NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

First (and a small point) - You are working under the misconception that your personal decision that the right to marry is a right granted to a couple, and not to an individual is correct. It is not correct. It is a right granted to ALL INDIVIDUALS. Of course, in practice, there has to be a couple involved to EXCERCISE that right (even if one of the "couple" is a toaster or umbrella stand).

Second - Discrimination is NOT always a bad thing. The word "discrimination" means "1. a discriminating; making or perceiving differences and distinctions. 2. the ability to make or perceive distinctions; perception; discernment. 3. a showing of difference or favoritism in treatment." The word has come to have a negative connotation, but discrimination is only a bad thing if used for a bad purpose.

To be able to discern that differences exist is not a bad thing. To use a discerned, but purely superficial, difference in determining what right or rights a person or group of people have - that is the bad thing we mean when we use the word "discrimination" to describe something wrong. I use the term superficial here to mean that while there is a discernable difference, it is meaningless in the context of deciding who shall or shall not have a particular right.

But the definition of/use of the word "discrimination" isn't what your post is about. You are driving at the point that it is the BAD kind of discrimination to grant a right or rights to one group of people, and deny it to another based on a superficial difference. Which, as you and I know, is the reason why genocide and racism are wrong. And I could not agree more.

Although, I do think I have an INDIVIDUAL right to marry (which I excercised about 25 years ago as part of a couple. And, no, she is NOT an umbrella stand, television set, or toaster.)

II have not read the rest of this over-long, surely flame-filled thread. I have no desire to. I just want to answer the question posed by the thread creator.

I personally oppose gay marriage. I believe that ideologically speaking gender is a fundamental aspect of identity, and that none were born into a "gay" identity.

How would the outright endorsement of gay marriage affect me? It would affect me through the people around me, through the society in which I live. I strongly believe it would drastically alter the moral strength (specifically, lessen it) of our society. The family is the building block of civilization and any society. This would be a very lengthy blow to the family. I strongly feel it would lead to an even greater deterioration of values in the modern world. Something I'm not very interested in.

I know there are those who will say "Oh, but gay families are more stable than straight families"... I really don't buy into this assertion. The family has the critical assignment of rearing offspring. Not only is it biologically not possible (or desirable) for a gay couple to produce offspring, but the couple would also lack the moral ability to present the offspring with an un-skewed sense of gender identity and of individual morality.

That's my answer. I really don't care how you flame me after this (which, besides being a pun, is also fairly inevitable in a thread like this). I just thought I'd share what I feel. Thanks for reading.

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?

I don´t see it as a discrimination. Marriage is between one man and one woman. That has biological reasons, because it is the relationship with the potential ability of breeding and growing up children. Because of that it deserves special protection. And that makes completly sense. Even the old Romans or Greeces (who realy can´t be called anti-gay) didn´t have that for that purpose.
Everybody by the way is free to marry a person of the opposite sex.
But just one of course. That is the rule and it is just and logical and it is in no way discriminating anybody.
People who don´t like that concept can life their lives as they want it: living single, in a polygamous relationship, or a homosexual relationship or whatever.
The instituition of marriage can´t be designed to serve all interests, otherwise you should be able to marry yourself after all, which really doesn´t make much sense.
Therefore it is really the best to stick to the traditional values and principles.

II have not read the rest of this over-long, surely flame-filled thread. I have no desire to. I just want to answer the question posed by the thread creator.

I personally oppose gay marriage. I believe that ideologically speaking gender is a fundamental aspect of identity, and that none were born into a "gay" identity.

How would the outright endorsement of gay marriage affect me? It would affect me through the people around me, through the society in which I live. I strongly believe it would drastically alter the moral strength (specifically, lessen it) of our society. The family is the building block of civilization and any society. This would be a very lengthy blow to the family. I strongly feel it would lead to an even greater deterioration of values in the modern world. Something I'm not very interested in.

I know there are those who will say "Oh, but gay families are more stable than straight families"... I really don't buy into this assertion. The family has the critical assignment of rearing offspring. Not only is it biologically not possible (or desirable) for a gay couple to produce offspring, but the couple would also lack the moral ability to present the offspring with an un-skewed sense of gender identity and of individual morality.

That's my answer. I really don't care how you flame me after this (which, besides being a pun, is also fairly inevitable in a thread like this). I just thought I'd share what I feel. Thanks for reading.It is very, very sad that so many people are so afraid of anyone who is different. Many people share the views expressed by Powerhungry Chipmunks. And they really, really believe they are right. That's what is so sad. They limit their experience of the world by choice. They can't see beyond what is exactly the same as themselves - everything else just isn't there for them. And, even sadder, they are so afraid of difference they seek to limit and restrict others.

It is very, very sad that so many people are so afraid of anyone who is different. Many people share the views expressed by Powerhungry Chipmunks. And they really, really believe they are right. That's what is so sad. They limit their experience of the world by choice. They can't see beyond what is exactly the same as themselves - everything else just isn't there for them. And, even sadder, they are so afraid of difference they seek to limit and restrict others.

Very true, Snub Nose 38.

The word 'homophobe' really is very fitting for these people. 'Phobe' from 'phobia', meaning fear. Because that is what it is; fear. All hatred, in one form or another, stems from fear. 'Homo' here can have several meanings.

'Homo' from 'Homosexual'; fear of the homosexual.
'Homo' meaning 'human'; fear of humans
'Homo' meaning 'same'; fear of the same.

Because that's what homosexuals are; the same as everyone else in every way that counts.

I don´t see it as a discrimination. Marriage is between one man and one woman. That has biological reasons, because it is the relationship with the potential ability of breeding and growing up children. Because of that it deserves special protection. And that makes completly sense. Even the old Romans or Greeces (who realy can´t be called anti-gay) didn´t have that for that purpose.
Everybody by the way is free to marry a person of the opposite sex.
But just one of course. That is the rule and it is just and logical and it is in no way discriminating anybody.
People who don´t like that concept can life their lives as they want it: living single, in a polygamous relationship, or a homosexual relationship or whatever.
The instituition of marriage can´t be designed to serve all interests, otherwise you should be able to marry yourself after all, which really doesn´t make much sense.
Therefore it is really the best to stick to the traditional values and principles.

Hello? Did you even read my post? I said, quite clearly, that marriage came about for lots of reasons. I then explained, in some detail, that marrying for "biological reasons" is no longer (and never really was) the sole reason to marry. Got that?

Lots of people don't get married to have kids. Marriage exists for reasons other than to have kids. What part of that did you not understand?

Really, your ignoring of most of my post is verging on rude. I have attacked parts of your argument and you are just repeating the same argument. This is not how debates work! That's not how you build solid arguments!

Marriage is between one man and one woman. That has biological reasons, because it is the relationship with the potential ability of breeding and growing up children.

This argument is quite amusing, though it does lose some of the amusement after hearing it so many times.

'Marriage' has no biological reason. If we're talking about breeding here, than marriage is counter-productive. To best serve the future generations, we would be spreading our genes as far and wide as possible, to create the greatest diversity in the gene pool and add robustness to our offspring. Marriage implies a monogamous relationship, where, if we're talking about it being just for breeding, we are creating a greater chance of genetic fragility in our offspring by reducing their chances of receiving a wide variety of beneficial traits. Nope, marriage isn't for biological reasons as at all.

Once again, you fail to address the issue of heterosexual couples who do not have the potential to produce offspring. You would bar infertile couples from marrying then, yes?

And if we're talking about biological reasons here, you would also bar people from marrying who have disadvantageous traits, yes? People who are colourblind would be barred from marrying? People who have genetic predisposition to certain disorders would be barred from marrying? Heck, if we're talking about biological reasons, why not do away with voluntary marriage all together? Why don't we mate people who have the most beneficial traits to make sure their offspring have the most potential for a good life?

Do you support eugenics, Kybernetia?

It is very, very sad that so many people are so afraid of anyone who is different. Many people share the views expressed by Powerhungry Chipmunks. And they really, really believe they are right. That's what is so sad. They limit their experience of the world by choice. They can't see beyond what is exactly the same as themselves - everything else just isn't there for them. And, even sadder, they are so afraid of difference they seek to limit and restrict others.

I think you are failing to see this thing from both sides just as much as "I am".

Your smugness aside, you carry with you certain assertions and beliefs that you hold to be true. This is just the same with me, and it's just the same with the rest of us whom you are attempting to alienate. You too "really, really believe you are right". And in contrast this (I could say, should I mimic your style of polarity) "makes me sad".

Everyone who has ever lived has limited his or her experience of the world by choice. People by nature have a hard time coming to grips with, or any analog-natured derivative of that, with things which they don't hold in their personal "bag of truths". I could very easily assert that you too, "can't see beyond what is exactly the same as [yourself]".

And as I said you too are attempting to use your beliefs to change the way society works. This DOES affect me. You cannot deny this. Whether you believe it to be positive or negative effect, you must acknowledge that there is effect. I feel it's a negative one. It's my right to be allowed to feel this way. And, as a member of society I have the right to speak out and try to influence the world in the way I feel it would most benefit from. That, too, is my right.

I think we're more in the same boat than you seem to realize.


Very true, Snub Nose 38.

The word 'homophobe' really is very fitting for these people. 'Phobe' from 'phobia', meaning fear. Because that is what it is; fear. All hatred, in one form or another, stems from fear. 'Homo' here can have several meanings.


You're putting words in my mouth. I do not hate homosexuals. I do not fear them. I just don't agree with them. If you are going to be so derivative as to assume that my desagreement is caused by my (unknown to myself) hatred for them, then I suggest you seek professional help.

I don´t see it as a discrimination. Marriage is between one man and one woman. That has biological reasons, because it is the relationship with the potential ability of breeding and growing up children. Because of that it deserves special protection. And that makes completly sense. Even the old Romans or Greeces (who realy can´t be called anti-gay) didn´t have that for that purpose.
Everybody by the way is free to marry a person of the opposite sex.
But just one of course. That is the rule and it is just and logical and it is in no way discriminating anybody.
People who don´t like that concept can life their lives as they want it: living single, in a polygamous relationship, or a homosexual relationship or whatever.
The instituition of marriage can´t be designed to serve all interests, otherwise you should be able to marry yourself after all, which really doesn´t make much sense.
Therefore it is really the best to stick to the traditional values and principles.Try to see this as positive critisism. That is, don't take it as an attack on you, or whoever shared these values with you, but rather an attempt to get you to think a little more about what you've said.

A quick translation of what you've said is, "Everyone is free to do anything they like, as long as it's what I think is right."

To break it down...

"Marriage is between one man and one woman" - the fact that everyone does NOT see it that way is what this discussion is about.

"That has biological reasons, because it is the relationship with the potential ability of breeding and growing up children" - Does this mean that we should have farm animals get married to each other so they can breed? Does this mean that infertile couples can't marry? Does it mean that once a woman can no longer conceive, all marriages must end in divorce?

"And that makes complely (complete) sense". Just saying something makes sense does not make it make sense. If you and I are discussing the color of the sky, and I say that it is green - well, that won't make it green, will it?

"Everybody by the way is free to marry a person of the opposite sex." Everybody is also free to eat chicken. But, if we made it illegal for people with black hair to eat sting beans, and they wanted to eat string beans, and we told them they were free to eat chicken, how would that help?

"But just one of course." Another issue entirely. Just the one chicken, then?

"That is the rule" - according to who? Why? What if we want to change the rule?

"and it is just and logical" Saying so does not make it so.

"and it is in no way discriminating anybody." this is a false statement. It (the "just and logical" "rule" of monogamous heterosexual marriage) discriminates against anyone who wants to marry someone of the same sex - or their toaster. Or, two toasters.

"People who don´t like that concept can life their lives as they want it: living single, in a polygamous relationship, or a homosexual relationship or whatever." No, they can't, because people who think that no one has the right to be different from them have made laws that make it illegal to do some of these things in some places.

"The instituition of marriage can´t be designed to serve all interests," Why

"otherwise you should be able to marry yourself after all, which really doesn´t make much sense." Tell that to Dennis Rodman. On the serious side, why do you care if someone want's to marry themself? How does that hurt you? Or me? Or them?

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?
Marriage is between a man and a woman so it simply isnt possible to have a homosexual marriage.
If you mean some type of civil union it wouldnt effect me at all.

This debate is simply stupid.
Homosexuals deserve rights for their partners. This is something all logical people can agree on.
Religious, people(like myself) do not want ot give up the name "Marriage".
So if this for Homosexuals is trully about rights and not about sticking it to a group who is opposed to them, then civil unions with equal rights as married hets should be more then sufficient.
Problem being is it is not about rights, or the sanctity of marriage.
It is a pissing contest of morals.
RElgious far "Right" do not want to recognize Homosexual partnerships at all.(I disagree with very unAmerican ideal).
Homosexual ativists are more concerned about the label then the actual product.
Comprimise, no Homosexual marriage, instead civil unions providing equal protection under the law.
The Homosexuals recieve what they are due, and the religious protect their customs.
I am sure I will be flamed by someone, either some rightwinger for giving anything to those queers, or by some leftwinger for wanting to hold on to a word. Whatever.

You're putting words in my mouth. I do not hate homosexuals. I do not fear them. I just don't agree with them. If you are going to be so derivative as to assume that my desagreement is caused by my (unknown to myself) hatred for them, then I suggest you seek professional help.

Re-read my post. I didn't once mention your name. If you're going to assume that every comment directed at homophobes directly pertains to you, I suggest you seek professional help for your paranoia ;)

You know, a few months back some dumb-arse polititian here in Australia said that homosexual marriage went againt millenia of accumulated human wisdom.

I found that kinda funny, considering "millenia of accumulated human wisdom" also denied woman the right to vote, convinced us the world was flat, and for a while, had us all very afraid of solar eclipses and other such phenomena. :D

Just thought I might throw that in...

You know, a few months back some dumb-arse polititian here in Australia said that homosexual marriage went againt millenia of accumulated human wisdom.

I found that kinda funny, considering "millenia of accumulated human wisdom" also denied woman the right to vote, convinced us the world was flat, and for a while, had us all very afraid of solar eclipses and other such phenomena. :D

Just thought I might throw that in...

Thankyou. That was simultaneously one of the wisest and most amusing comments made in this thread today. :)

Marriage is between a man and a woman so it simply isnt possible to have a homosexual marriage.
If you mean some type of civil union it wouldnt effect me at all.

This debate is simply stupid.
Homosexuals deserve rights for their partners. This is something all logical people can agree on.
Religious, people(like myself) do not want ot give up the name "Marriage".
So if this for Homosexuals is trully about rights and not about sticking it to a group who is opposed to them, then civil unions with equal rights as married hets should be more then sufficient.
Problem being is it is not about rights, or the sanctity of marriage.
It is a pissing contest of morals.
RElgious far "Right" do not want to recognize Homosexual partnerships at all.(I disagree with very unAmerican ideal).
Homosexual ativists are more concerned about the label then the actual product.
Comprimise, no Homosexual marriage, instead civil unions providing equal protection under the law.
The Homosexuals recieve what they are due, and the religious protect their customs.
I am sure I will be flamed by someone, either some rightwinger for giving anything to those queers, or by some leftwinger for wanting to hold on to a word. Whatever.


Actually, I agree you, sort of. As far as I'm concerned (as a gay man), all those many and varied religions can keep 'marriage' for themselves. I think that the word 'marriage' should be removed from law completely, and that all civil arrangements that bear that name should be renamed 'Civil Unions' (or whatever other name you want to call it), and that this arrangement should be extended to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. This way, the religions and their followers get to keep 'marriage' all to themselves, yet we still have equality under the law.

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

.....Uh.....are you saying that your kids watching a HETEROSEXUAL COUPLE having sex would be hunky-dory, then?

Because unless your kids are watching gay people actually engaging in intercourse, I don't see what it is that they'd be "watching gay people" DO that gets you so upset. The only thing I can think that would be upsetting you if your kids saw it would be if they watched them have sex, but I can't see how it would be okay for kids to be watching ANYONE have sex, not just homosexual couples.

So what is it you're saying, then?

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

And mating between two unrelated people with a similar hereditary desease can cause mutations in offspring, but we don't prevent them form marrying.

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.

Synagogues don't perform weddings in England?

Very true, Snub Nose 38.

The word 'homophobe' really is very fitting for these people. 'Phobe' from 'phobia', meaning fear. Because that is what it is; fear. All hatred, in one form or another, stems from fear. 'Homo' here can have several meanings.

'Homo' from 'Homosexual'; fear of the homosexual.
'Homo' meaning 'human'; fear of humans
'Homo' meaning 'same'; fear of the same.

Because that's what homosexuals are; the same as everyone else in every way that counts.
I don’t remember anyone saying they where afraid of homosexuals. I also seem to have missed the part where someone said or implied that they hated homosexuals. Believe it or not the word hate is not interchangeable with the word disagree.

Oh, and I've been looking in vain for a comment in response to my observation that there was a reality show that in my opinion did more to "cheapen the marriage sacrament" than the potentiality of gay marriage.

It can't be that people were left stunned by the brilliancy of my repartee, so if someone's seen that about...help? I got lost looking for it.

Oh, and I've been looking in vain for a comment in response to my observation that there was a reality show that in my opinion did more to "cheapen the marriage sacrament" than the potentiality of gay marriage.

It can't be that people were left stunned by the brilliancy of my repartee, so if someone's seen that about...help? I got lost looking for it.
I don’t know which Reality show your talking about but you are probably right about it making a mockery of what’s intended to be a lifelong bond. Either way thou, it doesn’t have anything to do with the current discussion.

I don’t remember anyone saying they where afraid of homosexuals. I also seem to have missed the part where someone said or implied that they hated homosexuals. Believe it or not the word hate is not interchangeable with the word disagree.


Saying "I don't agree with the fact that you're gay" is like saying "I don't agree with the fact that you're short" or "I don't agree with the fact that you're Hispanic".

It may not really be interchangable with 'hate', I'll grant you, but it makes less sense, I'm afraid.

Also, believe it or not, my comments weren't directed at anyone in particular on this thread (although they do fir that troll a while back who made the comment about PERVERSION, rather well). Perhaps I was a touch ambiguous, for which I apologise, but you can choose to interpret it anyway you like.

Oh, and I've been looking in vain for a comment in response to my observation that there was a reality show that in my opinion did more to "cheapen the marriage sacrament" than the potentiality of gay marriage.

It can't be that people were left stunned by the brilliancy of my repartee, so if someone's seen that about...help? I got lost looking for it.
There are too many of them out them! Hell, they cheapen the whole western culture as we know it! That and all your horrible "boy bands", "Idols" and "Britany Spears" etc... and let's not forget the horrible slang spoken by the newest generation! Heck, people at my college speak it and I have no idea what the hell they're saying! It's like they speak a whole other language!

Synagogues don't perform weddings in England?
And Mosques, let's not forget them!

I don’t know which Reality show your talking about but you are probably right about it making a mockery of what’s intended to be a lifelong bond. Either way thou, it doesn’t have anything to do with the current discussion.

Actually, it kind of did -- someone had posted that allowing same-sex marriage would "cheapen the sanctity of the marriage bond." I told them about this show that first set people up in arranged engagements -- there were about 6 women, and a bunch of men, and viewers voted in like on "American Idol" about who each woman should be matched up with, and then the "engaged couples" got to spend a couple weeks "getting to know each other" in front of the cameras and viewers would "vote people off" each week, until you had two couples left, and whoever went through with an actual, legal marriage would get a cash prize.

Oh, yeah, and there's also "who wants to marry a millionaire" which was basically a beauty contest and the prize would be a live, on-camera wedding right away.

I was asking the original poster if it was GAY MARRIAGE that was cheapening the wedding bond, was he saying that all these things were okay because all the couples in question were straight?

Probably not. So, therefore, if it's NOT the genders of the people getting married that cheapens the wedding bond, then why use that as an argument in the first place?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Revasser
Very true, Snub Nose 38.

The word 'homophobe' really is very fitting for these people. 'Phobe' from 'phobia', meaning fear. Because that is what it is; fear. All hatred, in one form or another, stems from fear. 'Homo' here can have several meanings.

'Homo' from 'Homosexual'; fear of the homosexual.
'Homo' meaning 'human'; fear of humans
'Homo' meaning 'same'; fear of the same.

Because that's what homosexuals are; the same as everyone else in every way that counts.

I don’t remember anyone saying they where afraid of homosexuals. I also seem to have missed the part where someone said or implied that they hated homosexuals. Believe it or not the word hate is not interchangeable with the word disagree.

"..the same as everyone else in every way that counts."

It's the "..every way that counts" part that I find interesting.

This is a value judgement based on a "religious" (if you will) conviction that religion means nothing within society.

I contend that redefining "marriage" (the word and institution) harms me and my society because it is considered a "holy thing" to the vast majority of the population, and to redefine it is to "de-sanctify" it.

What I would propose is that all rights associated with "marriage" be copied to another institution, namely "union", that any two people may enter into.

This would leave the definition of marriage intact.

It would give those rights requested to those who want them.

Would you force a minority opinion on the majority..? This would be called Apartheid in any other realm of disussion.

Heres a thohght for all you ignorent closed minded peons out there that think that A) Marrage is sacred, and B) Homosexuals are evil

A) If marrage was indeed sacred... Then how the hell can people like Brittney Spears get married as a joke, or people like Jennifer Lopez, who've been married more than 3 times! Marrage in the United States hasnt been sacred for years. Open your eyes people, get your noses out of your bible and see life for what it really is.

B) Homosexuals are an abomination... Thats the biggest load of shit I've ever heard! I'm proud to be Jewish, because if I was Christian, I'd denounce my faith faster than you can do the sign of the cross. If God tells us to love each other, then how in the hell does that same book tell us to hate?

food for thought... Oh and how homosexual marrage would affect my life? It wouldnt, because everyone is equal in my eyes, love is love, blood is blood, humans are humans... God made us in his own image right? If thats so, then I DOUBT he'd accidentally fuck up and make this many homosexual people, and animals for that matter...

What I would propose is that all rights associated with "marriage" be copied to another institution, namely "union", that any two people may enter into.

Erm... I don't know if you read my other post, but that's exactly what I suggested.



Actually, I agree you, sort of. As far as I'm concerned (as a gay man), all those many and varied religions can keep 'marriage' for themselves. I think that the word 'marriage' should be removed from law completely, and that all civil arrangements that bear that name should be renamed 'Civil Unions' (or whatever other name you want to call it), and that this arrangement should be extended to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. This way, the religions and their followers get to keep 'marriage' all to themselves, yet we still have equality under the law.

See?

And no, I don't believe religion means nothing in society. I think it means a great deal. My personal opinion is that mass, organised religion does much more harm than good within a society, but that's largely irrelevant.

What people see as 'holy' is (or rather, should be) irrelevant in a society based upon secular law.

As for my 'in every way that counts' comment, I'll admit that's my opinion. I don't think that sexual orientation is a reason to discriminate against (or for) anybody. The law, apparently, agrees with me on that one.

Saying "I don't agree with the fact that you're gay" is like saying "I don't agree with the fact that you're short" or "I don't agree with the fact that you're Hispanic".

It may not really be interchangable with 'hate', I'll grant you, but it makes less sense, I'm afraid.
I didn’t say I didn’t agree with people being gay. I said that disagreeing with something doesn’t mean you hate it. Don’t read between the lines much, what I said was meant to be taken literally.

Well, it would kind of screw up the meaning of marriage. Traditionally, the institution of marriage is between a man and a woman.

Now, I don't think they should be denied rights - homosexuals should have every single right that normal marriage couples have, but you can't really call that union a marriage, because it's not. They should be allowed to...'marry'...it just ought to have a different name. No big deal.

I'm not religous by the way, although marriage *should* be taken seriously. Marriage by definition, is a union between a man and a women; the rights that go with marriage vary from country to country, don't they? Allowing homosexuals to have those rights is quite another thing from characterizing that union as a marriage, because it changes the definition of marriage which is in effect around the world...just my two cents.

I didn’t say I didn’t agree with people being gay. I said that disagreeing with something doesn’t mean you hate it. Don’t read between the lines much, what I said was meant to be taken literally.

Alright, I think we have our wires crossed here. What exactly are you 'disagreeing' with, then?

We've gotten off-topic, but what the Hell...

How would it affect me? It would greatly increase my wife's workload because companies would then have to recognize same-sex couples the same way they do tradtional marriages and common law marriages. They would be entitled to relocation benefits if their spouse is transfered from one location to another. (Oh, did I mention that my wife is in the relo industry?). It would also cut into some of my personal time, since I would have a lot more weddings to go to and gifts to buy. It would also show my daughters that all my talk of all men created equeal really does mean that.
As a society, here is the biggest effect I can see. It would finally recognize marriage as the LEGAL conract that we have made it. Marriage is no longer the sacred act of religion. We allow civil marriages and divorces every day in the United States. We even grant divorces that are not recognized by the Church that conducted the marriage ceremony (Catholic divorces). Gay marriage would force us to face that reality. That is the only "threat" I see to marriage in all of this.

As for the rest of the debates? That is a rant for another thread. I've addressed how it would affect me, I'll stop there.

Heres a thohght for all you ignorent closed minded peons out there that think that A) Marrage is sacred, and B) Homosexuals are evil

A) If marrage was indeed sacred... Then how the hell can people like Brittney Spears get married as a joke, or people like Jennifer Lopez, who've been married more than 3 times! Marrage in the United States hasnt been sacred for years. Open your eyes people, get your noses out of your bible and see life for what it really is.

B) Homosexuals are an abomination... Thats the biggest load of shit I've ever heard! I'm proud to be Jewish, because if I was Christian, I'd denounce my faith faster than you can do the sign of the cross. If God tells us to love each other, then how in the hell does that same book tell us to hate?

food for thought... Oh and how homosexual marrage would affect my life? It wouldnt, because everyone is equal in my eyes, love is love, blood is blood, humans are humans... God made us in his own image right? If thats so, then I DOUBT he'd accidentally fuck up and make this many homosexual people, and animals for that matter...
You seem a little confused about what people are actually saying. And about the scriptures of both the old testament (Judaism and Christianity) and the new testament (Christianity). However, given your aggressive tone and your blatant rage I will not attempt to correct the many problems with your statement. I will simply wait for your flaming reply content in the knowledge that you don’t know what your talking about.

By the way, if you would take just thirty seconds to spell check your posts it would help immensely.

Alright, I think we have our wires crossed here. What exactly are you 'disagreeing' with, then?
I didn’t say I disagreed with anything. I did not make a statement about myself, I simply stated a fact from which you assumed my position.
I would like to take this opportunity to ask everyone to stop doing that!

I didn’t say I disagreed with anything. I did not make a statement about myself, I simply stated a fact from which you assumed my position.
I would like to take this opportunity to ask everyone to stop doing that!

Ah, I see now... I think. Sorry about that then, my mistake. As I said though, my original post was not directed at anyone in particular on this thread. The implication that it was, was an implication of your own construction.

I'd like to paraphrase a quote that I think we just proved:

"When arguing over the internet, you must explain everything as if you were talking to a complete moron, because if you're aruging over the internet, that's exactly what you are."

Re-read my post. I didn't once mention your name. If you're going to assume that every comment directed at homophobes directly pertains to you, I suggest you seek professional help for your paranoia ;)


Your post has been re-read. I understand now that there didn't HAVE to be a direct connection between your agreement with Snub Nose and your comment about homophobia. I realize that I jumped to conclusions...I did this for two reasons:

A) I sensed that the general atmosphere of the thread would be hostile and so I was already under the assumption that most replies woud be hostile towards me.

B) slightly miffed at snub nose, and figured you were trying to gang up on me by agreeing with him.

However now that I've re-read your post and read the following,

Also, believe it or not, my comments weren't directed at anyone in particular on this thread ... Perhaps I was a touch ambiguous, for which I apologise, but you can choose to interpret it anyway you like.

and then

Alright, I think we have our wires crossed here. What exactly are you 'disagreeing' with, then?

I realize that you meant neither of those things. I hope you didn't take personally my "professional help" suggestion, since, you see, I was aiming it at a mean and malignant Revasser that didn't exist.

What I would propose is that all rights associated with "marriage" be copied to another institution, namely "union", that any two people may enter into.

The problem that arises is that this "union" would be considered the same as a "marriage" by many people. I am an Anglican in Vancouver, BC and our diocese has recentely authorized Same-Sex BLESSINGS. It is VERY important to note the word BLESSING and NOT the word MARRIAGE. Yet still, the media continues to call it Same-Sex Marriage, even though this word has never been used.

Also, on the idea of Same-Sex Marriages undermining the "Sanctity of Marriage," has any one heard of a show called "Married by America," or maybe "Trading Spouses"? I want to know how these shows DON'T undermine the "Sanctity of Marriage," because I don't see protests and rallies against these shows.

Ugh.

Although I personally HATE homosexuality/homosexual marriage, the constitution of the United States DOES allow for thier right to non-discrimination. (Although I feel homosexuals are subhuman)

Also, government needs to but out COMPLETELY of marriage. Marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution, and henceforth it is up to RELIGIONS to decide on the rules. Civil Unions are acceptable, but marriage itself is one man, one woman, promise to God (literally) that they will love each other, till death do they part, etc, etc....

Also, (and thank God for it) the Assault Weapons Ban expires either this month or november. I cannot wait to get my hands on an automatic weapon.

And, frankly, I want a tank and a Cobra (gunship). That would be sweet. No traffic to worry about. Bad gas milage, though.

I realize that you meant neither of those things. I hope you didn't take personally my "professional help" suggestion, since, you see, I was aiming it at a mean and malignant Revasser that didn't exist.

No harm, no foul. Hopefully we've cleared that whole thing up now and we can get back to our civilised flame war ;)

Ah, I see now... I think. Sorry about that then, my mistake. As I said though, my original post was not directed at anyone in particular on this thread. The implication that it was, was an implication of your own construction.

I'd like to paraphrase a quote that I think we just proved:

"When arguing over the internet, you must explain everything as if you were talking to a complete moron, because if you're aruging over the internet, that's exactly what you are."

You better be careful about saying things like that, I posted something similar once then someone replied with two paragraphs on how I had "sunk to a new low" by insulting those with mental disabilities. (actually it is kind of ironic, I am dyslexic but, thru hard work and a couple of good teachers, I have bean able to overcome it and now read and rite far better than most people I come across.)

Religion should butt out of the state institution of marriage. Period.

Religion should butt out of the state institution of marriage. Period.
"Religion" doesn’t vote, members of them do. And if you want the members to "butt out" then your left with less than ten percent of the population (in the U.S anyway). Not to mention the argument that atheism could well be considered a religion.

You better be careful about saying things like that, I posted something similar once then someone replied with two paragraphs on how I had "sunk to a new low" by insulting those with mental disabilities. (actually it is kind of ironic, I am dyslexic but, thru hard work and a couple of good teachers, I have bean able to overcome it and now read and rite far better than most people I come across.)

I think I know the quote you're referring to. The one about the Special Olympics, right? Yeah, well... I work for the Special Olympics organisation here, so I usually stay away from that one.

My use of the word 'moron' was deliberate, since it doesn't carry any meaningful connotation of actual mental disability (it used to be a term referring to a disability, but that meaning is now archaic and out of use in modern language. Like the word 'dumb' is no longer really used to refer to inabilty to speak). Whereas, a word like 'retarded' still has meaningful and recognisable connotation of actual disability... but... erm... I'm so far off topic, I can barely see the topic anymore.

As for your dyslexia... egh, I wouldn't have thought it if you hadn't mentioned it. As far as I'm concerned, you don't say things like 'R U going 2 go 2 teh shop 2? Im going 2 teh shop 2 by some f00dxors', so you're okay in my book.

Well, it would kind of screw up the meaning of marriage. Traditionally, the institution of marriage is between a man and a woman.

Now, I don't think they should be denied rights - homosexuals should have every single right that normal marriage couples have, but you can't really call that union a marriage, because it's not. They should be allowed to...'marry'...it just ought to have a different name. No big deal.

I'm not religous by the way, although marriage *should* be taken seriously. Marriage by definition, is a union between a man and a women; the rights that go with marriage vary from country to country, don't they? Allowing homosexuals to have those rights is quite another thing from characterizing that union as a marriage, because it changes the definition of marriage which is in effect around the world...just my two cents.
Ummm...let me just follow a line of thought...let's see - so, everyone has the right eat a hot dog if they want to - but anyone with red hair can't call it a hot dog. People with red hair can have a hot dog, they just have to call it, oh, let's say a "frankfurter". And every "frankfurter" will be just the same as every "hot dog". Except...maybe we can't let people eating frankfurters have ketchup. And, as I think on it, there's no sense letting them have sauerkraut - they can't raise cabbage, so why let them have sauerkraut. So, they can have all the "turkey frankfurters" - yeah, turkey only - they want, without any buns of course because they don't need buns because they can't have ketchup or sauerkraut or onions (didn't i mention that?) anyway, so there's nothing to fall off the frankfurters anyway. Say, we need to make them a different size - smaller, i think - so we know right away who has a hot dog and who has a frankfurter and a different color, too - baby blue, i think, and just as long as they don't think they can buy one at a ball park during a game like real people...

...

...

...

I think I know the quote you're referring to. The one about the Special Olympics, right? Yeah, well... I work for the Special Olympics organisation here, so I usually stay away from that one.

My use of the word 'moron' was deliberate, since it doesn't carry any meaningful connotation of actual mental disability (it used to be a term referring to a disability, but that meaning is now archaic and out of use in modern language. Like the word 'dumb' is no longer really used to refer to inabilty to speak). Whereas, a word like 'retarded' still has meaningful and recognisable connotation of actual disability... but... erm... I'm so far off topic, I can barely see the topic anymore.

As for your dyslexia... egh, I wouldn't have thought it if you hadn't mentioned it. As far as I'm concerned, you don't say things like 'R U going 2 go 2 teh shop 2? Im going 2 teh shop 2 by some f00dxors', so you're okay in my book.
No offence taken. As far as the dyslexia is concerned, you must be thinking of either a rather severe case or someone who isn’t trying at all. One of the reasons you don’t see it is because I run all my posts thru a spellchecker and them proof read them a couple of times. Its a lot of extra work but it is one of the things I learned to do to help people see (or in this case hear) me and not my disability.

No offence taken. As far as the dyslexia is concerned, you must be thinking of either a rather severe case or someone who isn’t trying at all. One of the reasons you don’t see it is because I run all my posts thru a spellchecker and them proof read them a couple of times. Its a lot of extra work but it is one of the things I learned to do to help people see (or in this case hear) me and not my disability.

Running through your posts with a spellchecker and proofreading is something EVERYONE should do.

The example text I gave was an example of an idiot. Thankfully, somebody being dyslexic doesn't make them an idiot! :)

Ugh.

Although I personally HATE homosexuality/homosexual marriage, the constitution of the United States DOES allow for thier right to non-discrimination. (Although I feel homosexuals are subhuman)

Also, government needs to but out COMPLETELY of marriage. Marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution, and henceforth it is up to RELIGIONS to decide on the rules. Civil Unions are acceptable, but marriage itself is one man, one woman, promise to God (literally) that they will love each other, till death do they part, etc, etc....

Also, (and thank God for it) the Assault Weapons Ban expires either this month or november. I cannot wait to get my hands on an automatic weapon.

And, frankly, I want a tank and a Cobra (gunship). That would be sweet. No traffic to worry about. Bad gas milage, though.

Is anyone else appalled at sharing the same planet with the author of that quote?

Arguing on the NationStates forums is like running in the Special Olympics. You may win, but you're still retarded. :)

Is anyone else appalled at sharing the same planet with the author of that quote?
I'd put money on the fact that this guy is actually for gay marriage and figured he would post what all the people against it must, by not agreeing with him, actually think but are to sneaky to say.

Some things:

They're either all civil unions, or all marriges. Seperate isn't equal.

We can't agree on weither or not to give them marrige, but most people agree on civil unions.

Therefore: You can be married, bonded, whatever at a religious institution if it chooses. You can have a civil union at a courthouse. Only the civil union provides benefits.


Any disagreement?

Some things:

They're either all civil unions, or all marriges. Seperate isn't equal.

We can't agree on weither or not to give them marrige, but most people agree on civil unions.

Therefore: You can be married, bonded, whatever at a religious institution if it chooses. You can have a civil union at a courthouse. Only the civil union provides benefits.


Any disagreement?

Sounds like the most logical solution to me, Goed.

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.

As I have explained numerous times, children are not the end-all-be-all of marriage. The government recognizes marriage because it is more convenient to view a couple that has combined their assets in such a way that you cannot tell them apart as a single legal entity. Children come into that, but they are not the reason for civil marriage to be recognized.

Your particular view says it must be a man and a woman because you have a warped view of homosexuality. But a couple that binds itself together is a couple that binds itself together - and it is more convenient for both the government and the couple to view themselves in that way.

Ohh, look, there's an empty text box! I might write some stuff here.

Families

I've never understood how allowing homosexuals to marry undermines families? It doesn't make any sense, unless you're someone who has a (probably) unconscious belief that homosexual behaviour patterns are inherently less moral, more subversive, or otherwise somehow damaging to society.

Since this doesn't seem to be the case (there's just way too many incredibly boring, conservative right-wing voting poofs out there) the argument doesn't work - it would only appear valid if your understanding of gay culture came entirely from the Gay Mardi Gras and Queer Eye. The only family I could understand feeling threatened by homosexuals is the Partridge Family. Or the Manson Family.

Marriage

This is a fascinating thing. As far as I can ascertain, nobody on this thread knows what a marriage is. Now, it's true that currently the idea of marriage among those of the Christian faiths is that of one man and one woman. But Christians are not the only religious people.

If you look at many forms of Islam (and other religions, such as Mormons), for example, marriage is between one man, and as many women as he can comfortably afford. In much of India, marriage is between a child of one sex that the other sex's parents like, and a child of the other sex that the first child's parents like. Either of them could be closet homos, and they'd better bloody well stay closet if they want to avoid being cast out and disowned.

Among Bedouin, marriage is between one man, and whichever woman he can afford using a complex cost/benefit analysis based on looks, status, and number of camels. In China, marriage is between one man, and one woman, but if you're not rich and have more than one kid, you're all kinda screwed.

In every country and every religion in the world, marriage is very, very often between a man, a woman, and however many flings and affairs they can both get away with.

Also, the whole "family means children" thing is bollocks. Any woman can get pregnant using an obliging male friend and a squirt gun. And male gay couples can, if they really want, work in advertising and make enough money to sort something out.

Does it mean that every married couple who don't have children aren't really married in the really, really, real sense?

Now, my facts may not be 100% correct in all the above examples, because that would require research. But you get the idea.

Homosexuality

Do people choose homosexuality, are they born into it, or do they have it thrust upon them? (npi)

Well, it depends who you listen to - religious groups certainly have a big interest in saying it's a matter of choice. Gay rights activists would like you to believe it's biological.

All the evidence I've seen suggests it is at least largely biological - interesting statistics about second trimester development changes in the brain of gay male foetuses (now there's an odd concept), and things like that. Also, every gay guy I've asked has said they knew who they were when they were about 8 or 9. I did read some interesting biological stuff about gay women, but I've forgotten it.

And for every homosexual child whose favourite toy is gender inappropriate at age 4, there's dozens of confused people of all ages who decide to give it a go and get it out their system. And, as I've always said, it's better out than in.

Actually, I don't always say that, but in this case it's true. It's just a bad thing when you wake up one morning and say, "Oh, honey, I've been doing some thinking - there's this queer bloke at work, and I keep finding myself looking at him. Is it cool if I go shag him senseless so I can find out if I'm some evil homo type pervert?". That's a bad look. It's a really bad look when you've been married 30 years.

Which brings me to...

Legalised Gay Marriage

There's legalised gay marriage in every country in the world. I'd guess there's hundreds of thousands of them, and they are very often destructive: they destroy families, and they traumatise children.

I wonder why sometimes a gay person feels scared, pressured, ashamed, perverted or villified for their sexuality. Well, no, I'm joking, I don't wonder about that at all, it's completely obvious. From what I've seen this thread has been quite polite and sensible in that regard, but the under-current of, "it's not normal", "it's deviant", is still there.

Elsewhere homosexuals are subjected to the sort of widespread, insidious vilification that practically no other harmless group has had to suffer for decades.

So what do we end up with? One closet gay person trying to be normal married to a straight person. That doesn't work. No matter how much both parties try and make it work, she's gonna get neck ache trying to arouse him, and he's gonna spend an awfully long time in the bathroom reading his Modern Motor magazines that he's cleverly glued gay porn pictures into.

Eventually she decides to start thinking about getting a new car, and the whole charade comes tumbling down. This happens all the time.

"I'm sorry kids, daddy and I have decided to get a divorce, because daddy likes having sex with men. Yes, that's right Hannah, he is a stupid repressed twit who should have worked this crap out before he stuck me with two kids and no employment prospects. Would you like to come and help mummy get a really good divorce lawyer? Good children!"

So let gay people be gay people and let them get married just like the rest of us can.

In summing up, I'd like to quote the immortal words of J. Lennon: "All you need is love".

Maff

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.

The slippery slope arguement is bullshit and it can go both ways.

If we don't let gays marry then how long is it until mixed race marriages are banned, some people are made uncomfortable by them. What about couples with a great age gap? Lots of people get creeped out by 65 year old men with 18 year old wives...

See my point.

Gay marriage is legal were I live and it hasn't affected me, personally, one bit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heres a thohght for all you ignorent closed minded peons out there that think that A) Marrage is sacred, and B) Homosexuals are evil

A) If marrage was indeed sacred... Then how the hell can people like Brittney Spears get married as a joke, or people like Jennifer Lopez, who've been married more than 3 times! Marrage in the United States hasnt been sacred for years. Open your eyes people, get your noses out of your bible and see life for what it really is.

B) Homosexuals are an abomination... Thats the biggest load of shit I've ever heard! I'm proud to be Jewish, because if I was Christian, I'd denounce my faith faster than you can do the sign of the cross. If God tells us to love each other, then how in the hell does that same book tell us to hate?

food for thought... Oh and how homosexual marrage would affect my life? It wouldnt, because everyone is equal in my eyes, love is love, blood is blood, humans are humans... God made us in his own image right? If thats so, then I DOUBT he'd accidentally fuck up and make this many homosexual people, and animals for that matter...

"ignorent"

..'nough said on that.

Because marriage is not sacred to you, or Britney, doesn't invalidate it for those who hold it so.

This has nothing to do with "evil homosexuals". It has to do with a simple yet profound definition of a word and institution for the majority of people, "marriage".

If the majority thought elsewise, then there would be no contention.

My proposed "union" that carries the exact same civil rights as marriage solves the problem.

Why is it resisted..? :)

II have not read the rest of this over-long, surely flame-filled thread. I have no desire to. I just want to answer the question posed by the thread creator.

I personally oppose gay marriage. I believe that ideologically speaking gender is a fundamental aspect of identity, and that none were born into a "gay" identity.

How would the outright endorsement of gay marriage affect me? It would affect me through the people around me, through the society in which I live. I strongly believe it would drastically alter the moral strength (specifically, lessen it) of our society. The family is the building block of civilization and any society. This would be a very lengthy blow to the family. I strongly feel it would lead to an even greater deterioration of values in the modern world. Something I'm not very interested in.

I know there are those who will say "Oh, but gay families are more stable than straight families"... I really don't buy into this assertion. The family has the critical assignment of rearing offspring. Not only is it biologically not possible (or desirable) for a gay couple to produce offspring, but the couple would also lack the moral ability to present the offspring with an un-skewed sense of gender identity and of individual morality.

That's my answer. I really don't care how you flame me after this (which, besides being a pun, is also fairly inevitable in a thread like this). I just thought I'd share what I feel. Thanks for reading.
Even if being homosexual were a choice only and not something that a person is born with (which you offered up as a biased opinion) how does that change their right to enter into a contract that affords them the 1049 federal rights and around 400 state rights (depending on the state)?

What possible way could allowing the 10% of our society who are homosexual to be afforded all of the same rights as the other 90% of the society affect "the moral strength" of your community?

What do you mean when you say "it would be a very lengthy blow to the family"? And can you give some examples of what you mean?

It doesn’t. And that is the real stupid thing about the conservatives’ argument against it. If somebody can tell exactly how a gay marriage infringes on their rights and their safety, then I’ll seriously reconsider my stance.

Well, first of all it would mean that the world is coming to be a bad immorral currupt place to live in. therefore it would affect me. PPl who are homosexual are just sexuilly pervertive. they want action from wherever. not to sound mean or anything. but those ppl who are homosexual need help. and fast. is is something that needs to be cured. if it is accepted into our morrel culture then that is one more step closer to all sorts of mass sexual conducts in the lifes of the children and everywhere else. sexual conduct needs to be saved for being sacred and only done with one that it is inteded for. nature even shows who that is. it is someone of the opposite sex. and yes it can be helped. ppl who are homosexual need to get some mental help. it is a mental illness. and well that is all the things that show what is against it. it is the moral tendency to live our proper inteded purposes.

I guess, no, i mean, it should not affect me, or the population in a negative way. We all are looking for the same thing, to live life to the fullest, to be in love and the pursue of happiness.
But, i guess we have some illiterate bastardes running the congress, and seem to have not pay any attention to the Declaration of Independece

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."--

(in response to the post by 'phatt 101') When you put it like that, I am forced to ask: would you support all homsexual acts and relationships being made illegal?

Ok, I've been scanning a bit, and I thought I would try to clear some things up

1) the definition of marriage. "oh, well gays CAN'T marry because BY DEFINITION marriage is between one man and one woman." to this person, I would suggest you go to www.m-w.com , merriam webster site, type in marriage and take a look. you should see something like this...


1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

according to merriam webster, it could easily go either way, so that arguement is very quickly moot.

2) "Homosexual marriage is bad because religion said so."

Umm, wow. there are a lot of things wrong with that. two main ones, though.

a) There are tons and tons of religions and sects and all that stuff in america today. I dare you to go into my family's (reform) synangogue and yell some homophobic sentence or something. You'd get beat up or at least yelled and and escorted out of the building. The fact is, not all the religions agree with the homophobic ones. Sure SOME may have origins in homophobia, but many have MOVED ON.

b) It all doesn't matter anyway, because we're americans and we have a choice to even ASSOCIATE with a religion. Most of us choose to maybe go to the catholic church, becasue we have been since we were little, and read the bible and all that. Sure a very small percentage would claim to be atheist, but also a very small percentage would claim to be really "religious" and a miniscule amount would come even close to martyrdom. Our country does not fall pray to religious dogma.

3) Just the simple statement "gays are bad."

ok, let's simulate a conversation with a baptist, let's say, robot that is programmed to believe everything that baptists believe in and only what they believe in.
Human: What do you think of gays?
Robot: Gays are bad
Human: Why do you think that?
Robot: Becasue it says it in the bible
Human: Why are you so sure the bible is correct?
Robot: because god wrote it.
Human: How do you know god wrote it?
Robot: because it's in the bible.
Human: Why are you so sure the bible is correct?
Robot: because god wrote it.
Human: How do you know god wrote it?
Robot: because it's in the bible.
etc etc....

I swear I've had about 3 conversations with 2 baptists that went just like that. And I wasn't even factoring in any of the other crimes completely disregarded in the bible today.

So, why do people care so much about gays marrying?

There are a two main possible reasons
1) They're a radical republican who needs to control others lives to make them conform to they're idea of "the perfect life" these people I blame
2) They're ignorant. I know a lot of people, who might watcha lot of tv, or even just GO to school lol. and they're told stuff that make a bad image of gays and it takes a lot of .. maybe thought or personal experience I reallty don't know. but it take s alot of somehting to change these people minds.
I don't blame these people, though they get annoying sometimes lol


So that's my basic overview of this particular issue

Is anyone else appalled at sharing the same planet with the author of that quote?

Nice to meet you to, asshole. :upyours:

Anyways, although I personally am TOTALLY AGAINST homosexuality and all things about it, the constitution states fairly clearly that you cannot discriminate against sex.

Then again, if the government does not officially recognize homosexuality, you can get around it.

I’m glad that was brought up, especially the last part about the Bible.

It might be worth noting, that God himself did not write the Bible – I actually thought that was something which most Christians accepted. The Bible was written by people writing ‘for God’, people who were supposedly inspired by God and of course the dispels of Jesus.

But anyway, that wasn't what I wanted to say. I wanted to point out that the Bible isn't at all clear on the subject of homosexuality. The Christians of all people should know that - then again, I suspect that many of them don't even read the Bible and are just sucked in by what others say...

For everyone who says that homosexuality is wrong, and explain no reasoning, aren't you just homophobic? I mean, the only reasons I have ever heard on why homosexuality is wrong were all just stupidity. Here, i'll list some:


1)

AGAINST Gays:

It's completely wrong! In the Bible, it clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination - end of story.

FOR Gays:

Yes, it does say that there. But doesn't the bible also teach us that those who hit their children love them, and those who don't hate them? Doesn't it teach us that the way to discover whether your wife is cheating on you is for you to force her to drink muddy water? Doesn't it teach us that slavery is not only acceptable but right? Doesn't it teach us that shaving the hair around your temples is punishable by death?
The Bible says alot of wrong things. You need not take it literally. And for those who don't, but still hold this viewpoint - why should you? Why should you not take some of that information literally but take the part about gays literally? You shouldn't. Trust in God, but not his so called 'Holy Book.' Love thy neighbour, don't hate him for his sexuality.


2)

AGAINST Gays:

How could anyone let this happen? I mean if two gay people get married what's to stop them from adopting a child? That is just wrong! A child needs dignity! And it especially needs both a male and a female influence! Having too much of one is just wrong!

FOR Gays:

If two gay people adopt a child then who is hurt? No one. As long as the child is loved and cared for, then it should be acceptable. To anyone who is worried about this, why don't you worry your ass off instead about kids who are raised in homes where no one loves them or cares for them?
About the role model subject, well I have to agree with a bit of that. But not most of it. I wouldn't like my kid only getting one influence. But there are other places that a child can get influenced then their parents - say, a famous person, an uncle/aunt, a teacher. And to anyone who strongly agrees that a child should have BOTH a mother and a father, and that anyone who doesn't have that will grow up to be a devil child - haven't you just dissed EVERY single parent out there? Think about it.


3)

AGAINST Gays:

It's immoral. That's enough to go on.

FOR Gays:

Well, no it's not. 50 years ago, EVERYBODY knew that it was immoral to be black, and that having slaves was fine. 100 years ago EVERYBODY knew that men were superior to women and only they could get the vote. Aren't you being exactly like those people that we now realise were terrible? You are hating someone for something that they cannot change, something that they have no control over.


Being homosexual is not immoral. Can you really deny someone who has worked hard all their life, earns a good wage, pays their taxes, is generally a nice person to most people, that they are a good person? Gay people will have done this all their lives and yet they are shunned and turned away from society for something as little as this. Perhaps you don't have to like gay people, but you should accept them. They are probably nicer people than most.

Just remember - if you are a man, and you know someone gay, he DOESN'T like you like you think he does. There is no reason to fear him.

:fluffle:


P.S. I'm impressed at this - 39 pages so far!

Good work!

Homosexual marriage affects me in that I may be able to get married one day. Not that I desire to, because not only is a "traditional, Christian marriage" against my beliefs, but civil unions, and basically any other government intstitution that favours anybody over anybody else.

I agree with many of the Pro-gay marriage posters, but I disagree with some as well. For example, I recognise that legalising gay marriaging DOES in fact have a "slippery slope" effect, but it is unlikely that a bill calling for the acceptance of kitchen appliances as suitable marriage partners will be introduced any time soon, nor one to accept incestuous or paedophilic relationships. Which brings me to polygamy.

Correct me if I'm wrong,(if you have any idea what you're talking about) but polygamy is generally taken to mean multiple marriages, although its actual definition is merely multiple partners. Therefore, polygamy is already legal, and odds are that most Christians, or indeed, one of any other creed, have practiced polygamy. Now, I believe that nobody should be meddling in the matter of how many people you choose to have sex with, who, how many times, where, when, or how, so long as all parties involved are consenting, which is why I don't believe in paedophilia, bestiality, or anything else silly little men and women choose to accuse me of advocating.

The major difference between me and other pro-gayers is that I don't care how many divorces there are, or other statistics, or any other propagandist, inflated crap. For example: 10% is gay? If you believe that, they recently did a study that found 100% of straight marriages are based on pure, true love, and not money/social status/pregnancy. Especially in India.

And I believe even the 2% figure is inflated.

Now, civil unions. I don't like them either. The idea that just because somebody has found somebody they're willing to shackle themselves to for life, they should get all these damned benefits. What about those that choose not to get married? Surely, due to the impossibility of double income, non-married, single people should be getting all the biased extra money! But no.

In conclusion, I've forgotten several points I was going to make, so I'd just like to add a fact I find interesting.

Women, discriminated against for several thousand years, have always been allowed to marry, and, in fact, encouraged, expected. They won the right to vote a long time ago. Homosexuals have always had the right to vote, so, logically, shouldn't we have won marriage already?

And, as an interesting sidenote, I have a gay friend that carries a huge purple notebook with him. It's decorated in triangles, and sports "Homosexual Agenda" on the front. Very clever.

All right, buddy, I just had to address your post...First of all, I am so sick of people automatically equating homosexuals with pedophiles and the like. Homosexuality means that people of the same sex are attracted to, and often love, each other. End of story. They are not freaks, they are not sick or mentally ill, they are interested in others of the same sex. Non-discrimination laws are great. They mean that people won't be discriminated against, usually. And don't worry, even after such laws are passed it is perfectly legal for you to go out and let everyone know how disturbed you are about their lifestyles, which have nothing to do with you. But you'll have the right. As far as homosexuals being "promiscuous by nature," what an absurd and ignorant thing to say. Many people are promiscuous by nature, be they straight or gay. There is no inclination either way, and those kinds of thoughts are frightening, to say the least. Do you believe that AIDS is population control for that kind of "sinful behavior"? I wouldn't be surprised...I just felt I had to respond because it is mindsets like yours that hurt our world. If you are against homosexuality, so be it. But to take a bunch of untruthful, hurtful generalities and and apply them to a group of people that have never hurt you, well, that is sick and sad. Just thought I'd let you know.



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.

Something else I forgot to mention. This is an arguement I hear SO often.


4)

AGAINST Gays:

Homosexuals should NEVER be given these rights they demand! Why should they be given special treatment?

FOR Gays:

Special treatment? What special treatment is that? The only thing they are asking for is something that YOU already have!

Pretend that this is strapped to my previous reply.

Or how about:

Gays are icky!

-So? Many things are, and probably more so.


I don't want to see it!

-Again, so what? I don't want to see Britney Spears, guess how I deal with that?


Gays are promiscuous!

-So go bother people who are promiscuous instead. All of them.

Here, here (to all of the three last posts).

The major difference between me and other pro-gayers is that I don't care how many divorces there are, or other statistics, or any other propagandist, inflated crap. For example: 10% is gay? If you believe that, they recently did a study that found 100% of straight marriages are based on pure, true love, and not money/social status/pregnancy. Especially in India.

And I believe even the 2% figure is inflated.

Hmmm. Indeed that is interesting, and I agree with what you are saying. Forgive me, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the '2% figure'. I thought perhaps you were referring to the survey on straight marriages in some way. Further more, where can I find further information about that survey?

It doesn't affect me at all in any way but I personally believe that restricting gay marriage is a form of discrimination

Several countries have already made it legal for same-sex couples to be married. It's just a matter of time until the rest will follow.

This affects me on a very, very personal level. When it comes to pass, I will be able to finally marry the person who I truly love and want to share my life with. We are not promiscuous. We are not child rapists. We are not any different from the average couple, except for the fact that we're both guys. That does not make us more lusty. We merely wish to live our lives to their fullest and be recognized as a married couple.

It saddens me that so many people simply do not see past their bigotry and prejudice to realize that there is nothing wrong in this. If you don't like the idea of homosexual marriage, then don't get a homosexual marriage. Nobody's forcing you to. It's not being shoved down your throat. If it is your religious belief that all gay people will burn in hell, then hey, that's fine. Go ahead and believe that. It's your constitutional right to voice free speech. However, there's a little thing in the US Constitution that states that religious beliefs and governmental affairs must be kept seperate. I don't force my beliefs on others, so don't force your beliefs on me. Kay? Marriage is a part of the government, not a part of religion. Sure, many couples choose to give it a religious tone, but it is not a requirement. Two people had their love recognized in marriage thousands of years ago, before the time of Christ or any other religion. Jesus didn't invent marriage. Athiests can be married! A Jew can marry a Buddhist.

Marriage is not a religious institution. If your religion doesn't like it, then don't practice it, and let us gay people get on with our lives.

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.

If you get married in a church here, you'll get a religious ceremony. If it's historical architecture you want, there are plenty of places which will provide a great venue for a civil ceremony, like the place where I got married (http://www.boltoncastle.co.uk/).

As you surmised, Canbury Gardens is an idiot who clearly knows nothing about UK marriage law. Incidentally, I think the "biggest mass gay wedding ever" just took place last week at the Pride festival right here in Manchester.

Did you see the "Remember Gommara" etc banners?

Bah, well they made me giggle.

then i'm glad to live in the Netherlands.. we are past this debate already.. and gay marriage is legal here and even more important it is a normal thing.. and why shouldn't it be normal?
is there love different?
are they different?
no!
so why should'nt they be able to get married like other couples?

then i'm glad to live in the Netherlands.. we are past this debate already.. and gay marriage is legal here and even more important it is a normal thing.. and why shouldn't it be normal?
is there love different?
are they different?
no!
so why should'nt they be able to get married like other couples?
And God hasn't bombed you yet?

Interesting.

God gave us liberal drug laws, so we're killing ourselves with dope, and loving every minute of it. What a way to go ;)

First to answer the question of the TS:
gay marriage doesn't affect me personally in anyway, except maybe some friends of mine can get married sometime in the future.

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

Holland has allowed gay marriage.

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

Being Dutch I have to respond to this: the gay marriage in The Netherlands was legalised in April of 2001 (that is 3 years and 5 months ago), so - if the statistic you are quoting is correct - it is not so surprising that gay marriages currently last 1.5 years on average...
Also could you give me a link to the survey that you have your other statistics from, because they sound ludicrous and I could not find anything on it on the web.

Did you see the "Remember Gommara" etc banners?

Bah, well they made me giggle.

Yeah, Genesis 19 is funny, especially if you read Genesis 18 beforehand: These people are then saying that there weren't even 10 people in the whole of Sodom who weren't gay, and obviously haven't read any of the rest of the Bible:

Ezekiel 16:

48 As I live, cackleth the Duchess Gloria, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her palone chavvies, as thou hast done, thou and thy palone chavvies.
49 Varda, this was the codness of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of pannan, and dowriness of idleness was in her and in her palone chavvies, nishter did she strengthen the famble of the nanti dinarly and needy.
50 And they were haughty, and committed dowry cod before me: therefore I lelled them away as I vardad bona.

And then there's the goings-on in the books of Samuel and Ruth.


The argument that accepting homosexuality lowers the morality of society, any society, is preposterous. Nations under Sharia law are some of the most immoral on Earth, but they're as anti-gay as any Christian Fundamentalist. Does their anti-gay go any way to mitigating their appaling treatment of women?

You know, homosexuals ARE Different.

We do not call blacks the same as whites, do we? No, we do not. (I'm not a racist, btw)

Homosexuals are different from heterosexuals. Stop saying they're not.

I do not like homosexuality. If it is by choice, it is immoral, IMO. If it is genetic, it is still immoral, and a gigantic genetic fuck-up. (Yes, I used fuck-up deliberately)

BUT, the constitution allows equal rights for all humans, even if I don't like it.

It honestly is not the government's place (in real life, anyways) to govern morality.

IMO, I wish that there would BE no homosexuals. But they are here, and they are human, so I have to deal with it.

For now.

Before people start flaming Derscon, it's nice to see someone who's grown-up enough to admit that their dislike for gays is a personal problem.










Now flame the motherfucker good.

Before people start flaming Derscon, it's nice to see someone who's grown-up enough to admit that their dislike for gays is a personal problem.

Now flame the motherfucker good.

It is a shame that most people resort to personal attacks and flames because I happen to express a personal thought that is radically different from theirs.

It is on both sides of the isle, and I know I've done it once or twice.

But oh well.

*wanders over to get fire extinguisher and fire hose*

Because marriage is not sacred to you, or Britney, doesn't invalidate it for those who hold it so.

Anyone who holds the idea of civil marriage as sacred, needs to look into their religion, because I don't know of a single government-worshipping religion.

This has nothing to do with "evil homosexuals". It has to do with a simple yet profound definition of a word and institution for the majority of people, "marriage".

That's because people can't step out of their little boxes for long enough to realize the difference between civil and religious marriage.

My proposed "union" that carries the exact same civil rights as marriage solves the problem.

Why is it resisted..? :)[/FONT][/COLOR]

The civil union idea only works if civil *marriage* is done away with altogether and only civil unions are offered for everybody. At that point, people would only resist because the word itself is important to them and they would probably find "civil union" to sound too legalistic.

Given the definition of marraige is an institution of love understanding and commitment to ones spouse it should not matter if the couple is male/female, male/male, or female/female. The foundation of marraige is wanting to spent the rest of your life with another and sharing your property with them legaly giving them rights to what is yours and giving you rights legaly to what is theirs. A big debate on freedom of choice comes into play here. Free will and freedom of choice would be violated by allowing the government to ban gay marraiges. Because soemthing is by and large considered socially unacceptable to some does by no means make it wrong or illegal. If it does then being gay in and of itself would be illegal and wed suffer a larger prision over population than we already have. Bottom line the government needs to keep its moral and religios stances out of the private citizens life. After all it was proven gays arent illegal we let them into the millitary daily if they can defend our country and are willing to put thier lives on the line ti protect our personal freedoms there should be nothing stopping them from being wed.

then i'm glad to live in the Netherlands.. we are past this debate already.. and gay marriage is legal here and even more important it is a normal thing.. and why shouldn't it be normal?
is there love different?
are they different?
no!
so why should'nt they be able to get married like other couples?
Because marriage is between one man and one woman.
The Netherlands don´t count. They also legalized drugs and euthanasia. Other countries haven´t followed and almost no country will follow that. Euthanasia is especially problematic. A method used by the Nazis by the way to get rid of the elderly and sick. The fact that old and sick people are pushed in a situation where they "want" to do this in order to suit the wishes of family and society, a situation where even mentally ill people "chose" to be killed, a situation were doctors who have sworn to keep and protect life kill people is not an example any other country should follow. Actually with this practise you are scaring people in many countries especially in Eastern Europe who falsely fear that the would be forced to implement this barbaric practise as well. The same is the case for drug laws. Fighting drugs by allowing them is like fucking for virginity.

Just dropping in to see if anything has changed in the last 30 pages or so--it hasn't.

....almost no country won´t follow that.

Yep, pretty much. Nice double negative.

I can't respect anyone that gives the bible as a reason for being against homosexual marriage.

Religion is bullshit, imo.

Yep, pretty much. Nice double negative.
Thank you that you draw this unfortunate mistake to my attention. I´ve corrected it: I of course mean: Almost no country will follow that.
And I add: even in Europe they are isolated with that policy.

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

How the hell does that effect you?

Because marriage is between one man and one woman.


That's just your definition of it...


The Netherlands don´t count. They also legalized drugs and euthanasia. Other countries haven´t followed and almost no country will follow that.


Belgium luckily did and other countries will follow soon (Canada for example).


Euthanasia is especially problematic. A method used by the Nazis by the way to get rid of the elderly and sick. The fact that old and sick people are pushed in a situation where they "want" to do this in order to suit the wishes of family and society, a situation where even mentally ill people "chose" to be killed, a situation were doctors who have sworn to keep and protect life kill people is not an example any other country should follow. Actually with this practise you are scaring people in many countries especially in Eastern Europe who falsely fear that the would be forced to implement this barbaric practise as well.


Belgium followed here too... and if you would take the time to read these laws, you would see it protects the freedom of choice of the patients and can't be executed on unwilling persons just like that. Even if you want, you have to follow strict procedures with required counselling of two doctors and there must be time between the moment you ask for it and he execution (48h I believe).


The same is the case for drug laws. Fighting drugs by allowing them is like fucking for virginity.

Don't link laws together because they are voted in one country... and there are good things to say of it...
Anyway, if you live in the US or most other countries, alcohol is legal, but if you see it from a medical point of view, alcohol is a hard drug.


One last thing... if you can't give serious (non-religous, proof-based) reasons, to disallow it, just shut up and give freedom to all.
--

That's just your definition of it...
Belgium luckily did and other countries will follow soon (Canada for example).

They are irrelevant and isolated with their positions in the rest of the world. I´ve given many arguments on the pages before, so you may just look back at this thread.

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

it would change the love and companionship part? that's the essential nature of marriage afterall.

They are irrelevant and isolated with their positions in the rest of the world. I´ve given many arguments on the pages before, so you may just look back at this thread.

canada is isolated and irrelevant?

say hello to your biggest trading partner and next door neighbour.

it would change the love and companionship part? that's the essential nature of marriage afterall.

Argh.... ;)

New Zealand is in the process of passing a Civil Unions bill through parliament.

canada is isolated and irrelevant?
say hello to your biggest trading partner and next door neighbour.
I´m not American though. And the biggest trading partner is the EU by the way: 56% of world trade is between EU and the US. And since the EU forms a customs union and 12 of its members even have one currency they have economically to be counted as one.
How big is Canadas economic part in the world? And within Nafta? And how big is that of the US?
So your relevance is quite small.

Let's stop piecemeal debunking of the idea that countries that allow gay marriage are few and insignificant.

As has been mentioned, Holland, Belgium, Canada and New Zealand have them to some extent(It's not universal in Canada and civil unions are being brought in in New Zealand). Sweden and Germany both have civil unions, Great Britain have a civil unions Bill going through Parliament. These aren't insignificant countries, or is Kybernetica going to say those are insignificant?

So don't bother saying no decent country would do it, since a great many have, and it's only the begining. Civil Rights movements usually take decades, this marriage movement has been concentrated (barely) since the millennium. That says a lot, I think.

Personally it has no affect on me at all, except maybe that it benefits the society in general by furthering equality and human rights.

I don't have any moral, religious or any other reasons against gay and lesbian people living how they feel comfortable. And if two of them wish to show commitment to each other because they love each other etc then I don't have a problem with that, and I think they should be fully entitled to the same legal benefits that heterosexual marriage already gives - as basically, I can't see any reasons/justification for not giving these to them.

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.

Ah, Okay. You got me on that point.


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).

Hm, "raised as your own from birth", that pretty much sounds like adoption, at least to me.
Artificial insemination, I don't see the problem with that, it's her child after all, and for the other thing, most of times the judges will either seek out the biological mother of that child and (if possible) ask her to care for the child. And, honestly anyone who gives her child into care to a pair of near strangers willl most likely stick to that decicion and give it into care to the surviving partner. And besides if the child would be old enough, it's up to her/him to deside where to go, and if I had to chose between orphanage and sticking to the parent(s) I know, I would stick to the second one...

Please correct me If my viewpoint of that "problem" is somewhat utopian.

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.

Lol, thats funny. :D

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?


Ya, well :) As I see it hetero couples at least can get children accidentally, and besides, the government isn't free of prejudices, so most of that government persons just assume, if you get married, you will eventually get some little children (be it accidentally or not).

But You also have a point there, perhaps that aspect of those laws should be fixed somehow.

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.

Ah well, I think I already postet my opinion about that.

Let's stop piecemeal debunking of the idea that countries that allow gay marriage are few and insignificant.

As has been mentioned, Holland, Belgium, Canada and New Zealand have them to some extent(It's not universal in Canada and civil unions are being brought in in New Zealand). Sweden and Germany both have civil unions, Great Britain have a civil unions Bill going through Parliament. These aren't insignificant countries, or is Kybernetica going to say those are insignificant?

First of all I would like to stress that the civil marriages laws of France and Germany ARE NOT GIVING CIVIL UNIONS THE SAME RIGHTS AS MARRIAGES. In Germany that would even be unconstituitional due to Article 6 of the constituition that gives marriage special protection by the state. And marriage is defined as being to be between one man and one woman.
And by the way: I consider those countries pretty insignificant. That includes my own country as well and even more the Netherlands, who are in many ways isolated with their laws and legislations (euthanasia, drugs) and are condemned for those laws by the UN actually. But well: who cares about the UN anyway.

*twitch twitch* I'm not reading through ALL 40 pages O_o Having said that(note:I tend to speak in bulletpoints. Don't let it bug you too much.)...

-I have yet to see a good reason for banning gay marriage. Religous reasons don't count(*coughseperationofchurchandstatecough*), and everything else I've seen is flawed reasoning.
-On the other hand, I've seen many good reasons to allow gay marriage(equality, marriage benifits, etc...)
-Having said that, I'm pro-gay marriage.
-Gay marriage doesn't affect anybody EXCEPT:
The couple being married(obviously)
Anybody attending their weeding(...free food?)
The governmment(who gets more taxes from married couples)
Any children they adopt(who (hopefully, but bear in mind that hetro parents who adopt can hate the children too)get a loving home)
-I'd say more, but all the good points have probably already been taken

canada is going to be voting gay marriages in when the parliment goes back into session. the only difference between gay marriages and straight ones is that there's a special not about how churches don't have to preform gay marriages should they not want to.
other than that, the rights are going to be the same.

First of all I would like to stress that the civil marriages laws of France and Germany ARE NOT GIVING CIVIL UNIONS THE SAME RIGHTS AS MARRIAGES. In Germany that would even be unconstituitional due to Article 6 of the constituition that gives marriage special protection by the state. And marriage is defined as being to be between one man and one woman.
And by the way: I consider those countries pretty insignificant. That includes my own country as well and even more the Netherlands, who are in many ways isolated with their laws and legislations (euthanasia, drugs) and are condemned for those laws by the UN actually. But well: who cares about the UN anyway.


Britain, I will have you know, has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, and was an important member of the Coalition of the Willing.

No, Civil Unions don't give the same rights, but with the extent of Catholicism in Germany and France makes it impossible to defy the Pope's statements against gay equality. Britain, it should be noted, has a Catholic Prime Minister. The only reason Civil Unions don't give the same rights is this three or four figure collection of rights would be mirroring anything up to centuries of Bills and Acts on marriage.

First of all I would like to stress that the civil marriages laws of France and Germany ARE NOT GIVING CIVIL UNIONS THE SAME RIGHTS AS MARRIAGES. In Germany that would even be unconstituitional due to Article 6 of the constituition that gives marriage special protection by the state. And marriage is defined as being to be between one man and one woman.


In France there are actions towards completely equal definitions of marriage and civil union and other countries will follow in allowing gay civil unions (Spain for instance).


And by the way: I consider those countries pretty insignificant. That includes my own country as well and even more the Netherlands, who are in many ways isolated with their laws and legislations (euthanasia, drugs) and are condemned for those laws by the UN actually. But well: who cares about the UN anyway.

Which countries are significant to you anyway?
And this is the most conservative argument possible, there allways has to be one country the first to change it, otherwise everything stays the same.
Furthermore, you're speaking about denying rights to +/- 10% of all the people, or 600 million people... rather significant, don't you think?

I'm not sure about the UN condemnation of the Netherlands, but Belgium almost has the same laws and has not been condemned.

In fact, it seems that you don't have in-depth arguments, just some political fuzzy ones.

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

Britain, I will have you know, has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, and was an important member of the Coalition of the Willing.. That is also the case for Mongolia though.
I respect Britain, but not because it is permanent a member of the security council. There are actually many significant countries in this world who are not permanent members of the security council (like India, Brazil, Japan or even Germany). The Security is not representative of todays world. I consider the UN and the Security Council as pretty irrelevant anyway. The US and Britain seem to think the same given their actions.


No, Civil Unions don't give the same rights, but with the extent of Catholicism in Germany and France makes it impossible to defy the Pope's statements against gay equality. Britain, it should be noted, has a Catholic Prime Minister. The only reason Civil Unions don't give the same rights is this three or four figure collection of rights would be mirroring anything up to centuries of Bills and Acts on marriage.
Well: your are right in France: more than 90% catholics but wrong on Germany which has about 35% catholics, 35% protestants and the rest others. Germany has a protestant chancellor - by the way not an unusual thing. Brand and Schmidt were protestants as well: We have both and there is no problem with that: Actually the Catholic and the Protestant church in Germany cooperate closely with each other today. More than everywhere else in the world. Which is in a way ironic since Germany was the country of reformation (Martin Luther).

Trdaditionally the political left has more support among protestants. So they actually don´t care much about the catholic church in many ways - otherwise they wouldn´t have passed this outrageous law. By the way: many protestant churches are also rejecting it. The government also ignored the demand of both churches too push for a mentioning of God in the EU constituition. I assume that the Polish people are going to reject it because of that. Well: and the intrasigent British do that anyway.

I didn´t know that Blair is catholic. Anyway: I like Tony Blair. I don´t care about religious faith.
I see that he really believes what he says. An uncommon thing in Europe. The same is the case for President Bush.
Blair was shurely the most popular politician in Europe before that Iraq thing. Centrist, smart well: that is what people like on the continent as well. And I still think that he belongs to the rather popular one and that his support is going to recover.

In France there are actions towards completely equal definitions of marriage and civil union and other countries will follow in allowing gay civil unions (Spain for instance).
I´m convinced that won´t happen as long as the conservative are in charge. I bet that Sarkozy - if the conservatives allow him and stupid Chirac doesn´t stand in his way- is going to win in 2007. And then he is going to ease the stupid gaullist foreign policy, he is going to try to enlarge the Franco-German alliance into a Franco-German-British one (an idea which I favour as well) and to improve the transatlantic relationship. And that is needed for the sake of European security. We are not safe regardless what we do: look at the French journalists in Iraq. It was a big mistake to allow this Iraq issue to lead to the bigest crisis in transatlantic relations and to endanger the transatlantic alliance. And that for what? For a stupid mad dictator. It would have been better if Chirac and Schröder just have shut up. Nobody demanded them to sent troops to Iraq. In the case of Chirac I have to admitt it was at least real believe to do that - well and the opportunity to deepen the division between Germany and the US - a fact they like because usually Germany has good relations to both. Schröder did it just to get reelected. And afterwards he didn´t want to lose credibility. Well: at least after the war his foreign policy has become a little bit more reasonable - also towards the US - in contrast to France veto policy in NATO which he fortunately doesn´t follow.


Which countries are significant to you anyway?).
The US for example.

And this is the most conservative argument possible, there allways has to be one country the first to change it, otherwise everything stays the same.
Furthermore, you're speaking about denying rights to +/- 10% of all the people, or 600 million people... rather significant, don't you think??).
I deny those numbers of which you have no evidence of. Even in societis like Germany where the gay movement is pushing publicly for homosexuality it is just about 3-4%.

I'm not sure about the UN condemnation of the Netherlands, but Belgium almost has the same laws and has not been condemned..
The Netherlands was condemed because of their drug laws by the UN drug committee. But who cares about the UN anyway.

That is also the case for Mongolia though.
I respect Britain, but not because it is permanent a member of the security council. There are actually many significant countries in this world who are not permanent members of the security council (like India, Brazil, Japan or even Germany). The Security is not representative of todays world. I consider the UN and the Security Council as pretty irrelevant anyway. The US and Britain seem to think the same given their actions.

The 5 Permanent Members of the UN Security Council are the USA, the UK, France, Russia and China. It is difficult to see the argument that any of these are insignificant.

The remarks about Catholicism are not to say that they are the majority, but to say that they are a significant portion of the population. Evangelicals are being targeted by the Republicans because they will vote overwhelmingly against gay marriage. Catholics in government, because of the Pope's disgusting comments, will generally bolt from pro-gay initiatives. Don't whine about getting God out of the Constitution, that was recognising the non-secular and not solely Christian nature of the continent. Anyway, the building of that constitution would have been influenced by the sort of centrists, lefties and open-minded rightists, so there would have been much less of a religious bent to the group.

Trdaditionally the political left has more support among protestants. So they actually don´t care much about the catholic church in many ways - otherwise they wouldn´t have passed this outrageous law. By the way: many protestant churches are also rejecting it. The government also ignored the demand of both churches too push for a mentioning of God in the EU constituition. I assume that the Polish people are going to reject it because of that. Well: and the intrasigent British do that anyway.


Religions became popular when people were dumb and believed everything. Many religions used this to prohibit lots of things to their people. Many religions are somehow based on promoting suffering (think for instance of the euthanasia debate). The fact that many religions still try to enforce their rules, is irrelevant to the debate. I don't deny those people to follow those (imo often stupid) rules, as long as I'm not forced to follow them too.

Do you want to mention a god in the EU constitution? It would be nothing else than enforcing beliefs on people. As said before in this and other threads, beliefs are nothing more than that: something you do or do not believe. Without any real proof, it cannot be enforced.

--
War. Rape. Murder. Poverty. Equal rights for gays. Guess which one the Southern Baptist Convention is protesting?

The US for example.


What is this based on?
Some parts of the US allow gay marriage now.
Using the argument 'it cannot as it is not yet', is just silly and extremely conservative as it disallows any changes.



I deny those numbers of which you have no evidence of. Even in societis like Germany where the gay movement is pushing publicly for homosexuality it is just about 3-4%.


Some research in Belgium came up with those numbers, but even if it's 3-4%, you're still talking about 180 000 000 - 240 000 000 million people, not a negligible small group.

--
Heterosexuality is not normal; it's just common.

Kybernetia, you are trolling.

Frequently you state "marriage is between a man and a woman" as a bald statement. Then, when people ask you to explain why that assertion should be accepted, you either ignore them or state "for obvious biological reasons".

At this point you almost always ignore them. If you don't ignore them, you provide a vague, unsatisfactory answer.

So I'm calling you on this, Kybernetia. Would you please explain exactly (and in detail, using conventional logic) why we should accept your statement "marriage is between a man and a woman".

Remember: this thread is asking why we should accept that as one of its main questions, so you need to answer it in order to debate seriously. If you don't feel the need to do so, I suggest that you leave the thread.

Don't kill the troll, it'll only get replaced with a newer, slimier and uglier one! we could even get a goblin...

The 5 Permanent Members of the UN Security Council are the USA, the UK, France, Russia and China. It is difficult to see the argument that any of these are insignificant..
Your own prime ministers things otherwise because he said that he would consider a French veto irrelevant. Given the size of Britain that means logically that you are irrelevant as well. The US would have taken Iraq without you as well. So, don´t fell more important than you really are. You have lost your Empire long ago.
Also Russia is not as important anymore as the Soviet Union was. And there are countries outside of the permanent membership who are economicall more important than many of its permanent members.
But I don´t want to discuss UN reform. Won´t happen anyway because many of the five permanent members are just continuing to ignore that the world has changed since 1945 when the Security Council was formed. Given that fact it is no surprise that is can not become a relevant instituition. It is and remains pretty irrelevant.

The remarks about Catholicism are not to say that they are the majority, but to say that they are a significant portion of the population. Evangelicals are being targeted by the Republicans because they will vote overwhelmingly against gay marriage. Catholics in government, because of the Pope's disgusting comments, will generally bolt from pro-gay initiatives. Don't whine about getting God out of the Constitution, that was recognising the non-secular and not solely Christian nature of the continent. Anyway, the building of that constitution would have been influenced by the sort of centrists, lefties and open-minded rightists, so there would have been much less of a religious bent to the group.
I personally don´t care about the mentioning of God. I wouldn´t object it however. I don´t have a problem with it and wonder why you have one. It could have been a reference to botht the religious and secular routes of the continents. It was French intrasigence who preveneted it and which may lead to a failure of this entire process in Poland (asside of Britain who is intrasigent as well). I see that the base of Bush is rather the WASP and not the catholics - especially the born-again christians. However he stresses some values which are also shared by catholics. In contrasts to catholic John Kerry by the way.

I by the way - as a non-catholic- deeply respect the pope who is great religious authority. And this pope especially deserves respect for his moral authority and his stance against communists dictatorship. It played a significant role in the end of communism in Europe - by the way to some degree also the protestant church in East Germany (which gave safe harbour to the opposition in Leipzig) and the orthodox church in Russia. So: those religious instituitions played an important role in this important changes. And they deserve respect.

But the problem with this troll is that it's particularly good at luring innocent debaters into its lair! I say kill it!

But the problem with this troll is that it's particularly good at luring innocent debaters into its lair! I say kill it!

True. It's also bad-mouthing Britain, so as a proud Briton, I say kill it.

Kybernetia, you are trolling.

Frequently you state "marriage is between a man and a woman" as a bald statement. Then, when people ask you to explain why that assertion should be accepted, you either ignore them or state "for obvious biological reasons"..
I have explained my position in many threads. So you are obviously not looking carefully. However in order to make it easier for you I repeat them again:

My view on marriage - but not just mine also the traditional view - is that it is between one man and one woman.
A man has a right to marry any woman and a woman has the right to marry any man. There is no discrimination in that principle.
Marriage is designed for a long-term relationship of a man and a woman.
And that includes mostly the potential ability that children do come out within this relationship. This can however only happen in a relationship between a man and a woman. Of course it isn´t mandatory and there are cases were people decide against that. But still: it has the potential ability for it. So therefore it is completly justified to differentiate between a heterosexual and a homosexual relationship.

That is not discrimination that is on the conterary fair and balanced and justified. Simular things ought to be treated the same way different things ought to be treated differently - that are the TWO SIDES of the equality principle according to german law. Most people only know the first but forget the second. But it is logical that it has two sides - because not all things in this world are simular after all. If we allow gay marriage the next thing would be polygamy or pedophilia or other things.
We have to remain a clear position and a consequent position: and that is given by the definition of marriage as to be between one man and one woman. And as I´ve pointed out this definition is completly justified and in no way discriminating. And therefore I see the argumentation and the demands of the gay movement as outrageous.

Last year, the Right to Die bill was just defeated in New Zealand parliament. Also, the current Labor-led government has refused several times to look at legalizing cannabis.

Mind you, a Prostitution Reform bill was passed last year. This has made it legal to operate brothels – providing the appropriate government departments can check-up periodically on your operations etc.
(The sale of sex has always been legal in New Zealand – just operating brothels was illegal. It is interesting to note that since the reform bill, prostitution has neither decreased nor in increased.)

As far as the government goes, the current Prime Minister is an atheist, as is the leader of the traditionally conservative National party (he voted for Civil Unions and Prostitution Reform – as did a few other MP’s in his caucus). However, there are plenty of Christian MP’s in parliament who were/are divided on these issues.

The country is generally evenly divided when it comes to religion, I think only 50% of the population is Christian and the rest atheist or other. I would have to look up the exact statistics.

Anyway, just thought that information might be of interest…

True. It's also bad-mouthing Britain, so as a proud Briton, I say kill it.
Where do I do that. When I point out that you are not as important as the US and that you don´t rule over an Empire any more I´m not bad-mouthing Britain. I just tell you the truth. You obviously don´t like the truth. But it doesn´t change it, though.

So all knives should be illegal, because they have the potential to kill, regardless of other uses? Marriage is used to establish kinship and shared property, to allow two people to share their lives in a viable way.

If I shared a house with a male lover and it was in his name, what happens if, when we're both much older, he dies or becomes terminally ill? What am I supposed to do, with no grandchildren, no legal claim on the estate, with an autistic younger brother to support? WHAT?

Where do I do that. When I point out that you are not as important as the US and that you don´t rule over an Empire any more I´m not bad-mouthing Britain. I just tell you the truth. You obviously don´t like the truth. But it doesn´t change it, though.

The word you used was irrelevant. It was a cheap and nasty fallacy to discredit the idea that our society is developed enough to make a decision on gay marriage. That is trolling.

The word you used was irrelevant. It was a cheap and nasty fallacy to discredit the idea that our society is developed enough to make a decision on gay marriage. That is trolling.
No, you missed the comparison. I quoted your prime minister who said that a French veto would irrelevant. So - aside of the issue itself - if a French veto can be considered irrelevant - which it legaly can´t actually - why should a theoretical British veto considered to have more weight than French one given the fact that both countries are equal in size and military strenght?
So: you are irrelevant as France.
Or in other words as relevant as France.
What ever you prefer.

I have explained my position in many threads. So you are obviously not looking carefully. However in order to make it easier for you I repeat them again:

My view on marriage - but not just mine also the traditional view - is that it is between one man and one woman.
A man has a right to marry any woman and a woman has the right to marry any man. There is no discrimination in that principle.
Marriage is designed for a long-term relationship of a man and a woman.
And that includes mostly the potential ability that children do come out within this relationship. This can however only happen in a relationship between a man and a woman. Of course it isn´t mandatory and there are cases were people decide against that. But still: it has the potential ability for it. So therefore it is completly justified to differentiate between a heterosexual and a homosexual relationship.

That is not discrimination that is on the conterary fair and balanced and justified. Simular things ought to be treated the same way different things ought to be treated differently - that are the TWO SIDES of the equality principle according to german law. Most people only know the first but forget the second. But it is logical that it has two sides - because not all things in this world are simular after all. If we allow gay marriage the next thing would be polygamy or pedophilia or other things.
We have to remain a clear position and a consequent position: and that is given by the definition of marriage as to be between one man and one woman. And as I´ve pointed out this definition is completly justified and in no way discriminating. And therefore I see the argumentation and the demands of the gay movement as outrageous.

Your view on marriage is outdated and bigoted, to be quite frank. I'm sorry to have to be so frank, but it is. Marriage does not have to be between a man and a woman. States are free to make laws that extend it beyond this opening up equality and human rights for all of their citizens.

The argument that making gay people equal with the rest of us will lead to polygamy and paedophilia is plainly ludicrous.

I'm sure people dismissed black civil rights activists during their struggle for equality as "outrageous" and quoted that white people were superior because this was the "traditional" view, but, as I've said before, I'm sure that most people will acknowledge that this was an abhorrant opinion. I'm sure that in the future most people will think the same about this debate.

Your view on marriage is outdated and bigoted, to be quite frank. I'm sorry to have to be so frank, but it is. Marriage does not have to be between a man and a woman. States are free to make laws that extend it beyond this opening up equality and human rights for all of their citizens.

The argument that making gay people equal with the rest of us will lead to polygamy and paedophilia is plainly ludicrous.

I'm sure people dismissed black civil rights activists during their struggle for equality as "outrageous" and quoted that white people were superior because this was the "traditional" view, but, as I've said before, I'm sure that most people will acknowledge that this was an abhorrant opinion. I'm sure that in the future most people will think the same about this debate.

Indeed. That last paragraph made a very good point. Don't forget also that not so long ago women did not hold the equal rights they hold now. The conservatives of the day would quote the Bible and so forth, just as the conservatives of today do when it comes to gay rights.

Your view on marriage is outdated and bigoted, to be quite frank. I'm sorry to have to be so frank, but it is. Marriage does not have to be between a man and a woman. States are free to make laws that extend it beyond this opening up equality and human rights for all of their citizens..
Aside of the fact that I strongly disagree with you I´ve not anything against a political debatte. However: Would you be able to accept the result if you lost the battle about public opinion?

The argument that making gay people equal with the rest of us will lead to polygamy and paedophilia is plainly ludicrous...
First of all: I pointed out that I don`t see any discrimination in the definition of marriage. A woman can marry a man - regardless of faith, nationality, religion, e.g. and a man can marry any woman regardless of that.
Marriage is designed for that. It is not possible to make it in a way that it fits for all kinds of relationships.
So: if it is about love and life style: Why not allowing polygamy as well. Wouldn´t that be in your words the denial of equal rights as well.
I don´t see that: Equality doesn´t mean to treat everything same. I means to treat simular things the same way and different things differently.
So: the dispute is here: is it to be seen as simular or more as different. That is open for debate. And I´m shure that most people in Europe and the world would clearly see it as different.

I'm sure people dismissed black civil rights activists during their struggle for equality as "outrageous" and quoted that white people were superior because this was the "traditional" view, but, as I've said before, I'm sure that most people will acknowledge that this was an abhorrant opinion. I'm sure that in the future most people will think the same about this debate.
I see that as a very poor argument. Obviously you don´t have some on the issue itself and you try to make false historic comparisions. Many people of the civil rights movement have strongly rejected the comparison of their struggle with the homosexuals demanding marriage.
So, probably they have turn racists, or what? This argumentation is just nonsense and is done in order to detract from the fact that you don´t have a sufficient argument on the issue itself.

I see that as a very poor argument. Obviously you don´t have some on the issue itself and you try to make false historic comparisions. Many people of the civil rights movement have strongly rejected the comparison of their struggle with the homosexuals demanding marriage.
So, probably they have turn racists, or what? This argumentation is just nonsense and is done in order to detract from the fact that you don´t have a sufficient argument on the issue itself.

Essentially the argument is very simple.
I see no reason why gay/lesbian people should be denied the same rights as the rest of society.
I can see no possible harm to society if gay and lesbian people were to be allowed to state their commitment to each other in the same way as the rest of us, and to receive the same tax/inheritance benefits as the rest of us.

That's it, as simple as that. It's about equality. Why shouldn't what is already offered to the majority be extended to the minority?

Linking gay/lesbian people to polygomy and paediphilia to me, is just offensive, as if stating that the homosexual community are some how more perverse than the rest of us.

Essentially the argument is very simple.
I see no reason why gay/lesbian people should be denied the same rights as the rest of society.
I can see no possible harm to society if gay and lesbian people were to be allowed to state their commitment to each other in the same way as the rest of us, and to receive the same tax/inheritance benefits as the rest of us.

That's it, as simple as that. It's about equality. Why shouldn't what is already offered to the majority be extended to the minority?

Linking gay/lesbian people to polygomy and paediphilia to me, is just offensive, as if stating that the homosexual community are some how more perverse than the rest of us.
OK. Lets leave pedophilia out. But why would you allow gay marriage and not polygamy. Isn´t that in your interpretation of things not also a violation of their right to legally bind their polygamous relationship?

OK. Lets leave pedophilia out. But why would you allow gay marriage and not polygamy. Isn´t that in your interpretation of things not also a violation of their right to legally bind their polygamous relationship?

I know this will annoy you, but I don't really think it's relevant. I haven't heard any major calls for it to be legalised.
The issue about gay marriage is simply that of extending a human right that we heterosexual people have already to the rest of the society so that no one is excluded from it.

Where do I do that. When I point out that you are not as important as the US and that you don´t rule over an Empire any more I´m not bad-mouthing Britain. I just tell you the truth. You obviously don´t like the truth. But it doesn´t change it, though.

Britain is not as important as the US, TO the US.

Let's face it, most Americans have no idea what goes on outside their borders.

In fact, most Americans I have met have been surprised to find out that Britain is bigger than most individual states of the US, and has approximately a quarter as many people.

To America - Britain is a quaint little village, with about 100 people and some ducks.

(World Series Baseball - but only America get's to play...)

OK. Lets leave pedophilia out. But why would you allow gay marriage and not polygamy. Isn´t that in your interpretation of things not also a violation of their right to legally bind their polygamous relationship?

What would be so bad about allowing polygamy anyway? It's between consenting adults...

Britain is not as important as the US, TO the US.
Let's face it, most Americans have no idea what goes on outside their borders.
In fact, most Americans I have met have been surprised to find out that Britain is bigger than most individual states of the US, and has approximately a quarter as many people.
To America - Britain is a quaint little village, with about 100 people and some ducks.
(World Series Baseball - but only America get's to play...)
Well: false images exists all around the world against nations and nationalities: The French are arrogant cowards who had to fight all major wars since after Napoleon on their territory and were humilitately defeated once and once even occupied by the Germans.
The Germans are Huns or Nazis - well: or actually a bit more posetivly: like the Amish, wish is of course the biggest nonsense as well.
The Russians are all wodko-drinking alcoholics, the chinese are drones - who work very efficiantly but don´t have indivuality, the Japanese are still Samurai, the Italians are Mafiosi, the Arabs terrorists and the Americans cowboys who shot before they think.

What would be so bad about allowing polygamy anyway? It's between consenting adults...
It is not about allowing it: it is not banned to life a promiscous life style. It is not banned to be homosexual.
The question however is whether this deserves special legal protection (or even tax benefits) from the state. And for reasons I explained in earlier posts already I think that should be reserved for a relationship of one man and one woman - And that is marriage.

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 wouldnt effect me only the religious nutcases who support Bush.

Well: false images exists all around the world against nations and nationalities: The French are arrogant cowards who had to fight all major wars since after Napoleon on their territory and were humilitately defeated once and once even occupied by the Germans.
The Germans are Huns or Nazis - well: or actually a bit more posetivly: like the Amish, wish is of course the biggest nonsense as well.
The Russians are all wodko-drinking alcoholics, the chinese are drones - who work very efficiantly but don´t have indivuality, the Japanese are still Samurai, the Italians are Mafiosi, the Arabs terrorists and the Americans cowboys who shot before they think.

Interesting... you combat my suggestion that you are falling prey to culture stereotyping.... by stereotyping the Germans, French, Russians, Italians... and a host of others...

This is why you think "the US is most important"?

It is not about allowing it: it is not banned to life a promiscous life style. It is not banned to be homosexual.
The question however is whether this deserves special legal protection (or even tax benefits) from the state. And for reasons I explained in earlier posts already I think that should be reserved for a relationship of one man and one woman - And that is marriage.

That is your definition of marriage.

That is the definition that Bush proposes.

There are, however, a world of cultures that disagree.

And I don't think you are worried so much about legal protection... more worried about people you perceive as 'bad' somehow getting in on your territory.

You don't complain about heterosexuals getting "Special Legal Protection" from marriage - but you would deliberately refuse those same rights to someone PURELY on the grounds of their sexuality.

Also - at least part of the tax-break thing is to protect families. By opposing tax breaks for gay couples (in the form of granting the same tax breaks to same-sex marriage), you effectively INCREASE the tax burden on children of gay parents.

It is ironic to me that this argument is at it's strongest in a nation that calls itself christian... since Jesus is supposedly returning to Marry the whole Church.... same sex AND polygamy. Nice example, Jesus.

Interesting... you combat my suggestion that you are falling prey to culture stereotyping.... by stereotyping the Germans, French, Russians, Italians... and a host of others...
This is why you think "the US is most important"?
I was rejecting those stereotyping but I pointed out that they not only exists in the US but also in the rest of the world - and I didn´t spear my country after all.
Anyway: The US is most important because it is the most powerful country and because it has with its culture (some would say "so-called culture" or fast-food-culture) the most influence in the world. Whether one likes it or not - even the most anti-American, the biggest America-haters have to admitt that there is enormous US influence all around the world.

I have explained my position in many threads. So you are obviously not looking carefully. However in order to make it easier for you I repeat them again:

My view on marriage - but not just mine also the traditional view - is that it is between one man and one woman.
A man has a right to marry any woman and a woman has the right to marry any man. There is no discrimination in that principle.
Marriage is designed for a long-term relationship of a man and a woman.
And that includes mostly the potential ability that children do come out within this relationship. This can however only happen in a relationship between a man and a woman. Of course it isn´t mandatory and there are cases were people decide against that. But still: it has the potential ability for it. So therefore it is completly justified to differentiate between a heterosexual and a homosexual relationship.

That is not discrimination that is on the conterary fair and balanced and justified. Simular things ought to be treated the same way different things ought to be treated differently - that are the TWO SIDES of the equality principle according to german law. Most people only know the first but forget the second. But it is logical that it has two sides - because not all things in this world are simular after all. If we allow gay marriage the next thing would be polygamy or pedophilia or other things.
We have to remain a clear position and a consequent position: and that is given by the definition of marriage as to be between one man and one woman. And as I´ve pointed out this definition is completly justified and in no way discriminating. And therefore I see the argumentation and the demands of the gay movement as outrageous.
It's not that these arguments are outdated and bigoted. It's that this is not an argument. This is simply a repeated restatement of Kybernetia's two central assumptions Marriage is intended as a man and a woman And because that statement is by definition true, there is no discriminationNowhere is there any justification, any use of logic, or anything other than the confused ramblings of a troll. S/he's been trolling this topic for days now and has added absolutely nothing to the conversation beyond "I disagree with the very concept of this topic, so logically that disproves the topic."

Time to put Kybernetia back on ignore again. This is pointless.

You know...

You say that the definition of marriage being "between one man and one woman" is outdated and wrong.

I feel YOU are the one that is wrong. Marriage is, always, has, and ALWAYS NEEDS TO BE between one man, one woman. It should never change.

I have no problems with civil unions for two consenting adults -- as long as they are called that -- civil unions.

Marriage itself is a bonding before God Almighty. It needs to be handed back to God, and taken away from the state.

I´ve given many arguments on the pages before, so you may just look back at this thread.

And yet never a good or even valid one...

Questions: how many people would be willing to allow gay marriages if they could, somehow, have children? How many people would be willing to allow gay marriages only after they've adopted a child? Consider this: since gays by definition can't get drunk and "accidentally" get pregnant with each other, they *have* to deeply consider the idea of adopting a kid beforehand. And it costs loads of money to adopt, so they're certainly showing the world they're willing to make sacrifices for the kid. How many parents who just had a kid normally does that hold true for? Gay couples, by definition, are much much much less likely to abuse their kids emotionally, physically, sexually, etc.

A man has a right to marry any woman and a woman has the right to marry any man. There is no discrimination in that principle.

This is a non sequitur. No individual has the right ot marry anyone. Marriage is a privilege given to a couple.

Marriage is designed for a long-term relationship of a man and a woman.
And that includes mostly the potential ability that children do come out within this relationship. This can however only happen in a relationship between a man and a woman.

What marriage was designed for has no bearing on this discussion. In this day and age, secular governments recognize marriage because it is convenient to recognize two people who have combined their assets to the point they cannot be told apart as a single entity. Children, of course, are also included in this, but are in no way the only or most important reason for recognizing marriage.

That is not discrimination that is on the conterary fair and balanced and justified. Simular things ought to be treated the same way different things ought to be treated differently - that are the TWO SIDES of the equality principle according to german law.

Yes, so all couples should be treated equally.

If we allow gay marriage the next thing would be polygamy or pedophilia or other things.

Truly idiotic statement.

And as I´ve pointed out this definition is completly justified and in no way discriminating. And therefore I see the argumentation and the demands of the gay movement as outrageous.

The sky is purple.

Look, I just pointed out the sky is purple, so it is and if you say anything else then you are just being outrageous.

I cannot marry any man I want as a woman can, nor can a woman marry any woman as I can. Voila, discrimination.

The question however is whether this deserves special legal protection (or even tax benefits) from the state. And for reasons I explained in earlier posts already I think that should be reserved for a relationship of one man and one woman - And that is marriage.

So you think that gay people should lose possessions/children/next of kinship to the homophobe family or the government just because you don't like gays? That makes great sense.

The legal protections afforded to married couples are afforded *because* they are couples - they exist as a single entity. Homosexual couples do the same, but are denied the protections - thus making them second class citizens who can lose everything they own when their partner dies.

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.


If we allow gay marriage the next thing would be polygamy or pedophilia or other things.


>_>
<_<
...
...
...
...and you people think Gay people have sick minds... pathetic...

Who are you to dictate where someone can find love? A man can find love with a man and a woman with a woman. There is nothing you can do to stop it, so just accept it.

You know...

You say that the definition of marriage being "between one man and one woman" is outdated and wrong.

I feel YOU are the one that is wrong. Marriage is, always, has, and ALWAYS NEEDS TO BE between one man, one woman. It should never change.

Great opinion. Some people are of the opinion that black people are inferior. They are welcome to that opinion, but we don't let their opinion become law, now do we?

I have no problems with civil unions for two consenting adults -- as long as they are called that -- civil unions.

I have no problem with civil unions - as long as they are called that for everyone. Hell, I'd have no problem with getting a civil union with my boyfriend as long as it meant my gay friend could get one with his boyfriend as well.

Great opinion. Some people are of the opinion that black people are inferior. They are welcome to that opinion, but we don't let their opinion become law, now do we?

Read the whole post, next time.

I have no problem with civil unions - as long as they are called that for everyone. Hell, I'd have no problem with getting a civil union with my boyfriend as long as it meant my gay friend could get one with his boyfriend as well.

Ah. I put two consenting adults for a reason. That way, it would only be TWO people, and it would only be adults.

Gay or not, I don't care.

The initial question.... "How does Homosexual Marriage Affect You?" has been answered eloquently by many people. Some people have made honest answers, some have made spurious answers.

Kybernetia however has not made a continuing discussion. He or she has constantly quoted the same statement over and over again. I am currently waiting for a response from a german friend who will send me a word for word account of the 'german dictionary definition' of the word equality... WITH translation. I still doubt that Germany could possibly class equality as 'treating different things differently.' It is definitively spurious. However, IF I am wrong, I will make a full apology.
This is where I differ from Kybernetia. If I am wrong... I will accept it and apologise. If Kybernetia is wrong, he/she/it will simply just re-state what he/she/it has stated before.

I think I can answer, however, how gay marriage would affect Kybernetia. If gay marriage was universally accepted, then Kybernetia would have to re-think the bigotry and would have to find something else to 'troll' over.

I am not against anyone who has an honest reason against gay marriage AND is open to discussion on the matter. However, some people (not mentioning any names, but we all know who I mean) are so arrogant that they deny any possibility that they 'could' be discriminating, 'may be' wrong, and 'are possibly' so far back in the closet that they are sitting in the snow-drifts of Narnia.

I will post the translation of 'german equality' as soon as I recieve it. The number of times I have been to germany, I have a hard time believing that the 'amazingly warm and hospitable' people that live there could have such a contrasting definition of an important aspect of modern day life.

Marriage itself is a bonding before God Almighty. It needs to be handed back to God, and taken away from the state.
really? that will come as a surprise to my parents, who have an entirely secular marriage that is going on 30 years now. God has never had a place in their marriage, and never will, but for some reason that hasn't stopped them...isn't it odd how some people don't need God to love, honor, and cherish their partner?

the answer is (for me. everyone could have a different but equally correct answer) that if these marriages happened in my church, it would affect me since it would mean the church is going directly against what i believe the Bible says on this matter.
however just as heterosexual couples can choose to 'marry' outside the church and this doesn't affect me, if homosexual couples could marry outside of the church this wouldn't affect me either.
of course, you can only see how something really affects you if it actually happens...

and even more the Netherlands, who are in many ways isolated with their laws and legislations (euthanasia, drugs)

At least in Holland, gays can legally get stoned. ;)

One of the most difficult elements of this discussion is the element of religion.

The personal effect of allowing gay "marriages" is that it forces me to legally recognize two homosexuals as "married;" a concept which is specifically forbidden by my relgious beliefs, and indeed, by all but the most fringe of Judaic/Christian sects.

In this way, the State would be infringing upon my religious beliefs in a way no less intrusive than a govenment requirement of the recitation of the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of every public school day.

Addressing the notion of religious neutrality be the United States of America: this is a myth. The colony established by the Pilgrims in 1620 was never meant to be a haven for all religions, but an escape from persecution for one sect of Christianity.

America, was intended to be a place where Christians, and to a lesser degree, Jews, could practice their specific beliefs away from the restrictions of an Official State Church; not as a catch-all for all varieties of mysticsm.

The foundation of American society is built upon Judaic/Christian philosophy, with the Ten Commandments as the backbone of our law.

For better or worse, the USA believes in God, the God of Abraham and Moses, and beleives that He sent Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah; it is in Him we Trust. We are not an agnostic or religiously ambiguous nation. The Constitution promises that our Government does not ESTABLISH one particular CHURCH as the official Church of the US, and implies tolerance for those who are not Jewish/Christian.

The Constuitution does not forbid the United States of America from recognizing the Supremacy of God; in fact our Founding Fathers specifically explain that is from God that we derive those Rights cited as the whole basis of our self-determination.

In conclusion, the Constitution protects my right to NOT acknowledge homosexual declarations of monagamous intent as a "marriage."

So if my religion states that all humans are to be slain in honour of the Great Pink Unicorn, the goverment can not to anything to stop me, since that would be infringing upon my religious beliefs?

One of the most difficult elements of this discussion is the element of religion.

The personal effect of allowing gay "marriages" is that it forces me to legally recognize two homosexuals as "married;" a concept which is specifically forbidden by my relgious beliefs, and indeed, by all but the most fringe of Judaic/Christian sects.

In this way, the State would be infringing upon my religious beliefs in a way no less intrusive than a govenment requirement of the recitation of the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of every public school day.

Addressing the notion of religious neutrality be the United States of America: this is a myth. The colony established by the Pilgrims in 1620 was never meant to be a haven for all religions, but an escape from persecution for one sect of Christianity.

America, was intended to be a place where Christians, and to a lesser degree, Jews, could practice their specific beliefs away from the restrictions of an Official State Church; not as a catch-all for all varieties of mysticsm.

The foundation of American society is built upon Judaic/Christian philosophy, with the Ten Commandments as the backbone of our law.

For better or worse, the USA believes in God, the God of Abraham and Moses, and beleives that He sent Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah; it is in Him we Trust. We are not an agnostic or religiously ambiguous nation. The Constitution promises that our Government does not ESTABLISH one particular CHURCH as the official Church of the US, and implies tolerance for those who are not Jewish/Christian.

The Constuitution does not forbid the United States of America from recognizing the Supremacy of God; in fact our Founding Fathers specifically explain that is from God that we derive those Rights cited as the whole basis of our self-determination.

In conclusion, the Constitution protects my right to NOT acknowledge homosexual declarations of monagamous intent as a "marriage."
fortunately nobody gives a damn if you personally accept the marriages of gay people, nor is anybody pushing for laws that would require you to do so. the law, federal government, and IRS need to accept gay marriage, but nobody cares whether individual homophobes come around.

The cult of the Great Pink Unicorn is not part of the common cultural heritage, and is committing a specific Crime. Therefore, you could not claim "religion" as a justification for murder. For that, you have to go to an Islamic nation.

One of the most difficult elements of this discussion is the element of religion.

The personal effect of allowing gay "marriages" is that it forces me to legally recognize two homosexuals as "married;" a concept which is specifically forbidden by my relgious beliefs, and indeed, by all but the most fringe of Judaic/Christian sects.

In this way, the State would be infringing upon my religious beliefs in a way no less intrusive than a govenment requirement of the recitation of the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of every public school day.

Addressing the notion of religious neutrality be the United States of America: this is a myth. The colony established by the Pilgrims in 1620 was never meant to be a haven for all religions, but an escape from persecution for one sect of Christianity.

America, was intended to be a place where Christians, and to a lesser degree, Jews, could practice their specific beliefs away from the restrictions of an Official State Church; not as a catch-all for all varieties of mysticsm.

The foundation of American society is built upon Judaic/Christian philosophy, with the Ten Commandments as the backbone of our law.

For better or worse, the USA believes in God, the God of Abraham and Moses, and beleives that He sent Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah; it is in Him we Trust. We are not an agnostic or religiously ambiguous nation. The Constitution promises that our Government does not ESTABLISH one particular CHURCH as the official Church of the US, and implies tolerance for those who are not Jewish/Christian.

The Constuitution does not forbid the United States of America from recognizing the Supremacy of God; in fact our Founding Fathers specifically explain that is from God that we derive those Rights cited as the whole basis of our self-determination.

In conclusion, the Constitution protects my right to NOT acknowledge homosexual declarations of monagamous intent as a "marriage."Yet another religious fanatic.

The USA does not believe in ANY religion. The citizens of the USA are free to believe in any religion they choose to, or no religion at all. The fact that you, and/or some elected officials, believe in a particular brand of religion does NOT mean the USA believes in it.

I'm a Christian, and am very, very glad that the USA does NOT have a state religion. Each and every step taken towards combining church and state is a step closer to handing control to religious fanatics - who always manage to get everyone involved in some sort of war or other on the grounds that it is what god wants.

Keep your church out of my state.

So if my religion states that all humans are to be slain in honour of the Great Pink Unicorn, the goverment can not to anything to stop me, since that would be infringing upon my religious beliefs?
yup. we need to repeal all laws allowing inter-racial marriage, because they force people to recognize inter-racial marriage and thereby force them to violate the laws set in the Bible. any person who follows a strict, constructionist view of the Bible is having their rights violated when the government grants women property rights, allows divorce, or prohibits child abuse.

therefore, in the interests of protecting the individual's right to freedom of religion, we must change our laws to reflect the religious texts of each and every person in the country.

The cult of the Great Pink Unicorn is not part of the common cultural heritage, and is committing a specific Crime. Therefore, you could not claim "religion" as a justification for murder. For that, you have to go to an Islamic nation.

I'm being opressed! Fascist!

The cult of the Great Pink Unicorn is not part of the common cultural heritage, and is committing a specific Crime. Therefore, you could not claim "religion" as a justification for murder. For that, you have to go to an Islamic nation.
violation of the Constitutional rights of another person IS a specific crime, so if gay marriage is legalized the you would (by your own logic) be wrong to refuse to acknowledge those unions because you would be committing a specific crime by doing so.

also, i have never heard any reason why "common cultural heritage" is the necessary qualification for religious rights in America; since Hinduism is not part of "common" western heritage, does that mean that hinduism is not to be given the same respect as Christianity?

here's a hint: THE USA IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION, NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN.

(reply to Bottle)

If I am an American small business owner, legal homosexual "marriages" would force me to recognize that which goes against my religious beliefs by requiring me to provide the same benefits to a gay employee's "spouse" as I may provide to my heterosexual employees. The same way that a law requiring a Jewish owner of a Kosher deli to sell pork would be un-Constitutional.

If it were simply a matter of opinion, then hell, let people marry toasters; but the legalizing of homosexual unions as "marriages" LEGALLY OBLIGATES me to abandon my religious beliefs; and this is un-Constitutional.

(reply to Bottle)

If I am an American small business owner, legal homosexual "marriages" would force me to recognize that which goes against my religious beliefs by requiring me to provide the same benefits to a gay employee's "spouse" as I may provide to my heterosexual employees. The same way that a law requiring a Jewish owner of a Kosher deli to sell pork would be un-Constitutional.

If it were simply a matter of opinion, then hell, let people marry toasters; but the legalizing of homosexual unions as "marriages" LEGALLY OBLIGATES me to abandon my religious beliefs; and this is un-Constitutional.

Once again, the Great Pink Unicorn is against all forms of eployee benefits to people called Kevin, so by being forced by law to grant them benefits nontheless, I am being opressed.

Clarification:

I am not a "religious fanatic." It is not my intention to strong-arm my beliefs upon anyone. I am trying to use myself as an illustration that removal of established common religious traditions is the same as the imposition of religious beliefs. That is, using the Constitution to remove a Nativity scene from a governement building that has AN ESTABLISHED TRADITION of displaying one during the appropriate season, is the same as a law requiring sacrificing a calf to Shiva. They are both wrong.

If a proposed law outlining the creation of gay "marriages" had a provision that allowed for those who find it in conflict with their beliefs, that I would/could have no problem with it, and it would /could not affect me.

(reply to Bottle)

If I am an American small business owner, legal homosexual "marriages" would force me to recognize that which goes against my religious beliefs by requiring me to provide the same benefits to a gay employee's "spouse" as I may provide to my heterosexual employees. The same way that a law requiring a Jewish owner of a Kosher deli to sell pork would be un-Constitutional.

If it were simply a matter of opinion, then hell, let people marry toasters; but the legalizing of homosexual unions as "marriages" LEGALLY OBLIGATES me to abandon my religious beliefs; and this is un-Constitutional.

So you would rather provide benefits to an employees spouse if it was a toaster than a same gendered partner? You say it is allright to marry toasters but still have a problem with gay marriage??

I'm shocked!

F. Statements:

I am not say that the USA SHOULD be a Judaic/Christian religion; simply that it is.

Read your money.

F. Statements:

I am not say that the USA SHOULD be a Judaic/Christian religion; simply that it is.

Read your money.

The USA has only excisted for about 100 years?

You want to know what I have a REAL problem with here, When people say it's wrong because it "redifines marrige".

Marrige is considired the act of two objects joining together. If you want to define it you can say it should be legal because you CAN marry two pieces of wood. You do it quite often if your a carpenter.

Two, If it were legal, this would make MORE happy marriges than destroy happy marriges, because ANYONE who is married to a man or women because they are gay and just wanted to be married, is not in a real marrige. This means they never loved the person to begin with. These are the only marriges that would be affected.

Three, I hate people who discriminate against homosexuals like saying that they shouldn't even be able to adopt children because they would turn them gay, this argument also goes with something else I feel, NO ONE DECIDES TO BE HOMOSEXUAL! They are born this way, I don't have a choice that happen to be turned on by a women, they don't have a choice to be turned on by the same-sex, I feel that God creates some people as homosexuals, because actually I think the sections in the bible that say it's wrong have been distorted over the past 2000 years. When you think about it, if you took the bible word for word, then you would marry(if your a guy) a women with a 3 foot long beard, that hasn't ever eaten seafood, and your daughter would be sold to slavery. You can't pick and choose what you choose to believe!

i have two gay aunts. i love them both. but i am a christian and i still think it is wrong. i pray every nit for them.

Bottle:

again, I am not judging whether the USA SHOULD be a Christian nation, just stating the fact that the USA was esablished upon a foundation of Judaic/Christian philosophy.

Those who created the United States were Christian, and came from Christian states. Logically, therefore, because of their shared values, which deeply influenced both the LEGAL and MORAL foundation of our society, the USA is, in effect, a Christian nation that has a degree of tolerance for other religions.

Again, just stating perception, not whether it's right or wrong.

Additionally, it would then be logical to realize that the tolerance for other beliefs diminishes in proportion to the distance at which that belief departs with traditional Jewish/Christian values.

Fluffyness:

I would not provide benefits to your toaster; and if you did indeed marry a toaster, you certainly would be shocked. ;)

i have two gay aunts. i love them both. but i am a christian and i still think it is wrong. i pray every nit for them.

Pray for them how? A safe and happy life without ridecule and prejudice I hope.

Harkatopia:

In Congress, July 4, 1776... the official notice that the people living in the British Colonies no longer recognized the British Governement as sovereign.

However, the American experience could arguably be said to have begun in 1607 with the esablishment of Jamestown.

Jindrak:

I'm trying hard to explain that I believe we are entitled to our opinions, that that forcing those who disagree with homosexuality to recognize a gay "marriage" as legal is denying those their right to that opinion.

Harkatopia:

In Congress, July 4, 1776... the official notice that the people living in the British Colonies no longer recognized the British Governement as sovereign.

However, the American experience could arguably be said to have begun in 1607 with the esablishment of Jamestown.

And when did the term "In God we trust" appear on US coinage?

(reply to Bottle)

If I am an American small business owner, legal homosexual "marriages" would force me to recognize that which goes against my religious beliefs by requiring me to provide the same benefits to a gay employee's "spouse" as I may provide to my heterosexual employees. The same way that a law requiring a Jewish owner of a Kosher deli to sell pork would be un-Constitutional.


Actually, your example is flawed.

Homosexuals are more than bits of meat, so the reference to pork is not quite right. Homosexuals are living breathing and tax-paying individuals. It would be better to refer to them as a customer ,for example, in your scenario.

In no way can the acceptance of Gay marriages be likened to forcing Kosher deli's to sell pork. It would be more like asking the Jewish owner to be less discriminate about who he sells to.

If I am an American small business owner, legal homosexual "marriages" would force me to recognize that which goes against my religious beliefs by requiring me to provide the same benefits to a gay employee's "spouse" as I may provide to my heterosexual employees. The same way that a law requiring a Jewish owner of a Kosher deli to sell pork would be un-Constitutional.


Strange... never heard any muslims claim that they should be allowed to throw stones at wives who commit adultry... and that's part of their religion too...
Disallowing gay marriage forces me to follow you religious beliefs, what about that?
Furthermore, religious fanatics claim that being gay is a perversion, however they can't discriminate gay people when they have to employ someone... do you want to turn this back too? A little further and we're back in the Dark Ages and that name has much truth in it.


If it were simply a matter of opinion, then hell, let people marry toasters; but the legalizing of homosexual unions as "marriages" LEGALLY OBLIGATES me to abandon my religious beliefs; and this is un-Constitutional.

As said, enforcing your beliefs on others is eaually unconstitutional. By the way, the law does not force you to marry someone of the same sex, you would only have to admit that other people have the right to believe something else and act differently (just as you have to allow that jews don't belief that Jesus was God's son). As long as they work equally well, it should not make any difference to you.
And still... your belief is a belief, not the truth and cannot be used to enforce rules on anybody else. Otherwise, the Great Pink Unicorn would have a lot of followers in no time :)
Argumenting that their should be a tradition is ridiculous as the ancient Greek beliefs have also faded away while being very traditional at that time... As people climbed mount Olympus and did not find any gods there, so may happen to your religion one day too.

Jindrak:

I'm trying hard to explain that I believe we are entitled to our opinions, that that forcing those who disagree with homosexuality to recognize a gay "marriage" as legal is denying those their right to that opinion.

So you think your opinion is more important than another person's rights?

Bottle:

Those who created the United States were Christian, and came from Christian states. Logically, therefore, because of their shared values, which deeply influenced both the LEGAL and MORAL foundation of our society, the USA is, in effect, a Christian nation that has a degree of tolerance for other religions.


marriage
n 1: the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for
life (or until divorce)
2: two people who are married to each other
3: the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony
4: a close and intimate union



*gasp* You dare call the all-holy Webster's Dictionary immoral and illegal? FOR SHAME!

It doesn't matter who's being married, it's the same thing with a man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman. Don't you feel at least a little bit of guilt at the fact that your selfish, hard-headed opinions on the matter are stealing away people's God-given right of the persual of happiness?

It shouldn't affect anyone negatively. Its the business of no one but the two persons in love. Preventing two gays from marrying is like telling two straith people they can't marry... Its nobody's bussiness, so it shouldn't affect anyone personally in a negative way (unless you're a jealous ex boyfriend or something :p). Anyhow, i don't think I'm gonna get married, not with a woman and certainly not with a man. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Ceinewydd
Jindrak:

I'm trying hard to explain that I believe we are entitled to our opinions, that that forcing those who disagree with homosexuality to recognize a gay "marriage" as legal is denying those their right to that opinion.



No, no, no, my friend. This is where you're wrong. This is rather selfish, as well. Even if homosexuals marry, you are still entitled to have an opinion about them, as opinions are merely in the mind. No one individual is forced to throw away the beliefs that are in their mind. You're trying to manifest an opinion as a physical thing, which it is not. Stop exaggerating.

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

no, thaty would be the Stonewall Riot and the AIDS crisis. Those events shaped the modern gay rights movement.

Again: Several thousand gay couples have been married in Mass. How has it affected your life? Concrete examples, please!

Only read a fair bit of this thread...

Just a bit of food for thought...

Marriages existed before Christianity/[fill in any religion]. Saying "marriage is a christian/[fill in any religion] prerogative" is, therefor, a lie.

In the middle ages, little girls (5, 6 years old) were married to kings and dukes, sanctified by the church. Why? To bond two nations/duchies/kingdoms. Did it have to do with love? Don't think so. Kids that age (even in those times) don't know what adult love is about. The men they were married to didn't love them, either, seeing that they were only a means to an end.

Gay people are gay for the same reason heterosexual people are heterosexual: because of something inside them they do not have a say in; whether it's genes, or a missing (or even an extra) connection in the brain, or whatever... a human has no say in what causes him/her to love another person. Anyone who says differently has never truly been in love... but that's beside the point.

Homosexuality is not a disease, or an illness of the brain, or something that extenuates hatred towards a fair percentage of the human race. Scientists have proven that homosexuality is not something that only occurs in the human species, but also in several other species of mammals.

The whole debate about what is "right" or "wrong" is based upon personal beliefs, or what has been imposed upon personal beliefs by religion, or propaganda, or, even worse, parental misguidance or peer pressure. (What actual, well-funded and valid reason is there to hate gay people, anyway? Except for being told or taught that homosexuality is evil?)

I've seen many arguments in this thread about why people are against or for gay marriages, but none of the anti-arguments has yet shown a fair, unbiased answer to the original question: how does it affect YOU.

It's so easy reacting out of fear, or ignorance. But for once in your life, ask yourself the question: what is my anti-gay-marriage stance based upon?
And no "God told me so", please, or "it's in the bible". God has put men on this planet to think for themselves. God is not a Deus ex Machina that takes away all that is bad from your life.

In Holland, yes, gay marriages have been legalized. And yes, we have ministers and civil servants who actively refuse to wed gay people. It is their right to do so, as it is everyman's/woman's right to be married. One servant doesn't want to wed you? Another one, who isn't biased, will.

And to answer to a post a bit earlier... yes, we also legalized SOFT drugs, in that you can't get arrested for buying or USING it. Trafficking is still illegal - however, we have the lowest drug-related crime-rate in Europe. We also legalized abortion, ending up having the second lowest abortion rate in the world.
Our laws, although being based upon our Christian heritage, are humane, and do not discriminate on sex, culture, color of skin, or religion. And as much as is wrong in this country, there are still things that we truly consider a people's choice, instead of trying to change or amend the laws to give in to the zealotry of certain religious fanatics.

As I said before, marriage is not a religious thing, but stems from a long history of oppression and convenience. If the modern-world Christians want to attach their vision of holy matrimony and God-approved wedlock to it, that's their God-given (pun yea verily intended) right... but there is no funded reason to deny a large group of people the same right from a religious point of view.

I have a married gay couple in my family. I've been affected by this in such a way that I am glad, and pleased, to see that the persons involved are happy together, and are able to build a life of their own, and share the benefits (AS WELL AS THE HARDSHIPS) of heterosexual couples.

Those who created the United States were Christian, and came from Christian states.
The founding fathers were NOT christians. (http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/ffnc/)
I highly recommend reading that page I linked to, as it will shed some light on that myth. Here's one paragraph in particular(Adam=John Adams):

"It was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.""

Specifically note the Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

And when did the term "In God we trust" appear on US coinage?

1864

Actually, your example is flawed.

Homosexuals are more than bits of meat, so the reference to pork is not quite right. Homosexuals are living breathing and tax-paying individuals. It would be better to refer to them as a customer ,for example, in your scenario.

In no way can the acceptance of Gay marriages be likened to forcing Kosher deli's to sell pork. It would be more like asking the Jewish owner to be less discriminate about who he sells to.

I am not comparing humans to bits of meat, but comparing practices that could be construed as equally discordant with a religious practice; i.e. the eating of pork, and homosexual relations.

Strange... never heard any muslims claim that they should be allowed to throw stones at wives who commit adultry... and that's part of their religion too...
Disallowing gay marriage forces me to follow you religious beliefs, what about that?
Furthermore, religious fanatics claim that being gay is a perversion, however they can't discriminate gay people when they have to employ someone... do you want to turn this back too? A little further and we're back in the Dark Ages and that name has much truth in it.

a. I'm sure that some Muslims in the U.S.A. have appealed for the right of corporal punishment (still researching)
b. our system of heirarchical rights and freedoms would establish that the rights of the woman to be punished would take precedence over the religious freedoms

i hate when people use the Arguement, If Homosexuals marry it opens marrying your tv and stuff. NO IT DOSENT

Marriage of Homosexuals is the same as marriage between Hetrosexuals. Between two Conesenting ADULTS over the age of 18, a television can not give consent and Pediphliacs children who they have immature sexual relations with cant give consent so all you close minded religous nuts shut up its not a religous marriage BUT a state marrige, or a FEDERAL Marriage, the church serves no function and dosent have to recgonize them.

So please just stop being close minded

...Furthermore, religious fanatics claim that being gay is a perversion, however they can't discriminate gay people when they have to employ someone... do you want to turn this back too? A little further and we're back in the Dark Ages and that name has much truth in it.

1. One need not be a "religious fanatic" to disapprove of a homosexual lifestyle.

2. not espousing it as good or bad, but in a truly "Free Enterprise" Capitalist nation, private employers would have the right to hire/fire anyone they choose for whatever reason.

marriage
n 1: the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for
life (or until divorce)
2: two people who are married to each other
3: the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony
4: a close and intimate union



*gasp* You dare call the all-holy Webster's Dictionary immoral and illegal? FOR SHAME!

It doesn't matter who's being married, it's the same thing with a man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman. Don't you feel at least a little bit of guilt at the fact that your selfish, hard-headed opinions on the matter are stealing away people's God-given right of the persual of happiness?

I believe the whole debate can be boiled down to whether one believes that the word "marriage" is a secular or sacred term.

To those who believe it is a secular term, "marriage," "civil union," "partnership," are all synonyms. But, to others, the word "marriage" refers to the sacred bond, sanctified by God, of one woman and one man.

I do not feel guilty, because I am simply participating in a lively discussion. There can be no knowledge without debate, and there can be no debate if one does not vigorously defend a position.

And remember, if one takes the position that homosexuality is wrong from a religious point-of-view, then the practice of homosexuality would not be protected by a "God-Given right of the 'Pursuit of Happiness';" God would not simultaneously endow someone with the right to pursue the "happiness" of homosexuality, while condemning said practice explicitly.

It shouldn't affect anyone negatively. Its the business of no one but the two persons in love. Preventing two gays from marrying is like telling two straith people they can't marry... Its nobody's bussiness, so it shouldn't affect anyone personally in a negative way (unless you're a jealous ex boyfriend or something :p). Anyhow, i don't think I'm gonna get married, not with a woman and certainly not with a man. :rolleyes:

You're right, it shouldn't.

The founding fathers were NOT christians. (http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/ffnc/)
I highly recommend reading that page I linked to, as it will shed some light on that myth. Here's one paragraph in particular(Adam=John Adams):

"It was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.""

Specifically note the Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

ARTICLE 11.
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 tranquility 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.

This article is designed to allay any concerns that the Muslims, for whom this Treaty was written, might have of the U.S. philosophy towards Islam; that is, this Article declares that we are not officially bound into enmity due to religion.

The simple answer is it is not acceptable biologicly. The body was designed for sexual procreation and using those parts for reasons that does not allow for procreation is a biologic failing. Also Homo-sexuality is not a hormonal thing it is a choice, you make the choice to be that way, your bodies natural state is male and female not anything else. This post has nothing to do with religion or anything of that nature , this comes from a biological fact, anything else is corruption of ethics.

It's also biological fact that evolution isn't finished. Homosexuality may have a value we just haven't realized yet. Put in some common sense when you try to play the biology card.

believe the whole debate can be boiled down to whether one believes that the word "marriage" is a secular or sacred term.

To those who believe it is a secular term, "marriage," "civil union," "partnership," are all synonyms. But, to others, the word "marriage" refers to the sacred bond, sanctified by God, of one woman and one man.

I do not feel guilty, because I am simply participating in a lively discussion. There can be no knowledge without debate, and there can be no debate if one does not vigorously defend a position.

And remember, if one takes the position that homosexuality is wrong from a religious point-of-view, then the practice of homosexuality would not be protected by a "God-Given right of the 'Pursuit of Happiness';" God would not simultaneously endow someone with the right to pursue the "happiness" of homosexuality, while condemning said practice explicitly.

:eek:

Indeed. :D

It's also biological fact that evolution isn't finished. Homosexuality may have a value we just haven't realized yet. Put in some common sense when you try to play the biology card.

Like hell!

THere is no possible chance that homosexuality has a GOOD role in evolution.

It goes against Darwin's theory of natural selection entirely.

I guess you only read half of my statement. There is most likely a positive effect of homosexuality that we just don't see yet.

It is obvious, that someone else listens to Neal Boortz on WSB 750 AM in Atlanta,GA

Why is it necessary for homosexuality to have a biological purpose beyond sexual satisfaction? Isn't it sufficient that there is an emotional purpose?

I read this on some website I can't damned well remember, so I have no source on this one.

Anyway, according to said website, a study was done recently that indicated that homosexuality in rats(or some other rodent) is a form of population control. Once the number of rats gets too high for their food source to sustain itself, the rats start giving birth to homosexual babies.

Of course, the study doesn't effectively prove anything, it's just something to think about.

Like hell!

THere is no possible chance that homosexuality has a GOOD role in evolution.

It goes against Darwin's theory of natural selection entirely.

Oh really...

funny how it does not "go against" evolutionary genetics. Oh yeah gay liberal scientist conspiracy.

THere is no possible chance that homosexuality has a GOOD role in evolution.

It goes against Darwin's theory of natural selection entirely.
There is nothing 'good' or 'bad' about evolution. There are survivors and there are the extinct.

If you think there is a moral justification to the theory of natural selection, you haven't read the damn thing.

One of the most difficult elements of this discussion is the element of religion.

The personal effect of allowing gay "marriages" is that it forces me to legally recognize two homosexuals as "married;" a concept which is specifically forbidden by my relgious beliefs, and indeed, by all but the most fringe of Judaic/Christian sects.

In this way, the State would be infringing upon my religious beliefs in a way no less intrusive than a govenment requirement of the recitation of the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of every public school day.



Surely they would only be impinging on YOUR beliefs, if they MADE YOU marry someone of the same gender?

Otherwise, you are just trying to enforce YOUR religious beliefs on someone else - who may not share your religion.

Where is 'religious freedom' then? Or do you think it only applies to you, and your particular cult?

700 posts in this topic, and how many of them actually answer the topic starter's question? I'm thinking it's about 20-30 actual answers, about 120 thoughtful and reasoned posts pro-or-con about gay marriage, and the rest flamage.

Surely they would only be impinging on YOUR beliefs, if they MADE YOU marry someone of the same gender?

Otherwise, you are just trying to enforce YOUR religious beliefs on someone else - who may not share your religion.

Where is 'religious freedom' then? Or do you think it only applies to you, and your particular cult?


Grave, don't listen to that little grit-eater. If he had his way we'd have official prayer in school, homosexuals and nonwhites would be exterminated, and we'd be invading every muslim country into a big bead of glass. That is the christian way, of course. And last time I checked, a little document called the constitution banned the integration of church and state.

I believe the whole debate can be boiled down to whether one believes that the word "marriage" is a secular or sacred term.

To those who believe it is a secular term, "marriage," "civil union," "partnership," are all synonyms. But, to others, the word "marriage" refers to the sacred bond, sanctified by God, of one woman and one man.

I do not feel guilty, because I am simply participating in a lively discussion. There can be no knowledge without debate, and there can be no debate if one does not vigorously defend a position.

And remember, if one takes the position that homosexuality is wrong from a religious point-of-view, then the practice of homosexuality would not be protected by a "God-Given right of the 'Pursuit of Happiness';" God would not simultaneously endow someone with the right to pursue the "happiness" of homosexuality, while condemning said practice explicitly.

Marriage is a secular term, purely because it exists in non-religious environments, and is not linked to just one religion.

Some people are married without the need for churches and priests.

Some people marry with 'priests' of other religions than christianity.

Add to this, the fact that people were getting 'married' millenia before christians, or even Hebrews formalised their religion(s).

And - regarding your 'religious point of view' argument: if we are going by that means, then god intended ALL PEOPLE to be homosexual. The bible forbids (so you say, I see no evidence) homosexuality... but why 'forbid' something that nobody wants to do? IT is implicit that it is something that everybody DOES want to do, otherwise the bible wouldn't NEED to forbid it.

(Like I said, the bible doesn't forbid it... but that is perhaps a different thread).

Grave, don't listen to that little grit-eater. If he had his way we'd have official prayer in school, homosexuals and nonwhites would be exterminated, and we'd be invading every muslim country into a big bead of glass. That is the christian way, of course. And last time I checked, a little document called the constitution banned the integration of church and state.

Way off topic here, but the 'christian' president is pretty much trying all of that anyway... no wonder the 'fundamentalists' vote for him.

Off topic (but related to this post): Heard on the radio today that the investigation of the Israeli 'spy' in the Pentagon has unearthed the detailed plans that the current US regime has for "regime change" in Iran.

And the current president is trying to change the constitution to limit the rights available to homosexuals...

Looks like you are more right than you know.

He won't get away with it. There's no way they're gonna make a constitutional amendment that only effects 2-3000 people.

People have "moral issues" that, as far as I can tell, can be summed up by "God said so"...but God also "said" that men couldn't shave their beards or cut their hair, that women should be isolated for one week a month, that slavery was okay, and many other things that are frowned upon in today's society...It's a classic example of people being insecure/afraid of things that are different than what they learned as children.

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

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

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

I like cheesecake.

Therefore, gay marriage is good.

This is, quite simply, the best reason I have heard for gay marriage. In Cheesecake We Trust!

toddx

He won't get away with it. There's no way they're gonna make a constitutional amendment that only effects 2-3000 people.
You think that there are only 2-3000 gay people in the US!? There are maybe 2000 gay people in Berkeley(my town) alone! There are far more than that in the US at large.

2-3000 who want to marry. I don't remember where, but somebody important did the math a while ago. Anyway, I'm on your side here.

People have "moral issues" that, as far as I can tell, can be summed up by "God said so"...but God also "said" that men couldn't shave their beards or cut their hair, that women should be isolated for one week a month, that slavery was okay, and many other things that are frowned upon in today's society...It's a classic example of people being insecure/afraid of things that are different than what they learned as children.

Where does the bible say all of this?

I know I never read it.

(And women should be isolated for a week a month -- PMS, and all *shudders*)

I would say like 250-3000 are gay and a 1300-3000 are bisexual or had an intrigue for doing something bisexual.

People the times had changed and if god didn't killed us before that means he still can hold more sins.... besides when u see the first sign of the apocalypse get on ur knees and beg for mercy... yep I am an atheist...

I think gay people are a great thing....
and they should be allowed to do what they wish.

Where does the bible say all of this?

I know I never read it.

(And women should be isolated for a week a month -- PMS, and all *shudders*)
You think that's bad.... try menopause.

Only read a fair bit of this thread...

Just a bit of food for thought...

Marriages existed before Christianity/[fill in any religion]. Saying "marriage is a christian/[fill in any religion] prerogative" is, therefor, a lie.

In the middle ages, little girls (5, 6 years old) were married to kings and dukes, sanctified by the church. Why? To bond two nations/duchies/kingdoms. Did it have to do with love? Don't think so. Kids that age (even in those times) don't know what adult love is about. The men they were married to didn't love them, either, seeing that they were only a means to an end.

Gay people are gay for the same reason heterosexual people are heterosexual: because of something inside them they do not have a say in; whether it's genes, or a missing (or even an extra) connection in the brain, or whatever... a human has no say in what causes him/her to love another person. Anyone who says differently has never truly been in love... but that's beside the point.

Homosexuality is not a disease, or an illness of the brain, or something that extenuates hatred towards a fair percentage of the human race. Scientists have proven that homosexuality is not something that only occurs in the human species, but also in several other species of mammals.

The whole debate about what is "right" or "wrong" is based upon personal beliefs, or what has been imposed upon personal beliefs by religion, or propaganda, or, even worse, parental misguidance or peer pressure. (What actual, well-funded and valid reason is there to hate gay people, anyway? Except for being told or taught that homosexuality is evil?)

I've seen many arguments in this thread about why people are against or for gay marriages, but none of the anti-arguments has yet shown a fair, unbiased answer to the original question: how does it affect YOU.

It's so easy reacting out of fear, or ignorance. But for once in your life, ask yourself the question: what is my anti-gay-marriage stance based upon?
And no "God told me so", please, or "it's in the bible". God has put men on this planet to think for themselves. God is not a Deus ex Machina that takes away all that is bad from your life.

In Holland, yes, gay marriages have been legalized. And yes, we have ministers and civil servants who actively refuse to wed gay people. It is their right to do so, as it is everyman's/woman's right to be married. One servant doesn't want to wed you? Another one, who isn't biased, will.

And to answer to a post a bit earlier... yes, we also legalized SOFT drugs, in that you can't get arrested for buying or USING it. Trafficking is still illegal - however, we have the lowest drug-related crime-rate in Europe. We also legalized abortion, ending up having the second lowest abortion rate in the world.
Our laws, although being based upon our Christian heritage, are humane, and do not discriminate on sex, culture, color of skin, or religion. And as much as is wrong in this country, there are still things that we truly consider a people's choice, instead of trying to change or amend the laws to give in to the zealotry of certain religious fanatics.

As I said before, marriage is not a religious thing, but stems from a long history of oppression and convenience. If the modern-world Christians want to attach their vision of holy matrimony and God-approved wedlock to it, that's their God-given (pun yea verily intended) right... but there is no funded reason to deny a large group of people the same right from a religious point of view.

I have a married gay couple in my family. I've been affected by this in such a way that I am glad, and pleased, to see that the persons involved are happy together, and are able to build a life of their own, and share the benefits (AS WELL AS THE HARDSHIPS) of heterosexual couples.

"As I said before, marriage is not a religious thing, but stems from a long history of oppression and convenience. If the modern-world Christians want to attach their vision of holy matrimony and God-approved wedlock to it, that's their God-given (pun yea verily intended) right... but there is no funded reason to deny a large group of people the same right from a religious point of view."

Marriage, the legal rights part, should not be a religious thing.

Marriage, the religious part, as defined by those of a religious bent, IS a religious thing by definition.

If the majority of a population considers it a religious thing, then it is a religious thing.

Would you be one of those to "demand we clothe the naked polynesians" because it puts them at a social "advantage" because they don't have to buy clothes, and you do..!?

It is their way,.. and you would force them to change their culture for your sense of "right and wrong" within THEIR culture.

Very curious how such "liberal" minds can be so tyranical and intolerant...

uh, the people we're being to "tyrannical and intollerant" to are trying to restrict another groups' rights. Not a tear will be shed over their religion from me.

THere is no possible chance that homosexuality has a GOOD role in evolution.

It goes against Darwin's theory of natural selection entirely.

in animal communities, homosexual pairs will adopt abandoned or orphaned offspring of others, ensuring their survival.

thus, they do have an evolutionary impact. and there's no real good and bad in evolution.

uh, the people we're being to "tyrannical and intollerant" to are trying to restrict another groups' rights. Not a tear will be shed over their religion from me.

There is no established right for same-sex-couples to marry.

There is no right that is being taken away..!

Yet you would run roughshod over the rights of the majority to their opinion and their society..!?

You are a victim of your side's own intolerances and bigotry, which you will not see, as it disturbs your view of your side as "righteously correct". That is a religious conviction on your part.

You are "right" because you SAY you're right.

Everyone can claim that. The point is whether you can convince the majority that you are indeed "right".

When you can do that, then the majority will change the system to your thinking.

I'm sorry if my idea of right (allowing everyone to have equal rights under the law) doesn't coincide with yours. But you have to realise that my idea of right (allowing everyone to have equal rights under the law) is defended by the constitution.

There is no right that is being taken away..!


you're right. that right was taken away a long time ago. if anything, it's the restoration of a right that's being sought after.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derscon
THere is no possible chance that homosexuality has a GOOD role in evolution.

It goes against Darwin's theory of natural selection entirely.



in animal communities, homosexual pairs will adopt abandoned or orphaned offspring of others, ensuring their survival.

thus, they do have an evolutionary impact. and there's no real good and bad in evolution.

It does NOT go against natural selection, otherwise, by definition, it wouldn't exist.

I consider homosexuality a good thing. People "coupling (tripling, quadrupling..) up" in love is always a good thing..!

The only question to me is the tyrany of the minority that is implicit in changing a society by fiat from a powerful minority.

(( And any minority that can overrule the laws [not the beliefs] of the majority of a population without the majority's consent is a POWERFUL MINORITY. Think Apartheid..!))

We need to decouple the rights granted by marriage from the word and institution of marriage itself.

It wouldn't affect me "personally" in the slightest - as in my quality of life wouldn't change.

Although we have become friends with a couple that lives next door - they have been together almost 20 years and it saddens me greatly that they cannot receive the same treatment under the law as my husband and I.

20 years of being faithful in a loving relationship seems like a long time to be considered "roommates" no?

I'm sorry if my idea of right (allowing everyone to have equal rights under the law) doesn't coincide with yours. But you have to realise that my idea of right (allowing everyone to have equal rights under the law) is defended by the constitution.

"Equal rights under the law"

If you don't think someone has a right that they should have, then change the law (under which they DON'T have equal rights) to suit your needs.

Very simple.

Well, that is what we're trying to do here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

There is no right that is being taken away..!



you're right. that right was taken away a long time ago. if anything, it's the restoration of a right that's being sought after.

That may be. :) But it amounts to the same thing. Namely, you seek a "right" that is not presently there.

The way to solve your need is to convince the law makers to grant those rights to those you want them granted to.

It is not via imposition by a powerful minority on the majority. Unless you are in favor of a tyrany of the minority.

The only question to me is the tyrany of the minority that is implicit in changing a society by fiat from a powerful minority.

(( And any minority that can overrule the laws [not the beliefs] of the majority of a population without the majority's consent is a POWERFUL MINORITY. Think Apartheid..!))


well, chances are that gay marriage won't happen in the states until the majority agrees. your politicians are cowardly enough that they won't want to lose support.

though the majority of the american population is against an outright ban on same sex marriage.

however, there are other countries that are more supportive of the rights of the minority of the population who have legalized or are in the process of legalizing same sex marriages.

It is not via imposition by a powerful minority on the majority. Unless you are in favor of a tyrany of the minority.

as opposed to tyranny by the majority?

at the time of the civil right's movement, was most of the american population for the equality ot persons of colour?

when women's right to vote came up, was the majority of the population supportive of that right?

why should gays get tax benefits meant for families with children? plus, theyre annoying, i dont want to see :fluffle: with a bunch of queers everywhere

well, there's also hospital visitation rights. next of kin kinds of deals... getting in on insurance policies, inheritances et c. i can't remember how many added bonuses of marriage homosexual couples miss out on, but it's a large number.

why should gays get tax benefits meant for families with children? plus, theyre annoying, i dont want to see :fluffle: with a bunch of queers everywhere


That is possibly--no, is--the most immature response to this topic that I have seen yet. Grow up, really.

Also, do you realize that the people that adopt the most often are homosexual couples? So, if you don't allow them to be married, you're also hurting the child/children that they adopted. Think on that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
It is not via imposition by a powerful minority on the majority. Unless you are in favor of a tyrany of the minority.


as opposed to tyranny by the majority?

at the time of the civil right's movement, was most of the american population for the equality ot persons of colour?

Tyrany is tyrany. If you don't like the "tyrany" that oppresses you, then work to overcome it.

I merely state my opinion that while both tyranies are obnoxious, the "tyrany of the majority" is what we call democracy, and the "tyrany of the minority" we normally call tyrany.

Who's to say if the "civil rights" movement's "defeat" might not have initiated some other solution to the problem,.. such as the general population spontaneously coming to their senses and realizing that we're all people.

The fact that there is such violent resistance to seeing that a "tyrany of the minority" IS a tyrany, says much about the real motives of the so-called "equal rights" movement.

It's not about equal rights. It's about a religious conviction that they have the "only and true" answers, and that it is their duty to apply those "only and true" answers to the "un-believers".

Hmmm... sounds rather "Religious", doesn't it..?

why should gays get tax benefits meant for families with children? plus, theyre annoying, i dont want to see :fluffle: with a bunch of queers everywhere

A couple should be treated as a couple. A couple WITH children should be treated as a couple with children. D'UH...!

The rest of this is childish.

well, there's also hospital visitation rights. next of kin kinds of deals... getting in on insurance policies, inheritances et c. i can't remember how many added bonuses of marriage homosexual couples miss out on, but it's a large number.

And it's ridiculous that they don't get these simple benefits.

What we need is a non-marriage union that gives them a carbon-copy set of rights that goes to marriage unions.

And it's ridiculous that they don't get these simple benefits.

What we need is a non-marriage union that gives them a carbon-copy set of rights that goes to marriage unions.

civil unions?

i think the majority of the american population has their heads so far up their asses that they don't even consider it love between two men or two women... a lot seem to consider them subhuman for some reason.

Marriage, the legal rights part, should not be a religious thing.

Marriage, the religious part, as defined by those of a religious bent, IS a religious thing by definition.

If the majority of a population considers it a religious thing, then it is a religious thing.

Would you be one of those to "demand we clothe the naked polynesians" because it puts them at a social "advantage" because they don't have to buy clothes, and you do..!?

It is their way,.. and you would force them to change their culture for your sense of "right and wrong" within THEIR culture.

Very curious how such "liberal" minds can be so tyranical and intolerant...
(Emphasis added by me)

Thank you so much for doing nothing but proving my point. :rolleyes:

"Equal rights under the lawIf you don't think someone has a right that they should have, then change the law (under which they DON'T have equal rights) to suit your needs.
Actually, I think those rights are quite clearly spelled out in the Constitution. I made a 14th Amendment argument in this post (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6928467&postcount=207) that spelled it out fairly clearly. The problem isn't that we need new law, the problem is that we need to enforce the laws we have. Recognizing rights that are granted to one group, but not another, is already against the (amended) US Constitution.

As to the concept of Civil Union being created as 'separate but equal' ... well, I grew up under Jim Crow laws in the South. I've had quite enough of 'separate but equal', and Brown vs. the Board of Education agrees with me. This issue shouldn't be about getting gays into marriage, it ought to be about getting the government out of the marriage business altogether.

If the solution is Civil Unions, then require Civil Unions for heterosexual marriages too. If they (gay or straight) want a religious marriage, they can go to church. As to what the churches want ... last time I checked, churches weren't democratic republics. They can do what they want without worrying about silliness like 'rights'.

So all knives should be illegal, because they have the potential to kill, regardless of other uses? Marriage is used to establish kinship and shared property, to allow two people to share their lives in a viable way.

If I shared a house with a male lover and it was in his name, what happens if, when we're both much older, he dies or becomes terminally ill? What am I supposed to do, with no grandchildren, no legal claim on the estate, with an autistic younger brother to support? WHAT?

Posted this a while back, still waiting for an answer.

If I shared a house with a male lover and it was in his name, what happens if, when we're both much older, he dies or becomes terminally ill? What am I supposed to do, with no grandchildren, no legal claim on the estate, with an autistic younger brother to support? WHAT?Posted this a while back, still waiting for an answer.
I can tell you exactly what happens in such circumstances, from immediate personal experience.

My step-nephew 'Dave' died, and his partner 'Fred' had no legal rights whatsoever. His father (my bro-in-law), not being a Neanderthal about it, made sure that Fred had every possible access and permission. Luckily, Dave had taken the time an expense to make wills and bequests and such, and the family was fully supportive of those wishes.

Had just one cousin or shirt-tail releative made a fuss about it, they could have kept Dave's estate tied up for years, despite the legal paperwork. Even though several of them hadn't seen Dave in years ('cause he was an openly gay man in the south? Horrors!), they had more legal rights than the man who had been by his side the past 14 years.

That's one of the reasons that I, a straight divorced male, am so up-in-arms over this issue. My family did it right, but from reading this topic it's clear we're the exception, not the rule. There oughta be a law ... and I'm gonna try to defeat anyone who opposed the concept of fairness and equality in the law.

This ain't going away because you don't like gays, folks. Eventually, some of you'll be forced to see the fundamental inequities in the system when it hits close to home, and you'll be standing next to me. Uncomfortable, perhaps, but you'll be there too.

1864

So I guess "Look at your money" is a rather poor argument for convincing people that the US has always been a Christian country?

Maybe they should've put "Jesus Loves You!" on it instead.

(reply to Bottle)

If I am an American small business owner, legal homosexual "marriages" would force me to recognize that which goes against my religious beliefs by requiring me to provide the same benefits to a gay employee's "spouse" as I may provide to my heterosexual employees. The same way that a law requiring a Jewish owner of a Kosher deli to sell pork would be un-Constitutional.

If it were simply a matter of opinion, then hell, let people marry toasters; but the legalizing of homosexual unions as "marriages" LEGALLY OBLIGATES me to abandon my religious beliefs; and this is un-Constitutional.

You forget that your right to religious beliefs ends where it harms another person. So, you lose. Sorry.

How does homsexual marriage affect me? It distracts legislatures all over the nation who could be spending thier time doing more constructive things.

I am not comparing humans to bits of meat, but comparing practices that could be construed as equally discordant with a religious practice; i.e. the eating of pork, and homosexual relations.

Except for the single fact that your example does not work. The constitution does not say we cannot discriminate based on what kind of meat a store sells. It does, however, say we cannot discriminate based on race, creed, color, or sex (and under sex falls sexual orientation).

And remember, if one takes the position that homosexuality is wrong from a religious point-of-view, then the practice of homosexuality would not be protected by a "God-Given right of the 'Pursuit of Happiness';" God would not simultaneously endow someone with the right to pursue the "happiness" of homosexuality, while condemning said practice explicitly.

So you instead choose to believe that God made people homosexual, and then told them "No, don't do that!" That's like telling your child to take a cookie, and then smacking them in the head for doing it.

Besides, I am quite certain that you don't follow all of the Levitical laws - so you really don't have a leg to stand on here.

Ceinewydd seems to be forgetting that no-one would be forced to handle a homosexual. Jews aren't allowed to handle pork, they don't restrict the trade in it for those who are. A Jewish baker isn't going to refuse to sell bread to a Gentile because he might make a ham sandwich with it, if he has any sense.
Where exactly in the Bible does it say you can't give employment benefits to a gay person's life partner, anyway?

How does homsexual marriage affect me? It distracts legislatures all over the nation who could be spending thier time doing more constructive things.

So, logically, they should say "whatever, here you are" and be done with it, and then handling problems like crime, poverty, poor education, disease, war, terrorism, etc, instead of whining about 2 men/women getting married?

The simple answer is it is not acceptable biologicly.

As a person in the study of Biology, I can categorically say that you are wrong.

The body was designed for sexual procreation and using those parts for reasons that does not allow for procreation is a biologic failing.

The entire body was designed for nothing but procreation? Human beings were designed/evolved to get enjoyment out of sex, not just babies. The very existence of the clitoris proves this - as most sex does not stimulate it or even need it. It is the only organ on the body with no purpose other than sexual stimulation.

Also Homo-sexuality is not a hormonal thing it is a choice, you make the choice to be that way, your bodies natural state is male and female not anything else.

Tell that to all of the animals that exhibit bisexuality, homosexuality, or are transgendered. I'm sure they really "made a choice."

This post has nothing to do with religion or anything of that nature , this comes from a biological fact, anything else is corruption of ethics.

Study biology beyond a high school level before you start trying to spout "biological fact." You, frankly, do not know what you are talking about. You would do better to stick to the religious argument, regardless of how invalid. Otherwise, you only show your lack of education and border on idiocy.

why should gays get tax benefits meant for families with children? plus, theyre annoying, i dont want to see :fluffle: with a bunch of queers everywhere

Gues you missed the newsflash. If you're in the US, most gay couples would pay *more* taxes if they were married and would not get tax breaks unless they have children.

Gues you missed the newsflash. If you're in the US, most gay couples would pay *more* taxes if they were married and would not get tax breaks unless they have children.

I'll bet he's missing a fair bit more than just that.

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, 1. I dont want to marry an animal, ewww 2. I'm gay, i dont like men, and even if i did, ewww, my brother? ewww 3. i love tv, but i'm not in love with tv.
Get a life, and keep out of mine.

I think it's great when any two people fall in love and actually commit to each through vows. Outlawing gay marriage is pointless in the fight of "getting rid of" gay people. It is another thing that will tear the country apart, but of course it is inevitable.

As far as what I am cofortable with, it does not include bible-thumpers that harass me...so lets get rid of them too, while we are at it.

As far as what I am cofortable with, it does not include bible-thumpers that harass me...so lets get rid of them too, while we are at it.
Poll: Which would you rather get rid of permanently? Bible-thumpers GaysSomehow I think the mods would flag that as flame-bait.

Pity.