-of-kin for their partners, not lose the house they both paid for with hard-earned money just because their partner dies, and not lose the child they have raised as their own just because their partner dies.

And, here's the fun part, if you are in the US, why do you not agree that gay couples should have to pay *MORE taxes, just like heterosexual couples that get married? If you look at the tax code, middle class couples who marry end up paying more each year in taxes - not less. Guess what category most homosexuals fall into.

So let me get this strait. Your cousin married a unstable woman who he obviously had no reel feeling for used her to bring children in to this world then her usefulness lost, he dumped her, took the kids, and finally told people he was Gay? I don’t care if he is gay, bi or strait, he’s a Creep who selfishly exploited a woman in order to get what he wanted then dropped her to deal with the extreme damage he surly caused. He is the worst kind of scum.

How can you express outrage at the very action that you condone every single time you say that homosexuals have the same right to marriage as you?

However, that is not the only reason, now is it? These days, by far the main reason the government recognizes marriage is for legal determination of who owns what. A married couple combines their assets in such a way that no one can tell what belongs to which person. It is more convenient for the government and for the couple to not have to worry about that distinction, and to simply exist as a single legal entity. That is the reason for civil marriage.



No, they do not. You can get a legally binding contract with the life-partner you live with and share your assets with and declare yourselves a single legal entity. Homosexuals live in equal relationships where they combine their assets - but you deny them the right to be seen as a single legal entity.

Your mistake is in assuming that marriage is a right of an individual. This is silly, since one cannot marry oneself. Marriage is a right afforded to a *couple* and homosexual couples do not have the same rights that heterosexual couples do.

READ MY FIRST POST BEFORE YOU RESPOND PLEASE. Failing that, at least get your mommy to come help you with the big words.

READ MY FIRST POST BEFORE YOU RESPOND PLEASE. Failing that, at least get your mommy to come help you with the big words.

I have read your post - it's the same bullshit you post every time. Doesn't make it any more correct. I am replying to your post and you are refusing to rebut me.

How can you express outrage at the very action that you condone every single time you say that homosexuals have the same right to marriage as you?
The law assumes the individual has some sense of responsibility, as opposed to making what’s intended to be a lifetime commitment to serve your own selfish desires.

It doesn't effect me.

The law assumes the individual has some sense of responsibility, as opposed to making what’s intended to be a lifetime commitment to serve your own selfish desires.
So, would you be for banning trophy wives?

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

Why anyone would want to turn their relationship into a legally binding contract is beyond me too, but if a couple male/male, male/female, female/female love each other and want to get married, what the hell has it got to do with me?

So let me get this strait. Your cousin married a unstable woman who he obviously had no reel feeling for used her to bring children in to this world then her usefulness lost, he dumped her, took the kids, and finally told people he was Gay?
And you know what's really funny? The government let him. Didn't do a damn thing to stop him, because he married a woman.

Ain't that a kick in the head?

So let me get this strait. Your cousin married a unstable woman who he obviously had no reel feeling for used her to bring children in to this world then her usefulness lost, he dumped her, took the kids, and finally told people he was Gay? I don’t care if he is gay, bi or strait, he’s a Creep who selfishly exploited a woman in order to get what he wanted then dropped her to deal with the extreme damage he surly caused. He is the worst kind of scum.


No, She dumped him. He wouldh have stayed with her forever, just to make his kids happy. She was fine, until about the 5th month of thier 2 year marrige, where she started to get irrational.

Your mistake is in assuming that marriage is a right of an individual. This is silly, since one cannot marry oneself. Marriage is a right afforded to a *couple* and homosexual couples do not have the same rights that heterosexual couples do.

1. Why can't one marry oneself? Or a toaster? Seriously? I don't mean, "Because it isn't legal". I mean, why shouldn't it be legal? If some shlub wants to marry himself/herself/itself, why should we (society) stand in the way? If the guy/gal/indistinguishable person down the street wants to marry their umbrella stand, why should society deny them?

2. Do you mean that homosexual couples are not currently afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples? Or, do you mean that homosexual couples should not be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples? By what right do we (society) deny anyone the same right we afford anyone else?

It is very important to stand up, always, for equal rights for ALL. Because, once we (society) deny any right to anyone, what guarantee do we have that our own most precious right isn't the next one to be denied?

As Benjamin Franklin said as the founding fathers of the United States discussed whether or not they should sign the Declaration of Independence, "We must all hang together, or we shall all hang separately."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

It would redefine a word (and institution) that is "holy" to the majority of people, in favor of a minority definition.



In history, human sacrifices were holy too... and using religous arguments does not make sense as you cannot impose your belief onto other people.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

What would you call imposition of a law on a majority population that changes the very meaning of one of their sacred institutions.



If many people follow a generaly accepted superstition, it's fine for me, but I'm not a lemming who just follows the leader.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
A powerful minority imposing it's will on the pre-existing majority.



Wrong again. We, gay people, don't want others to marry someone of the same sex, we don't impose anything on anybody, we just ask the right to do what we want in a very personal matter. No one should choose who you can love and who not and a civilized nation should be capable of protecting its people and their freedom.


The answer, then, is something other than "marriage".

If all you want is "the non-holy parts" of marriage then invent some institution (set of laws, etc) that mimicks marriage, and make it happen.

It means the same, other than the holiness part, so that should be quite acceptable.

Or,... continue to fight for what you want.

It's the same to me.

But the question was how "homosexual marriage would affect me", and it affects me in that it imposes an unwelcomed change on a majority population by a minority subset of the population.

If you can change society to not see it as an unwelcomed change, then there is no problem.

But it should come down to a vote, not an imposition from a supposedly-MORE-MORAL minority authority.

And I'm glad you're not a lemming,.. as lemmings have a TERRIBLY hard time typing. :)

I can't say it would change much for me if gays got to marry, other than that I'd be very happy for them.

Then again, in Sweden, the issue is mostly one of religion and partly one of definition. Heteros marry, homosexuals commit themselves to registered partnerships, both institutions entail exactly the same rights. Except for one thing: homosexuals can't get wed by a priest, only by the state, which mainly bothers Christian homosexuals. The problem is that heterosexuals get to call themselves married after a civil union, but not homosexuals, even though it's the same fricken ceremony! Yeah, apart from having to deal with those f*cked up nazis who like to kill gays and people here and there who blissfully don't understand what being gay entails (including government clerks), our gay marriage problem looks pretty inconsequential compared to that of the US. But still. In practice, I think gays call themselves married here.

Finally, when it comes to religious nuts, George Carlin put it best:

"And a lot of these people are also against homosexuality. Well who has fewer abortions than homosexuals? You'd think they'd make natural allies."

1. Why can't one marry oneself? Or a toaster? Seriously? I don't mean, "Because it isn't legal". I mean, why shouldn't it be legal? If some shlub wants to marry himself/herself/itself, why should we (society) stand in the way? If the guy/gal/indistinguishable person down the street wants to marry their umbrella stand, why should society deny them?

2. Do you mean that homosexual couples are not currently afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples? Or, do you mean that homosexual couples should not be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples? By what right do we (society) deny anyone the same right we afford anyone else?

It is very important to stand up, always, for equal rights for ALL. Because, once we (society) deny any right to anyone, what guarantee do we have that our own most precious right isn't the next one to be denied?

As Benjamin Franklin said as the founding fathers of the United States discussed whether or not they should sign the Declaration of Independence, "We must all hang together, or we shall all hang separately."

In most nations, homosexuals collectively have managed to assert some level of equality, in some aspects of their lives. Try looking at India for an example of a society where this is not yet the case.

Even in those western nations that 'accept' homosexuality, homosexuals are still forbidden certain fundamental rights automaticall allowed to heterosexuals.

Chief (in this arena) is the right to marry. Marriage isn't just a religious ceremony... it is the basis for much legal authority - such as dealing with estate, the rights to speak for others, the right not to testify, the eligibility for insurance or tax status.

Also - a heterosexual can marry a partner from another country, and that person can then apply to become a citizen. This 'path' isn't available to homosexuals, so, if they love a foreigner, there is no automatic mechanism in place.

Some homosexuals are religious persons - although they may have divergent issues with some of the teachings of their church. They may want a religious ceremony - and that ceremony unites a couple in the eyes of god (to them).

If a homosexual couple wants to be united in the eyes of god, why shouldn't they be allowed? I'm pretty sure that if a god truly disagreed he/she would be more than capable of dealing with the situation on his/her own recognisance.

Last point: in the US, there is currently a move to limit marriage to "one man and one woman". This is an attack, not only on homosexuals, but also on polygamous unions - the american government is attempting to carefully word a precaution that will stop polygamous (for example, Mormons) persons from marrying.

What it means to me is that I would feel that America is actually doing something good for once, and some of my friends would have the rights they deserve.

It used to be that Blacks could not marry Whites, for the same reasons expressed here. It violated the culture and the opinion of most Americans. Fundamentalist Christians found a reason for it to be "condemned" by the bible too. Truth is, I'm a very devout christian, and there is no remaining biblical basis for the banning of homosexual marriage anymore. Otherwise women could not wear their hair down, and their heads would have to be covered at all times. IF WE ARE TO INTERPRET THE BIBLE LITERALLY, WE BETTER BE DAMN SURE THAT WE INTERPRET IT ALL LITERALLY. BUT OF COURSE, TIMES CHANGE, AND SO DO PEOPLE.

My final point in all this is...allow Homosexual marriage. At first, many people will think it is immoral and wrong, but after about 10-20 years, it will become culturally accepted, as interracial marriage was.

heh, I didn't really write much there. I guess I'm just used to having huge documents written, and that's why I added that final point thing. I usually add something like that.

You are beyond wierd. There is no desert above cheesecake, and I would kill you where you stand with my own two hands. If I wasn't such a pathetic wimp...Whoa, there, no need for dessert elitism, especially the violent kind. I like Jello almost as much as cheesecake, myself.

I don't know if other countries do handle marriage the same way like germany, but in germany married people have some considerable advantages above people who are not married the most important ones are they are (as long as I know) considered as one person for paying taxes instead of two persons and if they have children they get a lot of money from the states to make it easier to grow 'em up.
In my opinion those advantages should be only availabe to people (couples?) who are willing and able to grow up the next generation and therefor ensure the continued existance of a nation (state/country/clan whatever).Other countries do handle it somewhat similarly, however, you either consider homosexuals unfit to raise children (bigotry) or you fail to realize adoption and other means of getting kids are available.

1. Why can't one marry oneself? Or a toaster? Seriously? I don't mean, "Because it isn't legal". I mean, why shouldn't it be legal? If some shlub wants to marry himself/herself/itself, why should we (society) stand in the way? If the guy/gal/indistinguishable person down the street wants to marry their umbrella stand, why should society deny them?

2. Do you mean that homosexual couples are not currently afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples? Or, do you mean that homosexual couples should not be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples? By what right do we (society) deny anyone the same right we afford anyone else?

It is very important to stand up, always, for equal rights for ALL. Because, once we (society) deny any right to anyone, what guarantee do we have that our own most precious right isn't the next one to be denied?

As Benjamin Franklin said as the founding fathers of the United States discussed whether or not they should sign the Declaration of Independence, "We must all hang together, or we shall all hang separately."

Can you enter into a contract with an inanimate object?

As far as I know, MARRIAGE (in England, at least) is a CHRISTIAN procedure, and as such a CHRISTIAN bond. It takes place in a church, is overseen by a vicar, and in England there is no other way around. Christianity is a generally accommoatingreligion, so you don't have to be a christian to marry, however it CLEARLY states in the bible (leviticus 18) that sex outside of marriage with an unrelated human member of the opposite sex is a SIN, therefore no preist or vicar will ever endorse gay marriage by marrying two men: lev 18:22 "You must not have sexual relations with a man as you would a woman. That is a hateful sin." God quite clearly doesn't like gay marriage, which makes it WRONG.
Other countries, mostly America, ensure a separation of Church and State, ensuring that legal marriage, with all associated legal benefits, is (or at least SHOULD BE) totally independent of any religion (in America).

1. Why can't one marry oneself? Or a toaster? Seriously? I don't mean, "Because it isn't legal". I mean, why shouldn't it be legal? If some shlub wants to marry himself/herself/itself, why should we (society) stand in the way? If the guy/gal/indistinguishable person down the street wants to marry their umbrella stand, why should society deny them?

The laws governing marriage refer to two people becoming one legal entity. An individual is already a single entity, so it doesn't apply.

Now, if someone *religiously* wants to marry his toenail, I don't care.

2. Do you mean that homosexual couples are not currently afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples? Or, do you mean that homosexual couples should not be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples? By what right do we (society) deny anyone the same right we afford anyone else?


You misunderstood my post completely. I was arguing that the right to marry is not the right of an indvidual (which it is not), it is a right afforded to couples. What I meant was that homosexual couples are currently not afforded the same rights as heterosexual ones. It is wrong to afford any right to some couples and not others based on whether they are gay or straight.

The law assumes the individual has some sense of responsibility, as opposed to making what’s intended to be a lifetime commitment to serve your own selfish desires.

Yeah, but you keep saying a gay man should just go out and find a woman to marry.

And you completely ignored the point I made - simply that marriage is not a right afforded to any individual. Marriage is a right afforded to a couple. If it were the right of an individual, then I could go beat somebody over the head, drag them into the courtroom and say we were married. *I* have no legal right to be married, and neither do you. So, you're right that a homosexual has the same right to marry as you - which is none.

However, should my boyfriend and I decide to do so, we have the legal right to go down to the courthouse, sign a piece of paper, pay a small fee, and forever after be recognized by our government as one legal entity. However, as the law now stands, a homosexual couple is not afforded that same right. Therefore, it is unconstitutional discrimination based on sexual orientation - and there is no way around that fact.

But communism doesn´t work: Soviet Union has collapsed.
This is far from the place to argue communism, but I have to say that's a load of crap you posted right there. Just because a few corrupt governments that practiced a skewed form of communism have collapsed or become more capitalistic doesn't mean that it "doesn't work". If it does, I'll dig up a "democracy" with fixed elections (and a dictator) that collapsed and say that clearly, democracy doesn't work.

Homosexuality is not heterosexuality. It has no biological sense.Wrong. I suggest you read some of the many published scientific articles about why a certain number of homosexuals is good for a species. At the very least, you must recognize the fact that homosexuality occurs in hundreds of species of animals.

As long as it does not impede on my or anyone else's rights, they should live how ever they please, just like the CONSTITUTION says.

Maybe I'll get invited to a wedding and have to rent a tux. That would be kinda bad, I suppose.Yes, but you get cake! [Probably.]

Wrong. I suggest you read some of the many published scientific articles about why a certain number of homosexuals is good for a species. At the very least, you must recognize the fact that homosexuality occurs in hundreds of species of animals.

Don't bother. Kyber has been shown all the evidence before and still spouts the same bull. This is a person that is completely irrational and will not listen to reason.

As long as it does not impede on my or anyone else's rights, they should live how ever they please, just like the CONSTITUTION says.

And if a right is extended to one type of entity, it should be extended to any equivalent entity - just like the Constitution says.

(I'm sure you'll agree with me on this one too =)

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.


Thanks, I needed that.

Thanks, I needed that.

You needed to be told that having a belief different from another is ok? I feel for you.

Tolerance is not and never has been a term to force anyone to accept another's beliefs. It is a term that refers to a person accepting the fact that the another has a right to disagree with them.

No one is asking anyone else to change their view on whether or not homosexuals/blacks/native americans/women/etc are inferior. We simply ask that you accept the fact that others hold different views. If you cannot provide a rational basis for why you believe homosexuals/blacks/native americans/women/etc. are inferior, then you cannot abridge their rights to something less than what you have.

You can wish they had no rights all you want, but you cannot take them away.

Well, seems like he kinda has a point there, I still can't say I like gay couples being married (that's because of the advantages one gets through marriage, and the hard work it is to raise those little brats - or the lack lack of hard work not having children), but he has a point...

One remark... I don't know how it is in other countries, but in Belgium, you get some tax advantages when marrying and you also get some legal and practical advantages (like taking a loan together is easier). When you have children, you get money for them, 'child money' it is called and while it's not a fortune, it should make up for all troubles you have with your children :)
Another point... what do you do with heterosexual couples who don't have children? Don't they get the same rights when they are married?

--
"Homosexuality, at its core, is about the emotional connection between two adult human beings. And what public institution is more central -- more definitive -- to that connection than marriage? The denial of marriage to gay people is therefore not a minor issue. It is the entire issue."
-- Andrew Sullivan, New Republic

Originally Posted by Kybernetia
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.
As has already been said, most of the references to God in government, such as you cited, were added since the 1950's. The reason for this is quite simple. It's because of a little thing called the Cold War. Right up until the moment the Soviet Union collapsed people in the US were terrified of the "Godless Commies". It's called the Red Scare for a reason.

Anyway, the common people of the member countries of the USSR had their religion forcibly stripped from them. As the Soviet Union had stated it's intent to continue it's expansion in a mission to bring communism to the decadently capitalist countries of the world, people were terriefied of being conquered and having their God trampled in beneath the iron boots of communism. They felt the freedom to worship garaunteed them in the constitution was in jeapordy. Anyway, that's why "one nation under God" was added to the pledge of alligence.



There should be freedom, the rule of law and democracy. Whether there is happiness in once personal life depends on your destiny, on luck and also on yourself (but not only on yourself).
It is nothing society can give you, that idea is crap.
It's not a question of society or government granting anyone happiness, it's merely a question of being allowed to pursue it. Life and Liberty are garaunteed by the constitution, and the pursuit of happiness is stated as one of the founding ideals of the US in the Declaration of Independence.
Notice it says "pursuit". That doesn't mean that people should be granted happiness by the institutions of the time, only that those institutions should not prevent anyone from trying to attain it.

However, I am against homosexual marriage. But before anyone flames me, I am also against heterosexual marriage too. (Not people agreeing to start a family, just the governments involvement in it)
Sorry about lumping you in with Kybernetia, but I'm curious about something. Are you against gay marriage and straight marriage separately or just marriage in general? Do you think that gays should be able to marry with the same benefits as straight couples, regardless of what those might be? Or do you see it as not being able to stop legal involvement in heterosexual marriage, so you speak against gay marriage so the practice does not become even more widespread, even if that promotes an agenda of discrimination?

Allowing homosexual marriage will have no effect on me, because none of my close friends are homosexual. At least none have admitted it =P

Homosexuals should be allowed the same rights as heterosexuals. However, religious groups shouldn't be forced to perform marriages that they don't feel are moral. I think the best solution is to make marriage a strictly secular contract. If a couple wants to have a religious marriage, the priest could handle the rituals and then have the couple sign the contract.

The ability to reproduce should not have anything to do with someones right to marry. Perhaps the idea of marriage in the past was reproduction. This is not the past. Times change. We must change as well.

Homosexuals are no more promiscuous than heterosexuals. I havn't met many homosexuals, but I've met a lot of straight people who have a lot of sex.

Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children. Although there is still debate on this, I can say with certainty that sexual orientation is not a choice. I base this, first off, on the fact that no sane individual would choose to be homosexual in a society that thinks it's so disgusting. Secondly, assuming sexual attraction is the same whether you're attracted to a guy or a girl, I have never made the concious decision to find a woman hot. Therefore, if sexual orientation is involuntary, no amount of gay parenting will make the children gay aswell.

Saying that gay marriage will lead to people marrying televisions is the most retarded arguement I have heard in my entire life. Marriage is between PEOPLE. It is an concept created by PEOPLE for PEOPLE. A televion is not a person. An dog is not a person.

Someone suggested that if we are to accept gay marriage, we must accept incest and polygamy aswell. I see no issues with polygamy, as long as all involved parties are mature adults and each loves one another. Incest... I'm not sure. On one hand, I have the belief that love should be encouraged between anyone regardless of the circumstances. But on the other hand, there's the risk they'll have a child and the child will be horribly deformed. I'm not sure which side of the coin deserves higher recognition. Perhaps sterilization? I don't know.

Um... yeah. I think I've said everything I need to say. Sorry if I repeated some things... I sort of read 10 pages then skipped ahead >.>

Homosexuals should be allowed the same rights as heterosexuals. However, religious groups shouldn't be forced to perform marriages that they don't feel are moral.

Though the rest of your post was great, I really must get pissy about this one thing: MAKING GAY MARRIAGE LEGAL IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER OBLIGES ANY RELIGION TO ACCEPT IT! You can't just walk into any Church, synagogue or mosque you like and get them to marry you, the choice of who is married by a religion rests with that religion. THERE ARE NO GROUNDS UPON WHICH A CHURCH CAN BE FORCED TO PERFORM A MARRIAGE CEREMONY. Gay marriage is about the legal contract known as marriage, which may or may not be signed after a religious ceremony. When heteros get married in a registry office, it is still marriage, not civil unions or any other crap made up especially for them.
Civil Unions are an unsound proposal: Either it is not equal, or it is the same thing. I'm not going to trust every eejit who draws up a new benefit for marriage to tag on 'and civil unions' every time, why should we be set up to fight tooth and nail to get our economy-size document up to standard?

Um... yeah. I think I've said everything I need to say. Sorry if I repeated some things... I sort of read 10 pages then skipped ahead >.>

Don't blame you. I read it, and nothing really profound got said.

*coughbritneyspearscough*

Celebrities don't count. Their brains have been altered by space aliens to behave in ways that no sane person would consider.

:D JUST kidding :D

But celebrities still don't count in the examination of marriage. They get WAY more and shorter marriages than ordinary people. It's because they get pressured by the fame, in my opinion. But the reason doesn't really matter.

Who cares how hard you debate, the other side will not listen or care.


I, personally think gay marriage is inevitible, as gay people would just move to canada to get married.

Who cares how hard you debate, the other side will not listen or care.

I do realise that this is probably the case, but I care too much to simply stop trying. In any forum.(not necessarily this kind, but they are included)

I have read your post - it's the same bullshit you post every time. Doesn't make it any more correct. I am replying to your post and you are refusing to rebut me.

Of course I not rebuffing you, it would serve no purpose.

You may not have noticed, but my first post didn’t state my position on the issue, it did not pose any hypothetical questions and I didn’t draw conclusions from my observations. I only stated facts.

Fact: A heterosexual can marry any person of the opposite sex who is so inclined.
Fact: A homosexual can marry any person of the opposite sex who is so inclined.

This is a debating stile (if you can call it debating) that I learned years ago for dealing with hostile people. I didn’t say anything that can be debated. I stated facts that are often overlooked or ignored and, with out drawing conclusions, leave it up to the reader to draw there own.

unfortunately, the people that have been replying to me take the facts I put forward and assumed my position, even thou it was absent, and then attempted to rebuff me based on thoughts they have extrapolated from my the facts I put forward. Given there apparent inability to separate what I said from what they wanted to hear, I simply reverted to insulting them for my own selfish enjoyment. For that I apologies, I shouldn’t have expected you to understand statements that you didn’t want to.

Of course I not rebuffing you, it would serve no purpose.

You may not have noticed, but my first post didn’t state my position on the issue, it did not pose any hypothetical questions and I didn’t draw conclusions from my observations. I only stated facts.

Fact: A heterosexual can marry any person of the opposite sex who is so inclined.
Fact: A homosexual can marry any person of the opposite sex who is so inclined.

This is a debating stile (if you can call it debating) that I learned years ago for dealing with hostile people. I didn’t say anything that can be debated. I stated facts that are often overlooked or ignored and, with out drawing conclusions, leave it up to the reader to draw there own.

unfortunately, the people that have been replying to me take the facts I put forward and assumed my position, even thou it was absent, and then attempted to rebuff me based on thoughts they have extrapolated from my the facts I put forward. Given there apparent inability to separate what I said from what they wanted to hear, I simply reverted to insulting them for my own selfish enjoyment. For that I apologies, I shouldn’t have expected you to understand statements that you didn’t want to.



Wrong way of looking at it. As someone VERY intellegently stated before (don't remember who, sorry, just state your name and I'll get back to praising you :p), marrige is NOT the right of an individual-it's that of a couple.

FACT: Heterosexual couples can marry
FACT: Homosexual couples CANNOT marry.

FACT: Heterosexual couples can marry
FACT: Homosexual couples CANNOT marry.
... in the United States. Maybe The Former West is from somewhere it's legal. TFW, care to comment?

Fact: A heterosexual can marry any person of the opposite sex who is so inclined.
Fact: A homosexual can marry any person of the opposite sex who is so inclined.

This is still a fallacy. Marriage is not afforded to an individual so saying that any individual can marry xxx is a non sequitur. Individuals have no right to marry. The *couple* is the entity that can marry.

*Couples* can get married, individuals can not, so the above can be written in a way that makes sense:

Fact: A heterosexual couple can get married.
Fact: A homosexual couple cannot get married.

EDIT: Oops, looks like Goed beat me to it.

This is still a fallacy. Marriage is not afforded to an individual so saying that any individual can marry xxx is a non sequitur. Individuals have no right to marry. The *couple* is the entity that can marry.

*Couples* can get married, individuals can not, so the above can be written in a way that makes sense:

Fact: A heterosexual couple can get married.
Fact: A homosexual couple cannot get married.

EDIT: Oops, looks like Goed beat me to it.

Apparently, no one has ever seen the phrase "who is so inclined" before.
On the plus side, your at least talking about what I actually said now. And for your effort I will actually respond and resist the urge to further point out your lack of understanding of the written word.

The reason I didn’t say couple is because the law doesn’t recognize the "couple" as a legal entity. When you fill out your taxes it asks if you are single, married or estranged from you spouse, there is no option for "couple". Thus, at least as far as the government is concerned, if you are a "couple" you have the same legal standing of to uninvolved individuals.

By the way, if you look to the left of my post you will see that I'm in Madison WI. And yes, Wisconsin is in the U.S

Apparently, no one has ever seen the phrase "who is so inclined" before.
On the plus side, your at least talking about what I actually said now. And for your effort I will actually respond and resist the urge to further point out your lack of understanding of the written word.

I understand what you are saying. It is still a non sequitur. Marriage is not a right given to an individual, it is one given to a "pair" of people (since you don't like the word couple apparently).

The reason I didn’t say couple is because the law doesn’t recognize the "couple" as a legal entity. When you fill out your taxes it asks if you are single, married or estranged from you spouse, there is no option for "couple". Thus, at least as far as the government is concerned, if you are a "couple" you have the same legal standing of to uninvolved individuals.

When it comes to marriage the *pair* becomes a single legal entity - that is the entire point of civil marriage. And only *pairs can do so - you cannot get married on your own. The marriage rights are not afforded to individuals they, are afforded to a pair of individuals that choose to bind themselves into a single entity.

Why do you not agree that gay couples should be able to be next-of-kin for their partners, not lose the house they both paid for with hard-earned money just because their partner dies, and not lose the child they have raised as their own just because their partner dies.

And, here's the fun part, if you are in the US, why do you not agree that gay couples should have to pay *MORE taxes, just like heterosexual couples that get married? If you look at the tax code, middle class couples who marry end up paying more each year in taxes - not less. Guess what category most homosexuals fall into.

Well, thats the point, why should one loose the house they both paid for just because the other one dies, and for adobting children, thats another point worth of discussion, as i see it there's nothing bad about getting all those tax relieves and support Money for raising children, but the problem (at least in Germany) is this: all those government agencies for adopting children are carefull at best and conservative to the core at worst, that means the chances for a gay couple adpting a child are near zero. So until that changes I technically can't give a real statement for that.

As for your second point, well I don't live in the US, so perhaps this issue should be handled differently according to the laws of each country regarding marriage and tax advantages/disadvantages.

The reason I didn’t say couple is because the law doesn’t recognize the "couple" as a legal entity. When you fill out your taxes it asks if you are single, married or estranged from you spouse, there is no option for "couple". Thus, at least as far as the government is concerned, if you are a "couple" you have the same legal standing of to uninvolved individuals.

What? What kind of a backwards country is the US anyway? Now I see why it hasn't occurred to anyone to state that an unmarried couple can bring kids up just fine, hetero or homo. But I've had it up to here by now with all the presuppositions that parents have to be married, or at least the fact that nobody has argued beyond the point that there is no obligation to marry for sex.

In Sweden, people practicing a near-marriage institution are called sambo, which means essentially "living together with another person of age", in an implied romantic and/or sexual sense and without any binding contracts. Sambos have legal rights much like married couples, but not all of them. For instance, your next of kin inherit before your sambo does, and both property and debts are assumed to belong either to one party or the other (that part of it is pretty tricky). But you get a goverment benefit for your children, for instance - on the other hand, so do single parents. There are no tax benefits, but there are none for married couples either, income is simply taxed jointly. Adoption is freely allowed, unless the couple is homosexual. (Which has to do with the fact that all adoption agencies around the world are prejudiced, not just the German ones...)

Marriage is, for all its worth, simply a piece of paperwork that makes it easier for the state to keep track of a couple and their stuff and hold them responsible for their kids, if not much. As an old institution (but by no means oldest or the God-given answer to anything), it has accumulated so much ceremonial bulls***. Many people here don't marry simply because the ceremonial part of it costs so much, even if you're not into fancy church weddings. Considering that people divorce even though they have children, it makes no difference to the kids. Lots of kids in Sweden are living with parents who are separated and doing just fine - we do have nutters who still yap about "sanctity of marriage", the nuclear family and other tripe like that, but they're meeting a lot of resistance.

A sambo generally is considered close enough to visit their romantic interest in hospital. If our rather strict laws of inheritance were dissolved, which is an idea that is catching on, then it wouldn't matter if you're married or not. There also are enough cases in the world of people marrying just so they can get half their spouse's money when they divorce - some poor bastard a lot of pages back admitted to becoming a victim of this. If it's neccessary to determine the biological parents - not that there is any sense in assuming that biological parents are better than non-biological - there are DNA tests. So why marry?

(OT, to answer that question myself - put short, partly because there was a unique and geeky date coming up, partly because some atheist friends the same (young) age as us inspired us and partly because of a humiliating experience while staying at my inlaws' in a catholic dreghole in Italy. But in all important aspects, not being married wouldn't have changed anything.)

Ok, let's assume that the language barrier and the differences in definitions of certain words are at fault here..
Its not a problem of language. I completly understand the word equality. The equality principle would be the "Gleichheitsgrundsatz" in german law.
Now, "normal" people would say: That means, everything should be treated the same. But this IS NOT what this principle is all about. It has two sides: "To treat simular things the same way AND different things differently."
That is the legal definition according to german law.

A simular definition is used for discrimination. "Normal" people would say: It is too treat somebody worse than he deserves.
But also discrimination has to sides: the commonly used definition only adresses "negative" discrimation but not "posititve" discrimination. "Positive" discrimination would mean to treat somebody better than others because of unreasonable criteria.
So the legal definition in the constituition is: not to treat somebody worse OR better because of nationaliy, political or religious belief, sex e.g.

I hope that clariefies things up a bit: I look from the perspective of a legal background and legal definitions. Not of every-day speak.
And now I ask you: Where is the discrimination. Homosexality is not heterosexuality.
You can marry a woman as well. You are not banned from that.
But marriage as an instituition is designed for one man and one woman. That is the criteria.
Noone is banned from that.
If people don´t find a woman they want to marry, stay single or are not interested in woman or woman don´t find a man or decide to stay single or are not interested in man that is fine. But then they can´t claim the benefits of marriage (if they are any in your national law at all by the way). That really can´t be called discrimination, though.

*sarcasm*

OBVIOUSLY gay marriage is the biggest problem we face in today's world. In fact, gay people must be what's wrong with the world. It's not murder or rape or crime in general, it's not alcoholism or meth. It's got to be gay people. Otherwise people wouldn't be spending so much time debating it.

*/sarcasm*

Honestly, though, some of the statements here make gay couples sound like crackheads laying around on welfare. They pay taxes too, and straight marriage ain't doing so hot either. How could gay people possibly do anything but improve on that?

1. Why can't one marry oneself? Or a toaster? Seriously? I don't mean, "Because it isn't legal". I mean, why shouldn't it be legal? If some shlub wants to marry himself/herself/itself, why should we (society) stand in the way? If the guy/gal/indistinguishable person down the street wants to marry their umbrella stand, why should society deny them?

2. Do you mean that homosexual couples are not currently afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples? Or, do you mean that homosexual couples should not be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples? By what right do we (society) deny anyone the same right we afford anyone else?

It is very important to stand up, always, for equal rights for ALL. Because, once we (society) deny any right to anyone, what guarantee do we have that our own most precious right isn't the next one to be denied?

As Benjamin Franklin said as the founding fathers of the United States discussed whether or not they should sign the Declaration of Independence, "We must all hang together, or we shall all hang separately."

Can you enter into a contract with an inanimate object?

Can you recognize sarcasm? ;)

Honestly, though, some of the statements here make gay couples sound like crackheads laying around on welfare. They pay taxes too, and straight marriage ain't doing so hot either. How could gay people possibly do anything but improve on that?
They would take tax benefits and money from the state which ought to be spent for children and families and not for them and their lifestyle that is unproductive and can´t breed children.

You have stated some very strong expressions on this topic and i feel that you have also stated some facts , but one thing that you have not stated was that it will happen and that nobody can stop this.If you sit there and really think about it the number of gays have increased to alarming numbers.Another thing i am not with or for the gays if it is going to happen let it happen in this world we live in now anything is or will happen.God said love everyone that is why i say give them their rights before they cause any more trouble.I work with a lesbian but it don't hurt me i just wish she would stop talking about her butch girlfriend i did not go to work to hear that Bullshit.That is why this world we live in today is so Fucking messed up because we live in a world run by old people wanting to change the world to fit them it is Bullshit if you ask me.Give them their rights maybe they will stay off our backs.

They would take tax benefits and money from the state which ought to be spent for children and families and not for them and their lifestyle that is unproductive and can´t breed children.

Lifestyle that is unproductive? Homosexuals are as 'productive' as heterosexuals. 'Productivity' in this day and age is not measured by how many kids you can pop out before you become infertile. This is isn't the 15th century, you know. Have you seen the statistics on the human population on this planet lately? We're already heading toward 7 Billion people, and the growth is exponential. Frankly, the last thing we need is people saying that the be-all and end-all of somebody's life is breeding.

And again, we're talking about the United States in this discussion, where the only 'tax benefits' you get from being married are if you have children, otherwise you end up paying MORE tax. And as most homosexuals (despite the comparitively small number wanting to adopt etc.) won't be having children, they will actually end up giving more money to the state than they already do.

They would take tax benefits and money from the state which ought to be spent for children and families and not for them and their lifestyle that is unproductive and can´t breed children.

What a narrow-minded and blinkered view. Does it not matter that I have been paying taxes to support all these things, regardless of my sexuality? You seem to want everything to benefit only a certain section of society. When i see a post like this, I can see why you have trouble understanding the word 'equality'.

They would take tax benefits and money from the state which ought to be spent for children and families and not for them and their lifestyle that is unproductive and can´t breed children.

Wow. Nice use of the run-on sentence.

I know of no state sponsered programs that simply gives childless couples money (hetero or otherwise). If you're worried about losing tax money, then look no further than the current admistration. Ever gay couple getting married at once would not even compare to the damage done by the Dubya admin. to taxes in the US.

Not to mention that Dub and the gang have gutted the very programs you're thinking about.

Before i ask any Questions do i believe that gays are right no but that don't mean that they deserve to die are be taxed more or even restricted their rights they are living people to.Do you believe it is right? Do you believe that they deserve rights? If we are in a free nation why restrict their rights they are somebody to.Bush says it is not right and that it should be wrong and what is he talking out his ass , he is speaking on his own oponions not for the people or (For the people) :sniper: Bush :sniper:

What a narrow-minded and blinkered view. Does it not matter that I have been paying taxes to support all these things, regardless of my sexuality? You seem to want everything to benefit only a certain section of society. When i see a post like this, I can see why you have trouble understanding the word 'equality'.
I have given the legal definition of the equality principle according to german law. And this definition makes sense.
I don´t see the fact that marriage is to be between one man and one woman in violation to that principle.

I don´t see the fact that marriage is to be between one man and one woman in violation to that principle.

No, I suppose you wouldn't.

Why is it that we let black people get married to each other? Doesn't anybody else find that just a little bit disturbing?

Maff

What? What kind of a backwards country is the US anyway? Now I see why it hasn't occurred to anyone to state that an unmarried couple can bring kids up just fine, hetero or homo. But I've had it up to here by now with all the presuppositions that parents have to be married, or at least the fact that nobody has argued beyond the point that there is no obligation to marry for sex.

In Sweden, people practicing a near-marriage institution are called sambo, which means essentially "living together with another person of age", in an implied romantic and/or sexual sense and without any binding contracts. Sambos have legal rights much like married couples, but not all of them. For instance, your next of kin inherit before your sambo does, and both property and debts are assumed to belong either to one party or the other (that part of it is pretty tricky). But you get a goverment benefit for your children, for instance - on the other hand, so do single parents. There are no tax benefits, but there are none for married couples either, income is simply taxed jointly. Adoption is freely allowed, unless the couple is homosexual. (Which has to do with the fact that all adoption agencies around the world are prejudiced, not just the German ones...)

Marriage is, for all its worth, simply a piece of paperwork that makes it easier for the state to keep track of a couple and their stuff and hold them responsible for their kids, if not much. As an old institution (but by no means oldest or the God-given answer to anything), it has accumulated so much ceremonial bulls***. Many people here don't marry simply because the ceremonial part of it costs so much, even if you're not into fancy church weddings. Considering that people divorce even though they have children, it makes no difference to the kids. Lots of kids in Sweden are living with parents who are separated and doing just fine - we do have nutters who still yap about "sanctity of marriage", the nuclear family and other tripe like that, but they're meeting a lot of resistance.

A sambo generally is considered close enough to visit their romantic interest in hospital. If our rather strict laws of inheritance were dissolved, which is an idea that is catching on, then it wouldn't matter if you're married or not. There also are enough cases in the world of people marrying just so they can get half their spouse's money when they divorce - some poor bastard a lot of pages back admitted to becoming a victim of this. If it's neccessary to determine the biological parents - not that there is any sense in assuming that biological parents are better than non-biological - there are DNA tests. So why marry?

(OT, to answer that question myself - put short, partly because there was a unique and geeky date coming up, partly because some atheist friends the same (young) age as us inspired us and partly because of a humiliating experience while staying at my inlaws' in a catholic dreghole in Italy. But in all important aspects, not being married wouldn't have changed anything.)

An unmarried couple can have children, they just don’t have legal standing as a married couple (I would think that, by definition, would be obvious). If, as you say, marriage is unimportant than why are you posting on a thread that presupposes that it is to it’s readers.

marriage as an instituition is designed for one man and one woman. That is the criteria.

Kybernetia, why should we define marriage as an institution solely for male-female relationships? I really am interested to hear why you think that this should be.

Personally, I think that we should encourage as many stable, caring relationships as possible by recognising them legally. By giving homosexual couples the same (or very similar) rights as heterosexual couples, we acheive two things. First, we normalise homosexual relationships by legitimising them. Too many young gay men are extremely promiscuous and act rather stupidly because they feel that they are free to do whatever they please because they are not "normal". A lot of gay men have this dangerous attitude, and I think that extending the institution of marriage to include them would do a lot to reduce the prevalence of this belief.

Secondly, we would reduce the spread of Sexually-Transmitted Infections (STIs, or sometimes STDs). Less promiscuous young men means a slowing in the spread of infection - and that can only be a good thing.

Aside from the pragmatic side of things, I think that we are also obliged by the conventions of decency and reason to include homosexual relationships in the definition of marriage. Gay couples have a similar pattern to their relationships as straight couples. They devote years to each other, love each other dearly, etc, etc. However, by not allowing them to marry, we deny them basic rights such as inheritance rights and visitation rights. Now, that seems pretty unreasonable to me. After all, they are as devoted and loving as a heterosexual couple and spend as long together, so what possible reason could we have for not giving them the same rights? Is it fair in a civilised society that we let heterosexuals visit their ill/injured partners in hospital but not homosexuals? That seems pretty unreasonable to me. Equally, is it fair that we allow heterosexuals to inherit their partners' capital, but not homosexuals, even though they may have been living in the same circumstances for the same duration of time? Again, I find that to be objectionably irrational.

It seems reasonable to me that we include long-term homosexual relationships in the definition of marriage - for both pragmatic reasons and reasons of conscience. So I'd like to hear exactly why you think marriage should only be defined as long-term heterosexual relationships.

Well, thats the point, why should one loose the house they both paid for just because the other one dies,

Well, they both paid for it but it is only in one name. Or it is in both names, split 50/50. If the person who dies has no will, his/her half goes to next of kin. If there is a will, they can leave it to their partner, but the partner still has to pay taxes out the ass on it and will end up losing it.

and for adobting children, thats another point worth of discussion, as i see it there's nothing bad about getting all those tax relieves and support Money for raising children, but the problem (at least in Germany) is this: all those government agencies for adopting children are carefull at best and conservative to the core at worst, that means the chances for a gay couple adpting a child are near zero. So until that changes I technically can't give a real statement for that.

I didn't say anything about adopting children. I said losing the child you have *already* raised as your own from birth. Lesbians have babies all the time, either from a one time deal to get pregnant or from artificial insemination. Gay couples can have a child if they find a woman willing to carry it for them or one of them has been married previously. The point is that, even if homosexuals were allowed to adopt - they would not be allowed to adopt their partner's child unless they were married to that partner. So, if the biological parent dies, the partner most likely loses the child (and, even more importantly, the child loses both parents at once).

They would take tax benefits and money from the state which ought to be spent for children and families and not for them and their lifestyle that is unproductive and can´t breed children.

And again I ask, does this mean you would be perfectly fine with the US legalizing it? Because in the US, the couple would pay *more* taxes if they were married.

I have given the legal definition of the equality principle according to german law. And this definition makes sense.
I don´t see the fact that marriage is to be between one man and one woman in violation to that principle.

Of course not, because you are working off the same misconception as someone earlier in the thread was.

Marriage is not an *individual* right it is a right given to a *pair or couple* of people. If you give this right to one type of couple and not to another type of couple simply based on sexual orientation - it is blatant discrimination - and is not equality.

You keep saying treat different things differently - but you still have not answered me on why that doesn't mean I can treat black people differently. Why can't I stomp Jewish people into the ground? How come I can't just nuke the French? I mean, they're all different from me.

You keep saying treat different things differently - but you still have not answered me on why that doesn't mean I can treat black people differently. Why can't I stomp Jewish people into the ground? How come I can't just nuke the French? I mean, they're all different from me.
The idea of nuking the French seems to be very popular in the US, hehe. Well, Germany and France used to be arch-enemies in the past. And without them we wouldn´t discuss what is more important - the alliance with the US or France or (what I think) both are important and should be kept.

Anyway: a different treatment based on ethnicity, religious or political belief is not acceptable.

But that doesn`t mean that everything should be treated the same way. Otherwise it would be for example illegal to give children lower fees because this is "discriminating" adults.

Now: marriage is an instituition based on the relationship of one man and one woman. The concept of it is to have a long-term relationship with the possibilty of having and raising children.
So, naturally it is designed for one man and one woman. Is this concept unreasonable? I don´t think so. So it can remain the way it is.

And again I ask, does this mean you would be perfectly fine with the US legalizing it? Because in the US, the couple would pay *more* taxes if they were married.
If that is always true, why do people marry if it is really always a disadvantage? So there must be some advantages about it. Otherwise you wouldn´t demand it, would you?

If that is always true, why do people marry if it is really always a disadvantage? So there must be some advantages about it. Otherwise you wouldn´t demand it, would you?
all the legal rights, that's why. one would have to spend thousands of dollars and countless hours of work to get each right individually appointed for a gay partner, while a marriage license does it for free in one swoop. the money for getting these rights would go to private attourneys and not to the state, before you try to use that as a reason. it costs the public nothing to let gay people wed, and would actually increase over all tax revenue...meanwhile, the gay couples would get to spend more money on consumer goods and bolstering the economy, instead of spending it on lawyer bills.

Maybe people love each other, I dunno?

So, naturally it is designed for one man and one woman. Is this concept unreasonable? I don´t think so. So it can remain the way it is.
Since your entire premise seems to rest on the assumptions "I know I'm right, therefore you know that I'm right too", I'm just gonna ignore you from now on.

Anyway: a different treatment based on ethnicity, religious or political belief is not acceptable.

But why is it acceptable to discriminate on grounds of sexuality, but not on grounds of racial differences or political beliefs? What is the difference?

Now: marriage is an instituition based on the relationship of one man and one woman. The concept of it is to have a long-term relationship with the possibilty of having and raising children.
So, naturally it is designed for one man and one woman. Is this concept unreasonable? I don´t think so. So it can remain the way it is.

Correction: the institution of marriage is based upon many different things: love, money, legal rights and taxation, religion, power and children. People get married for any of those reasons, often more than one. Marriage came about originally to provide some of those things, and then other reasons arose as society developed. Now, if we go back to the very first marriage, it was probably for love, children, religion and/or power. Those are the foundations of modern marriage. Please note that having children is only one of many reasons that people did (and do) marry. So your theory about the reason for the existence of the "institution of marriage" (I swear, you make it sound like a university. "Where did you major in Law, Harry?" "Oh, the Institution of Marriage in Illinois") is lacking somewhat.

But do we live in the past? No. We live right now, when people marry for all sorts of reasons. Heck, quite a lot of people get married with the very specific intent of not having children. So why should we give a damn about the original purpose for marriage? A lot of couples don't or can't have kids as it is - should they be excluded from marrying? Doesn't their choice invalidate "having kids" as the sole purpose for marriage?