NationStates Jolt Archive

I would guess this topic has been discussed on this forum ad nauseum, but not by me, so all those out there not sick of this, help me out.

Why should I care about gay marriage?

I'm an athiest so no religious explanations please. Keep it to a governmental and legal stand point.

You shouldn't oppose

You shouldn't oppose
ditto

That's my opinion, too, and for the life of me I can't understand why someone would be against it.

However, I know there are some smart people who are against it, and I want to hear what they have to say

Best Non-Religious Reasons I've Heard To Date

1.) It's all, like, icky and stuff, dude. That's totally, like, uncool.

2.) Hey, watch out! You're on a slippery slope! Don't fall!

Well, I actually support gay marriage, but if you want an excuse, then perhaps your taxes going up. They will because if you are married, then you get a tax break, which makes others make up for the difference. Namely you. More people get married, the more ya have to pay.

Now, if the gov. stopped putting their nose into who gets married and just stops the taxing on non-married people and the tax-breaks on married ones, there would not be a problem.

I have a reason!

Oh wait.....no I don't...

I've come up empty, sorry.

Well, I actually support gay marriage, but if you want an excuse, then perhaps your taxes going up. They will because if you are married, then you get a tax break, which makes others make up for the difference. Namely you. More people get married, the more ya have to pay.

Where do you live? Because in the US, this is patently untrue. The tax brackets are arranged so that a middle class couple (which most gay couples are) actually pay more taxes if they get married. Thus, unless the couple had something specific to get them tax breaks (like a child), you personally would pay less taxes.

Now, if the gov. stopped putting their nose into who gets married and just stops the taxing on non-married people and the tax-breaks on married ones, there would not be a problem.

Well, look into the tax code in the US. You only get income tax breaks for things like houses and kids, and these are across the board - it has nothing to do with being married.

The only semblance of a tax break that married couples get is that if one spouse dies, the other does not have to pay inheritance tax. However, this is just plain common sense, as they are a single entity under the law and thus already own everything the other person owns anyways.

hmmmm well actually a non religious answer would be....

Because of the fact marriage is a RELIGIOUS CEREMONY.... and should be confined to RELIGION, that is why there should be no jurisdictions to GAY MARRIAGE unless YOUR RELIGION gives it the OK. So in short...Gays should go seek a religion that doesnt say specifically MAN and WOMAN when it comes to religion.

Why must you people make things so complicated on simple issues?

Unless it's for the benefits, but first i'd have to see them. If the benefits apply mainly to when you have children, there's another reason to ban it...adoption should not count IMO but that is a different story.

hmmmm well actually a non religious answer would be....

Because of the fact marriage is a RELIGIOUS CEREMONY.... and should be confined to RELIGION, that is why there should be no jurisdictions to GAY MARRIAGE unless YOUR RELIGION gives it the OK. So in short...Gays should go seek a religion that doesnt say specifically MAN and WOMAN when it comes to religion.

Why must you people make things so complicated on simple issues?

Unless it's for the benefits, but first i'd have to see them. If the benefits apply mainly to when you have children, there's another reason to ban it...adoption should not count IMO but that is a different story.
Maybe it's just me...but that post didn't make any sense when I was reading it. Especially the last paragraph.

Where do you live? Because in the US, this is patently untrue. The tax brackets are arranged so that a middle class couple (which most gay couples are) actually pay more taxes if they get married. Thus, unless the couple had something specific to get them tax breaks (like a child), you personally would pay less taxes.

I live in Virginia actually. I will give you my sources in a little while. I have to look for them. Married people don't pay more if you are poor like I am. They pay less.



Well, look into the tax code in the US. You only get income tax breaks for things like houses and kids, and these are across the board - it has nothing to do with being married.

The only semblance of a tax break that married couples get is that if one spouse dies, the other does not have to pay inheritance tax. However, this is just plain common sense, as they are a single entity under the law and thus already own everything the other person owns anyways.


I think you are oversimplifying this. I'll be right back. I have to go to the US gov sites.

1. What don't you understand?

2. I was stating that i don't know the benefits of marriage...and that if they apply mainly to having children, there's another reason they shouldn;t have them.


On another note what are the benefits?

hmmmm well actually a non religious answer would be....

Because of the fact marriage is a RELIGIOUS CEREMONY.... and should be confined to RELIGION, that is why there should be no jurisdictions to GAY MARRIAGE unless YOUR RELIGION gives it the OK. So in short...Gays should go seek a religion that doesnt say specifically MAN and WOMAN when it comes to religion.

That's beautiful, but remember that we are discussing civil marriage here, not religious marriage.

Unless it's for the benefits, but first i'd have to see them. If the benefits apply mainly to when you have children, there's another reason to ban it...adoption should not count IMO but that is a different story.

Benefits:
1) Being seen as a single legal entity for purposes of purchasing/ownership/taxes/etc. This is a help, since married people entwine their assets so much that you can't tell what belongs to whom apart anyways.

2) Next-of-kinship. Basically, this means that if you are incapaciated, your spouse makes decisions for you, not your parents, not the government, but the spouse that you have chosen. In the absence of a will, they also get all your stuff (which is pretty much half theirs anyways).

3) No inheritance tax to spouse. This means that after you spend 40 years building a life with someone, you don't lose half of your stuff to Uncle Sam when they die.

4) Ability to gain partial custody of your spouse's children. This means that the child doesn't have a parent that is not legally allowed to take care of it. In addition, if you die, your child goes to your spouse.

5) Spousal Immunity. Basically, someone cannot be forced to testify against their spouse unless they want to.

THere are more, but I just listed 5, and only one has anything at all to do with children.

I live in Virginia actually. I will give you my sources in a little while. I have to look for them. Married people don't pay more if you are poor like I am. They pay less.

The vast majority of gay couples are mid- to upper- middle class. Thus, the net result would be more taxes.

hmmmm well actually a non religious answer would be....

Because of the fact marriage is a RELIGIOUS CEREMONY.... and should be confined to RELIGION, that is why there should be no jurisdictions to GAY MARRIAGE unless YOUR RELIGION gives it the OK. So in short...Gays should go seek a religion that doesnt say specifically MAN and WOMAN when it comes to religion.

Well, FYI, non-religous people marry, they too. Now don't get too shocked, but they do. Also, they don't always do it in curches. Scared ya, did I?


Why must you people make things so complicated on simple issues?

Unless it's for the benefits, but first i'd have to see them. If the benefits apply mainly to when you have children, there's another reason to ban it...adoption should not count IMO but that is a different story.
Yeah yeah, we've heard that gay parents raise gay children before and the first gays popped out of a tree one day. :rolleyes:

If you want to promote the spreading of AIDS, forbidding gay marriage is a great way to do it.

Without a secure domestic relationship the good old swinging scene at the gay bars etc. will take over again, just like the 70s. Best way possible to boost the spread of AIDS.

What, you didn't think gays would be "converted" to straights if they couldn't marry, did you? Hahahahahahahahahah!!!

To Dempublicants:

It all depends on the state you live in. In Virginia, it costs more money to live with someone un-married than it does when married. The state gov. gives tax breaks to married people by taxing everyone.

Again, it depends on your state. They all have different laws on marriage and on finances and taxes.

By your logic women should have no rights in marriage, whatsoever, as most religions prohibit women from choosing their husbands and allow men to marry multiple wives,

anyway, you can't skirt the religion argument by using religion, marriage is a legal thing now, and religion is a non-issue

To Dempublicants:

It all depends on the state you live in. In Virginia, it costs more money to live with someone un-married than it does when married. The state gov. gives tax breaks to married people by taxing everyone.

Again, it depends on your state. They all have different laws on marriage and on finances and taxes.

Well, I was speaking specifically of federal taxes, as these are the bulk of what you pay unless your state has some pretty crazy taxes. I would have to look into it, but I doubt it is enough in any state that it balances out. One way or another, the federal government gets significantly more money and the state government is still scared to death to raise taxes because they might get voted out.

Well, FYI, non-religous people marry, they too. Now don't get too shocked, but they do. Also, they don't always do it in curches. Scared ya, did I?

That actually i did not know...i thought they got married in Whatever place of worship..and the government just verifies it.

Yeah yeah, we've heard that gay parents raise gay children before and the first gays popped out of a tree one day.

hmmm? i never said anything about Gay's raising their kids Gay...Can you quote me on that? Can't seem to find it. /end sarcasm.




And as for the benefits.... well unfortuantly by logic those things should be allowed.


But that doesn't change the fact i oppose gay marriage, and think Homosexuality is a Mental Condition.

Because of the fact marriage is a RELIGIOUS CEREMONY.... and should be confined to RELIGION, that is why there should be no jurisdictions to GAY MARRIAGE unless YOUR RELIGION gives it the OK. So in short...Gays should go seek a religion that doesnt say specifically MAN and WOMAN when it comes to religion.

Are you guys going to outlaw atheists and agnostics from getting married now too? Marriage ISN'T just a religious ceremony, as other people said, we are talking about civil marriage. Most of these marriages wouldn't be performed in a church anyway.

EDIT: Also, I'm against smoking, but does that mean I want smoking to be outlawed? No. Mind your own business, it's not like they are trying to convert you into a homosexual.

That actually i did not know...i thought they got married in Whatever place of worship..and the government just verifies it.



hmmm? i never said anything about Gay's raising their kids Gay...Can you quote me on that? Can't seem to find it. /end sarcasm.




And as for the benefits.... well unfortuantly by logic those things should be allowed.


But that doesn't change the fact i oppose gay marriage, and think Homosexuality is a Mental Condition.

One person who concedes they are wrong but still maintains their position, big supporter of Bush, i suppose

Well then i guess Atheists and Agnostics are obeying Religion by doing so ;p

That actually i did not know...i thought they got married in Whatever place of worship..and the government just verifies it.

Never heard of the justice of the peace, I take it?

hmmm? i never said anything about Gay's raising their kids Gay...Can you quote me on that? Can't seem to find it. /end sarcasm.

You suggested that there is a good reason for not letting homosexuals adopt. There really isn't, but this is the only supposed reason I've heard anyone put forth.

And as for the benefits.... well unfortuantly by logic those things should be allowed.

Unfortunately, eh? It is unfortunate that people should be able to bind their lives to whomever they want? What a screwed up world you live in.

But that doesn't change the fact i oppose gay marriage, and think Homosexuality is a Mental Condition.

I think people who think homosexuality is a mental condition despite all evidence to the contrary have a mental condition.

Besides, how can saying "Those things should be allowed" mesh with "I oppose gay marriage"? You have just completely contradicted yourself, considering that believing those things should be allowed would be supporting gay marriage.

Actually i do support Bush...how'd you know? Are you psychic? O_O

There's no point in arguing with me.... One can only change their idedology, through either knowledge (as in you know all the outcomes of allowing) or... reprogramming...

But obviously we are assuming the first choice.

There's no point in arguing with me.... One can only change their idedology, through either knowledge (as in you know all the outcomes of allowing) or... reprogramming...

But obviously we are assuming the first choice.

I'm not arguing, I am wondering why you are arguing with yourself.

How can you support giving homosexuals the benefits of marriage, but also support not giving them said benefits?

im christian, and im straight. but i could care less if gays wanna get married. good for them. its kinda fucked up that two people in love cant even get married just because the law says that it is morally wrong. i dont think it is the law's choice. people need to be able to live their own lives. i dont think that gay marrige is going to hurt a damn thing. so fuck it, let gays get married and worry about more important shit like the economy and security.

*looks at post* ack X_X sorry mixed wording....


What i'm saying is, if they do allow gay Marriage then they would have to allow it.

I myself am against Gay's Even exisiting (do not reply to this msg, there is no point it is just an added comment to show my stance point)

On another note...

If Christians said that the Old Testament doesnt apply to them..then why would they use Religion on the grounds of banning it? If they banned it on Moral Reasons that's another thing...

I myself am against Gay's Even exisiting

Well, talk to God, if you believe in one. If you don't, you could go around trying to make all homosexual beings (including animals) stop existing, but you will land yourself a lifetime sentence in a mental asylum or prison fairly quickly.

I think the main issue here is insecurity, it seems to be an underlying current in most conservatives.

They are afraid of someone else getting an unfair advantage over them, so much that it possesses their lives.

Look at the issues:

Religion - Live a good, righteous life, live like us, go to heaven. Disobey, cheat, lie, steal, make a mistake, you don't get away with it, you go to hell. Only us who believe in God and say the oath get in to the social club we call heaven.

Birth Control - We don't have sex, so you shouldn't, condoms just promote promiscuity, morning after pill just covers the girls mistake, don't even think about abortion.

Gay Marriage - You are living against our rules, so you obviously should not get the benefits we do, once again a social club designed to keep different people out.

Immigration - We were born in America, our fathers and grandfathers lived in America, we really have nothing to do with why America is what it is today, but you don't deserve what we get cause you are different and you might take something from me.

Drugs - this one is obvious

I myself am against Gay's Even exisiting (do not reply to this msg, there is no point it is just an added comment to show my stance point)
But that doesn't change the fact i oppose gay marriage, and think Homosexuality is a Mental Condition.

Yeah, and so did Hitler, he also prevented a lot of gays from existing. Another one of the sick leaders of the world you admire?

On another note...

If Christians said that the Old Testament doesnt apply to them..then why would they use Religion on the grounds of banning it? If they banned it on Moral Reasons that's another thing...

Last time I checked the Old Testament does apply to Christians, and banning the old testament is a new one to me

hmmmm well actually a non religious answer would be....

Because of the fact marriage is a RELIGIOUS CEREMONY.... and should be confined to RELIGION, that is why there should be no jurisdictions to GAY MARRIAGE unless YOUR RELIGION gives it the OK. So in short...Gays should go seek a religion that doesnt say specifically MAN and WOMAN when it comes to religion.

Why must you people make things so complicated on simple issues?

Unless it's for the benefits, but first i'd have to see them. If the benefits apply mainly to when you have children, there's another reason to ban it...adoption should not count IMO but that is a different story.

I think in most cases, the courts don't care if you're married relgiously. That's why you can go to the county court office and sign a paper saying you're married. as long as you're legally married, why should they care?

Well, talk to God, if you believe in one. If you don't, you could go around trying to make all homosexual beings (including animals) stop existing, but you will land yourself a lifetime sentence in a mental asylum or prison fairly quickly.


Yes i do believe :rolleyes: 2. Animals have no idea what they do most of the time...they tend to work like a computer, as in they have set perameters, but can add new fumctions through mimic.

And i never said i would kill them to change their views...stop being so Cynical and Assumptious.


Religion - Live a good, righteous life, live like us, go to heaven. Disobey, cheat, lie, steal, make a mistake, you don't get away with it, you go to hell. Only us who believe in God and say the oath get in to the social club we call heaven.

My religion (judiasm) doesn't really have a hell... more like prizes for obeying the laws....

Birth Control - We don't have sex, so you shouldn't, condoms just promote promiscuity, morning after pill just covers the girls mistake, don't even think about abortion.

Abstinence to appreicate Sex is a stance...and abortion is allowed to save the womans life, and in some cases even Rape.

Gay Marriage - You are living against our rules, so you obviously should not get the benefits we do, once again a social club designed to keep different people out.

Yup, pretty much

Immigration - We were born in America, our fathers and grandfathers lived in America, we really have nothing to do with why America is what it is today, but you don't deserve what we get cause you are different and you might take something from me.

No stance on Immigration for me. Conservatives tend to vary on religion....

Drugs - this one is obvious

Yeah, and so did Hitler, he also prevented a lot of gays from existing. Another one of the sick leaders of the world you admire?

Actually yes...in some aspects i did admire him. After all, he did speed up the creation of Israel.

Last time I checked the Old Testament does apply to Christians, and banning the old testament is a new one to me

So i guess all the Christian by majority countries are secular then? Because Christians always tell me they don't have to obey it, and that's why they can eat Pork and such.

On another note... DO you people read?


I myself am against Gay's Even exisiting (do not reply to this msg, there is no point it is just an added comment to show my stance point)

Obviously not, otherwise you wouldn't be quoting me on that.

Actually yes...in some aspects i did admire him. After all, he did speed up the creation of Israel.
[...]
Obviously not, otherwise you wouldn't be quoting me on that.

1. You have now lost all credibility for me, and I guess a lot others.

2. You don't post something in a discussion that is insane and don't expect people to quote it.

Hey i said i only liked some aspects of what he did...killing lots of people i didn't like. So if i lost all credibility to you and all of NS, then meh.

And why can't i? It's supposed to show a clear stance, without discussion on it.

MuhOre

What did Hitler do that you approve of? Was it the mindless aggression against neighboring countries, the slave labor, the saturation bombing aimed at causing the most civilian casualties, the murders of his own people and generals, or are you just anti-semetic?

I don't really know what point you are driving at, but if it's that you can type without actually thinking you are proving it quite well.

More like the.... Willing to get Germany out of the depression at any cost...Unification of Germany as a whole people. I remember i used to have a list of the good merits of him... when i find it, i'll show you. :)

And actually i think when typing. I know all my answer pre-hand, since i have had this discussion plenty of times.

Yes i do believe :rolleyes: 2. Animals have no idea what they do most of the time...they tend to work like a computer, as in they have set perameters, but can add new fumctions through mimic.

So if you believe in God, you believe that God made some animals (including humans) gay. If you don't like it, why don't you ask your God why it is there?

And i never said i would kill them to change their views...stop being so Cynical and Assumptious.

You said they shouldn't exist. If your God won't get rid of them, I guess it is up to your or you just deal with it.

Abstinence to appreicate Sex is a stance...and abortion is allowed to save the womans life, and in some cases even Rape.

If you are constantly practicing abstinence, how can you ever appreciate sex?

MuhOre, here is a .pdf file of all the benefits of marriage under the law.

http://www.glad.org/rights/PBOsOfMarriage.pdf

As long as these benefits are given to merried couples, the gay will want those benefits.

There can be only two options if you don't want Gays to marry AND the gays are no longer discriminated against by the law:
1- Remove all benefits of marriage altogether. Everybody gets no benefit. Nobody has an unfair advantage.

2- Create some kind of civil union that gives all the benefits entitled to the married couples. Everybody wins. But then, you may have people pushing for civil union between them and their pet goat.

As it stands, the denial of gay marriage is discrimination based on sexual orientation. And that will just not do.

There can be only two options if you don't want Gays to marry AND the gays are no longer discriminated against by the law:
1- Remove all benefits of marriage altogether. Everybody gets no benefit. Nobody has an unfair advantage.

When you consider that most of the benefits are simply a matter of common sense and convenience, remocing them would be pretty counter productive, especially when you consider that for common sense, you would now have to pass separate laws that allow couples to get every single one of the benefits.

2- Create some kind of civil union that gives all the benefits entitled to the married couples. Everybody wins. But then, you may have people pushing for civil union between them and their pet goat.

They can push for that all they want, but the goat can't consent, so it is a moot point.

As it stands, the denial of gay marriage is discrimination based on sexual orientation. And that will just not do.

Exactly. =)

im christian, and im straight. but i could care less if gays wanna get married. good for them. its kinda fucked up that two people in love cant even get married just because the law says that it is morally wrong. i dont think it is the law's choice. people need to be able to live their own lives. i dont think that gay marrige is going to hurt a damn thing. so fuck it, let gays get married and worry about more important shit like the economy and security.

Agreed.

So if you believe in God, you believe that God made some animals (including humans) gay. If you don't like it, why don't you ask your God why it is there?

-.^, and G-d is supposed to do what i say now? When G-d decides to get rid of them...he'll get rid of them, the world can start without it, if needed.

You said they shouldn't exist. If your God won't get rid of them, I guess it is up to your or you just deal with it.

So i guess we should just leave NK be, so G-d won't get rid of them either i suppose?

If you are constantly practicing abstinence, how can you ever appreciate sex?

Isn't abstinence not having sex until your married?

And thank you to East Canuck. I don't have the time as i'm going to be leaving in a moment...but i will be back later to read it

When you consider that most of the benefits are simply a matter of common sense and convenience, remocing them would be pretty counter productive, especially when you consider that for common sense, you would now have to pass separate laws that allow couples to get every single one of the benefits.

They can push for that all they want, but the goat can't consent, so it is a moot point.

I agree with you that it would be counter-productive to remove all benefits of marriage, but I was trying to explore the possibilities out there. If you ask me, my option two would be the best to appease the religious minded folks. As for me, I'm for gay marriage.

Back to the original topic...
I myself am a firm supporter of gay marriage, so all I can do is guess at people's reasoning. I found this rather interesting, though...a bit old, but still worth thinking about.

http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html

Make of it what you will.

-.^, and G-d is supposed to do what i say now? When G-d decides to get rid of them...he'll get rid of them, the world can start without it, if needed.

If God wants to get rid of them, why did God make them in the first place?

So i guess we should just leave NK be, so G-d won't get rid of them either i suppose?

NK has decided to make nukes. A homosexual has not decided to be a homosexual.

Isn't abstinence not having sex until your married?

No, abstinence is not having sex at all. As long as you are practicing abstinence, you do not have sex. This can be practiced even while married.

More like the.... Willing to get Germany out of the depression at any cost...Unification of Germany as a whole people.
So you value money over human life? You must be a real faithful christian. And unification? Do you really want 6 million people in USA to be tortured, used as slave labour, used as experiments, and killed in order to unite USA? You are not a christian, you are a narcisist, and should be taken to an asylum for general insanity.

Mind your own business, it's not like they are trying to convert you into a homosexual.

First on the required reading list last year for several elementary schools across the People's Republic of Oregon:

'Heather has Two Mommies'

Now this is just my opinion, but this seems to be a step toward promoting homosexuality.

Yeah, and so did Hitler, he also prevented a lot of gays from existing. Another one of the sick leaders of the world you admire?

Hitler was also a rabid supporter of gun control, and confiscated hundreds of thousands of them. So following your logic that means all anti-gun liberals must admire him too? Of course not. Guess what? Having one idea that is shared by a psychotic dictator, doesn't mean that you're an avid admirer of that person! So grow up and stop with the Nazi comparisons.

I agree with you that it would be counter-productive to remove all benefits of marriage, but I was trying to explore the possibilities out there. If you ask me, my option two would be the best to appease the religious minded folks. As for me, I'm for gay marriage.

Yeah, I caught that. I wasn't arguing with you (we agree for once!), although I believe that civil unions would only work if that were *all* the government offered. I just wanted to add on how goofy it would be to take option 1 =)

First on the required reading list last year for several elementary schools across the People's Republic of Oregon:

'Heather has Two Mommies'

Now this is just my opinion, but this seems to be a step toward promoting homosexuality.

I had to read a book that said "See Spot run." when I was learning to read. I guess they were promoting dogs, naming dogs spot, and running.

Seriously, a book like that is designed to help explain the world to children. That way, they will understand what the heck is going on when they meet Heather.

You are not a christian, you are a narcisist ...

I think he said he was Jewish actually . . . not Christian :)

hmmmm well actually a non religious answer would be....

Because of the fact marriage is a RELIGIOUS CEREMONY.... and should be confined to RELIGION, that is why there should be no jurisdictions to GAY MARRIAGE unless YOUR RELIGION gives it the OK. So in short...Gays should go seek a religion that doesnt say specifically MAN and WOMAN when it comes to religion.

Why must you people make things so complicated on simple issues?

Unless it's for the benefits, but first i'd have to see them. If the benefits apply mainly to when you have children, there's another reason to ban it...adoption should not count IMO but that is a different story.

Actually you can be married without involving any religion at a court.

I don't believe that civil unions are the answer either, that is essentially separate but equal, and I'm not old enough to remember personally, but I'm pretty sure we've already had a pretty big problem with that issue.

I had to read a book that said "See Spot run." when I was learning to read. I guess they were promoting dogs, naming dogs spot, and running.

Seriously, a book like that is designed to help explain the world to children. That way, they will understand what the heck is going on when they meet Heather.

Well then, I'll let you read it before you make assumptions on that. This book got into some VERY explicit detail about Heather, including her conception and birth in the original release. Fortunately it was edited and those particular pages were removed before it was given to school kids. Even still it goes into some fairly detailed scenes of the life of this girl and her two lesbian mothers.

I think he said he was Jewish actually . . . not Christian :)
Oh, then just change the christian part to Jew.

Yeah, I caught that. I wasn't arguing with you (we agree for once!), although I believe that civil unions would only work if that were *all* the government offered. I just wanted to add on how goofy it would be to take option 1 =)
Yeah, well we agree on almost everything except the validity of French law.

I was looking for legal reasons to keep homosexual couples from marrying. The only thing I could find was a copy of the ruling passed by the Supreme Court saying that sodomy laws were unconstitutional because they were a violation of privacy and because basing a law on immorality is just stupid. I couldn't find anything with legal reasoning for why same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed.

Now all we have to do is wait for the Supreme Court to make the same ruling for marriage and we're set.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf

Well then, I'll let you read it before you make assumptions on that. This book got into some VERY explicit detail about Heather, including her conception and birth in the original release. Fortunately it was edited and those particular pages were removed before it was given to school kids. Even still it goes into some fairly detailed scenes of the life of this girl and her two lesbian mothers.

Did the book contain a passage that said "Heather's two mommies get into the shower naked and Heather hears moaning?" Because if it didn't, the idea of in vitro (which I assume is the conception part) and birth are perfectly appropriate for children, if phrased in a way they can understand. What types of fairly detailed scenes are you talking about? Do they show these women doing anything with Heather that any parents would not do?

civil unions = ok
marriages = bad

Gay marriage is the first step in destroying the istituition of marriage. The next thing is going to be polygamy.
You can´t give benefits to one but not to everyone.
Since that is the case the logical result of this development is that marriage would become irrelevant and would loose its legal benefits - especially in the field of taxation.

The slippery slope and polygamy arguments are illogical. No one is allowed to marry multiple partners in this country, while some people are allowed to marry the one they love and others aren't.

Allowing polygamy would add a entire new right to society, while allowing gay marriage only extends to people who are not represented.

civil unions = ok
marriages = bad

Ok, as long as you ban all marriages. =)

Gay marriage is the first step in destroying the istituition of marriage. The next thing is going to be polygamy.
You can´t give benefits to one but not to everyone.
Since that is the case the logical result of this development is that marriage would become irrelevant and would loose its legal benefits - especially in the field of taxation.

Non sequitur. Marriage is a legal contract specifically provided to a couple, not to a triplet or quintuplet.

I would guess this topic has been discussed on this forum ad nauseum, but not by me, so all those out there not sick of this, help me out.

Why should I care about gay marriage?

I'm an athiest so no religious explanations please. Keep it to a governmental and legal stand point.


other than religious beleifs. you shouldnt, simple as that. who cares what you call it. marriage,union, whatever. i'm straight and i personally dont see myself getting married for any other reason but for having children. so i say let em if they so choose. ohh and i am agnostic. if it is out there is its out there but i am not going ot waiste my life looking for it. i'll meet you at the end.

The slippery slope and polygamy arguments are illogical. No one is allowed to marry multiple partners in this country, while some people are allowed to marry the one they love and others aren't.

Allowing polygamy would add a entire new right to society, while allowing gay marriage only extends to people who are not represented.
.
No, you are simply. Marriage is between one man and one woman. That is the concept of our western culture.
Other forms of relationship are not included.
And those others are for example homosexuality and polygamy. If you include one you can´t in the long-run exclude the other.

No, you are simply. Marriage is between one man and one woman. That is the concept of our western culture.
Other forms of relationship are not included.
And those others are for example homosexuality and polygamy. If you include one you can´t in the long-run exclude the other.

Bollucks. Same argument used in the 60s to fight against interracial marriage.
"Marriage has always been between a man and a woman of the same race. If we allow interracial, we cant exclude polygamy then."
I makes no sense. Firstly that did not happen. Secondly there is a large difference between a COUPLE marrying (straight or gay) and MULTIPLE people marrying. The slippery slope argument was crap then and it is crap now.

Non sequitur. Marriage is a legal contract specifically provided to a couple, not to a triplet or quintuplet.
NO, you are wrong with that. Marriage is a legal contract between a man and a woman. Period. It is designed for that. And not for other relationships like homosexuality and polygamy.
That is the concept in our culture. It is not the case in other cultures like in the islamic tradition and in other cultures.
If you want to destroy the tradition of western culture- which you seem to want - you have to do it consequently. You can´t allow gay marriage while - in the long-run- deny muslims or other groups to go for polygamy if they want to.
There is no logic in that.
If you give up the current definition of marriage there is no barrier anymore to that development.

.
If you want to destroy the tradition of western culture- which you seem to want - you have to do it consequently.

Funny, I don't see western culture exactly collapsing throughout Massachussetts. Me thinks you are overly paranoid of gay marriage's effect on society.

NO, you are wrong with that. Marriage is a legal contract between a man and a woman. Period. It is designed for that. And not for other relationships like homosexuality and polygamy.
That is the concept in our culture. It is not the case in other cultures like in the islamic tradition and in other cultures.
If you want to destroy the tradition of western culture- which you seem to want - you have to do it consequently. You can´t allow gay marriage while - in the long-run- deny muslims or other groups to go for polygamy if they want to.
There is no logic in that.
If you give up the current definition of marriage there is no barrier anymore to that development.
And can you give me any legal reasons why the definition of marriage should not be including other kind of couple than man-woman? western culture is all fine and dandy, but there is no legal reasoning behind prtecting it.

NO, you are wrong with that. Marriage is a legal contract between a man and a woman. Period. It is designed for that. And not for other relationships like homosexuality and polygamy.

Actually, at present, it is a legal contract between a man, a woman, and their government. Polygamy doesn't even come into the discussion because the government's purpose in recognizing marriage is, simply put, its own convenience. Polygamy would not be convenient to recognize, nor would it make sense in the consruct of the benefits allowed for marriage. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, are like a marriage in every way, except they don't get protections.

That is the concept in our culture. It is not the case in other cultures like in the islamic tradition and in other cultures.

No, that is the concept in that little brain of yours.

If you want to destroy the tradition of western culture- which you seem to want - you have to do it consequently. You can´t allow gay marriage while - in the long-run- deny muslims or other groups to go for polygamy if they want to.

I don't want to destroy anything. I simply want to take the idea of equality to its natural end. Polygamy, again, has nothing to do with it. Marriage licenses are not offered to individuals or to groups of five, they are granted to couples.

There is no logic in that.

There is no logic in anything that you ever argue.

If you give up the current definition of marriage there is no barrier anymore to that development.

There is unless you are an idiot.

Bollucks. Same argument used in the 60s to fight against interracial marriage.
"Marriage has always been between a man and a woman of the same race. If we allow interracial, we cant exclude polygamy then."
I makes no sense. Firstly that did not happen. Secondly there is a large difference between a COUPLE marrying (straight or gay) and MULTIPLE people marrying. The slippery slope argument was crap then and it is crap now.
I´m not from the US. I´m from an much more "evil" country.
So, I won´t comment on that. But it is a fact: you don´t have an argument against polygamy if you allow gay marriage. The argument for is: Oh, we are denied rights.
First of all, I don´t agree with it, since marriage is designed for one man and one woman.
The next one claims that it is a discrimination of one form of love. But people can also life in polygamous relationships and love the other partners.

Summarizing it up: Allowing gay marriage is going to cause in the long-term the demand for legalizing polygamy.
And due to the increasing muslim population this demand will be made - and if gay marriage is allowed there is no argument against it anymore.

President Bush is right. Gay marriage is an attack on the western civilisation. It is going to cause the end of the instituition of marriage. You can give privileges to one group. But if you give it to all that aren´t privileges anymore.

There is a double meaning to the word Marraige.

1. A religious sacrament - the joining of two people in the sight of God, and recognized by the church. This has nothing legally to do with marriage, does not give any rights to the married, and is controlled, any way they see fit, by the religious body. The argument here is obvious, God doesn't like it.

2. A legal contract enacted by a state granting a liscense - this has nothing to do with the religious meaning of marraige, and, inded, can be granted to non-religious couples. This is a state issued liscense, not a federally issued liscense. It is this document that grants over 2,000 special state rights and 1,000 federal rights to the married. The argument here is also obvious, because liscenses are granted on a state by state basis, and because of the full faith and credit clause of the constitution which states that any contract entered in to in one jurisdiction must be recognised by all jurisdictions, it is felt that allowing gay marraige in one state would force a state where it is not allowed to recognise it. The federal ban on gay marraige is to prevent that loop-hole in the full faith and credit clause. This is, of course, moot, if all states grant gay marraiges.

hmmmm well actually a non religious answer would be....

Because of the fact marriage is a RELIGIOUS CEREMONY.... and should be confined to RELIGION, that is why there should be no jurisdictions to GAY MARRIAGE unless YOUR RELIGION gives it the OK. So in short...Gays should go seek a religion that doesnt say specifically MAN and WOMAN when it comes to religion.

Why must you people make things so complicated on simple issues?

Unless it's for the benefits, but first i'd have to see them. If the benefits apply mainly to when you have children, there's another reason to ban it...adoption should not count IMO but that is a different story.

It's not just a religious ceremony. One can have a civil marriage and a judge marries them. Therefore, the church should just stay out of it because in this country we're supposed to have SEPARATION of church and state.

um ... Here's the best I can come up

1.) If we stop trying to oppress people than we might have to deal with real issues and problems facing our country and the world which would cut into the profits of large corporations exploiting the suffering of others.

2.) The Bill of Rights only says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" (9th amendment), but not once in the constitution does specifically give gays any rights ... unless you want to include that pesky part of the Declaration of Independence that says "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."

4.) Currently there are no Federal Laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and what laws do exist are merely state laws so there exists nothing saying that they should be granted the same rights as the rest of the nation. Just because they are expected to follow the same laws and regulations as everybody else does not mean that they get the same freedoms.


How's that?

And can you give me any legal reasons why the definition of marriage should not be including other kind of couple than man-woman? western culture is all fine and dandy, but there is no legal reasoning behind prtecting it.
Because the law says so. One man - one woman.
And only within this combination children can be born. That is not the case in homosexual relations.

Because the law says so. One man - one woman.
And only within this combination children can be born. That is not the case in homosexual relations.
So should we ban all sterile people or senior citizens from marrying because they cannot produce offspring either? How petty. *rolls eyes*

2. A legal contract enacted by a state granting a liscense - this has nothing to do with the religious meaning of marraige, and, inded, can be granted to non-religious couples. This is a state issued liscense, not a federally issued liscense. It is this document that grants over 2,000 special state rights and 1,000 federal rights to the married. The argument here is also obvious, because liscenses are granted on a state by state basis, and because of the full faith and credit clause of the constitution which states that any contract entered in to in one jurisdiction must be recognised by all jurisdictions, it is felt that allowing gay marraige in one state would force a state where it is not allowed to recognise it. The federal ban on gay marraige is to prevent that loop-hole in the full faith and credit clause. This is, of course, moot, if all states grant gay marraiges.Very interesting. I wonder how the anti-sexual orientation discrimination laws in the 13 (I think that is the right number) states that have them explain prohibiting the same discrimination that they are guilty of.

I'm not against is because I think the government is being lil spits about it. They say to take religion out of our schools but why do they take away gay marriage? because "the bible says it's wrong". They only use religion when it's convenient...and people wonder why I hate them... :headbang: ya I know you asked for a non religious answer but I just figured I'd give you my stand point. I don't know reasons other than that. All I've heard anyone say is that "it's just wrong"

Originally Posted by East Canuck
"And can you give me any legal reasons why the definition of marriage should not be including other kind of couple than man-woman? western culture is all fine and dandy, but there is no legal reasoning behind prtecting it. "

I'm not against gay marriage, but the argument is that if you change one part of the definition, then why can't you change other parts. For example, the number of people allowed to be married.

Actually, at present, it is a legal contract between a man, a woman, and their government. Polygamy doesn't even come into the discussion because the government's purpose in recognizing marriage is, simply put, its own convenience. Polygamy would not be convenient to recognize, nor would it make sense in the consruct of the benefits allowed for marriage. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, are like a marriage in every way, except they don't get protections..
there are countries who recognize muliple-marriage. And there are more polygamous living people (historically) than gays.
You can´t argue that way. Your argument is moot.

hmmmm well actually a non religious answer would be....

Because of the fact marriage is a RELIGIOUS CEREMONY.... and should be confined to RELIGION, that is why there should be no jurisdictions to GAY MARRIAGE unless YOUR RELIGION gives it the OK. So in short...Gays should go seek a religion that doesnt say specifically MAN and WOMAN when it comes to religion.

Why must you people make things so complicated on simple issues?

Unless it's for the benefits, but first i'd have to see them. If the benefits apply mainly to when you have children, there's another reason to ban it...adoption should not count IMO but that is a different story.


You never heard of Satanism?

Because the law says so. One man - one woman.
And only within this combination children can be born. That is not the case in homosexual relations.
And the gays say that the law is unconstitutionnal because it discriminate them. And they are right. So either the judge invlidate these laws (which give benefits to all married people) or they force the varying government (federal, state, municipal) to accept gay marriage as valid.

And homosexual can adopt, have in-vitro children, surrogate mothers, etc. so your children argument holds no water.

Yes, marriage, a long time ago, was governed by the church, till the mid 1800's, then the US government decided to get into the marriage business. I know, NOT anytime soon in Texas will gay marriage or civil unions happen in my lifetime. The US government wants homosexuals to stop their promiscious ways but will not allow us to join with another man till death do we part. I am a homosexual and I have been in a relationship with David for twenty-five years, many more than many of our heterosexual friends have. :headbang:

All we want are the same rights as other couples, :fluffle: for our house, properties, and if one should get sick, the other have control of the other's medical care. I guess that would be tooooooooooooooo much to ask for.

hmmmm well actually a non religious answer would be....

Because of the fact marriage is a RELIGIOUS CEREMONY.... and should be confined to RELIGION, that is why there should be no jurisdictions to GAY MARRIAGE unless YOUR RELIGION gives it the OK. So in short...Gays should go seek a religion that doesnt say specifically MAN and WOMAN when it comes to religion.

Why must you people make things so complicated on simple issues?

Unless it's for the benefits, but first i'd have to see them. If the benefits apply mainly to when you have children, there's another reason to ban it...adoption should not count IMO but that is a different story.
Does that mean that I as an agnostic cannot get married? :mad:

I'm not against gay marriage, but the argument is that if you change one part of the definition, then why can't you change other parts. For example, the number of people allowed to be married.I never could follow that argument. The mormon religion supports poligamy and as a religious practice for a man to marry more than one woman wouldn't multiple partners already be protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution?

So should we ban all sterile people or senior citizens from marrying because they cannot produce offspring either? How petty. *rolls eyes*
No, it is the hypothetical ability.
And if you change one parts of the definiton of marriage (sex), why can´t you change another part (numbers).
If you change it you open the door to the end of marriage. You can give privileges to one group but not to all. That is just not feisable.

I never could follow that argument. The mormon religion supports poligamy and as a religious practice for a man to marry more than one woman wouldn't multiple partners already be protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution?

It is in Utah. I suppose that leads into what the state and the nation agree on in terms of marriage as well.

And the gays say that the law is unconstitutionnal because it discriminate them. And they are right. So either the judge invlidate these laws (which give benefits to all married people) or they force the varying government (federal, state, municipal) to accept gay marriage as valid.
They are wrong. It is the law. And you can´t change the law against the will of the people.

And homosexual can adopt, have in-vitro children, surrogate mothers, etc. so your children argument holds no water.
That is not natural. I´m of course against gay adoptions as well.
Homosexuals can´t produce offspring naturally. So my argument is helding water.

No, it is the hypothetical ability.
And if you change one parts of the definiton of marriage (sex), why can´t you change another part (numbers).
If you change it you open the door to the end of marriage. You can give privileges to one group but not to all. That is just not feisable.

You spelled feasible incorrectly.

No, it is the hypothetical ability. Which again would disclude senior citizens and sterile people. They 'lack' the hypothetical ability.

And if you change one parts of the definiton of marriage (sex), why can´t you change another part (numbers). Again the slippery slope argument. Answer is because we are talking about two entirely different issues here; gay marriage and polygamy are not equivalent.

If you change it you open the door to the end of marriage. Which is exactly what they said about interracial marriage in the 60s. Fourty years later marriage is still going quite strong. Maybe you should look to banning divorce before gay marriage. After all, divorce actually does damage the institution of marriage.

Originally Posted by East Canuck
"And can you give me any legal reasons why the definition of marriage should not be including other kind of couple than man-woman? western culture is all fine and dandy, but there is no legal reasoning behind prtecting it. "

I'm not against gay marriage, but the argument is that if you change one part of the definition, then why can't you change other parts. For example, the number of people allowed to be married.

You have a point. But then, I'm not sure polygamy is so evil. If some religion accept it, who are we to be against?

However, polygamy brings a lot of legal problem like:
Who gets power of attorney?
Who gets custody of the children?
Who gets the tax benefits?
Is the marriage a three way equal rights or is it multiple marriage by one of the partners to a number of differnt partners who are treated as different marriage?
and so on...

So you see how polygamy is far from a foregone conclusion to same-sex marriage.

Yes, marriage, a long time ago, was governed by the church, till the mid 1800's, then the US government decided to get into the marriage business. I know, NOT anytime soon in Texas will gay marriage or civil unions happen in my lifetime. The US government wants homosexuals to stop their promiscious ways but will not allow us to join with another man till death do we part..
You can do it without marriage. You are an example for that.
I hope President Bush wins. He certainly wins Texas, the southern states and others. That should be enough to prevent this dangerous development.

I never could follow that argument. The mormon religion supports poligamy and as a religious practice for a man to marry more than one woman wouldn't multiple partners already be protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution?

Ummm . . . I'm Mormon, and no we don't. That practice was discontinued a LONG time ago. There are a few people still who practice it and call themselves Mormon, but have been excommunicated.

Just FYI.

They are wrong. It is the law. And you can´t change the law against the will of the people. Yes you can. It is called unpopular legislation and it is the reason schools integrated. See, the courts actually look after the rights of the citizens and minority groups, unlike the people.


That is not natural. I´m of course against gay adoptions as well.
Homosexuals can´t produce offspring naturally. So my argument is helding water. So because someone is sterile and cannot produce offspring naturally, they should not be able to marry or adopt kids?

Once again, your reasoning has a tragic flaw.

You have a point. But then, I'm not sure polygamy is so evil. If some religion accept it, who are we to be against?

However, polygamy brings a lot of legal problem like:
Who gets power of attorney?
Who gets custody of the children?
Who gets the tax benefits?
Is the marriage a three way equal rights or is it multiple marriage by one of the partners to a number of differnt partners who are treated as different marriage?
and so on...

So you see how polygamy is far from a foregone conclusion to same-sex marriage.
Just because a religion accepts it doesn't mean it's not evil. heh. heh. But your point is a good one. Changing one part of the definition doesn't have the same consequences or as many.

No, it is the hypothetical ability.
And if you change one parts of the definiton of marriage (sex), why can´t you change another part (numbers).
If you change it you open the door to the end of marriage. You can give privileges to one group but not to all. That is just not feisable.

Who's to say that the end of marriage wouldn't be a good thing?

Personally, I'm all for getting rid of it totally and sticking to civil unions. Since there's no legal argument for denying rights homosexual couples, they should be able to get every single right that heterosexual couples get. Just get rid of the religious aspect.

You have a point. But then, I'm not sure polygamy is so evil. If some religion accept it, who are we to be against?

However, polygamy brings a lot of legal problem like:
Who gets power of attorney?
Who gets custody of the children?
Who gets the tax benefits?
Is the marriage a three way equal rights or is it multiple marriage by one of the partners to a number of differnt partners who are treated as different marriage?
and so on...
So you see how polygamy is far from a foregone conclusion to same-sex marriage.
You are wrong. All those question exist for the normal marriage as well. And gay marriage also contains a lot of problems - regarding the question of adoption and regarding moral and ethical issues.
Should the relationship man-woman not be presented as the ideal any more? Should we change Adam and Eve to Adam and Steeve? Should we include homosexual kings and queens (queers) in fairy-tales?
All that can be seen as "discrimination". And what about polygamy?
This is an attack on civilisation. President Bush is right. And I´m convinced he wins.
Then he is showing the guts to the lefties in Europe - including my own country. We need "regime change" as well. I hope for the elections to do so, though.

Yes you can. It is called unpopular legislation and it is the reason schools integrated. See, the courts actually look after the rights of the citizens and minority groups, unlike the people..
But this right doesn´t exist. Marriage is an individual right. It is the right for a man to marry a woman and for a woman to marry a man. There is no discrimination in that.

So because someone is sterile and cannot produce offspring naturally, they should not be able to marry or adopt kids?
Once again, your reasoning has a tragic flaw.
But they can offer the children father and mother.
Homosexuals can´t do it.

But this right doesn´t exist. Marriage is an individual right. It is the right for a man to marry a woman and for a woman to marry a man. There is no discrimination in that. It is discriminatory against homosexuals, as they are unable to marry.


But they can offer the children father and mother.
Homosexuals can´t do it. Homosexual couples can offer parenting just as easily as heterosexual coupls can. Study after study has shown gay couples to be just as capable and the children they raise to be perfectly fine.

I can give a non-religious reason as to why it can be both opposed and supported.

People have long forgotten that this is hardly the role of the government. The central government was not originally intended to work things out like this, and it should maintain. The constitution states that these sorts of things should be left up to the states. An amendment to tell someone who they can and can't marry? The Founding Fathers would find this asinine.

Bollucks. Same argument used in the 60s to fight against interracial marriage.
"Marriage has always been between a man and a woman of the same race. If we allow interracial, we cant exclude polygamy then."
I makes no sense. Firstly that did not happen. Secondly there is a large difference between a COUPLE marrying (straight or gay) and MULTIPLE people marrying. The slippery slope argument was crap then and it is crap now.

That's a good point.

I think socially, disallowing gay marriage is non-progressive. In any case there's not enough love in the world, what with countries flinging bombs at each other because of a difference in way of life. Also, isn't there an increase in divorce currently happening? Most homosexual relationships are probably stronger than alot of heterosexual relationships. What homosexual couples want is to be allowed the same personal legal and spiritual recognition, if not to the majority of the majority of religions, then at least in the eyes of the law and in their own eyes.

If one were to disallow inter-racial marriage, this would be considered racist. Why then, is disallowing homosexual marriage not considered sexist? The definition of the word marriage is a union of man and woman, granted, but shouldn't definitions sometimes be updated to allow for social progress? Words mean different things to different people. Definitions are not really as objective as we'd like them to be. Despite the undeniable core, objective meaning of the word, different people will attach their own opinions and feelings to the definition and will also differ in how literally they take the definition. For example, it would be impossible to define 'God' in a way that everyone in the world can agree on. 'Marriage' has a definition that is just as debatable.

NO, you are wrong with that. Marriage is a legal contract between a man and a woman. Period. It is designed for that. And not for other relationships like homosexuality and polygamy.
That is the concept in our culture. It is not the case in other cultures like in the islamic tradition and in other cultures.
If you want to destroy the tradition of western culture- which you seem to want - you have to do it consequently. You can´t allow gay marriage while - in the long-run- deny muslims or other groups to go for polygamy if they want to.
There is no logic in that.
If you give up the current definition of marriage there is no barrier anymore to that development.

I think the debate about homosexual marriages will travel down the same route as inter-racial marriages and will eventually be accepted despite the disagreements of individuals. I'm sure that eventually more of society will encompass polygamy in the same way. This needn't be a problem, as society can and will adapt to changes in itself. The current debate needn't, however, feature polygamy as a factor to consider. In the same way that to disallow an inter-racial marriage would be considered racist, some could consider that disallowing a homosexual marriage would be sexist. A large part of the debate is discrimination, allowing only a particular social group a particular rights.

Polygamy, although not so relevant to the current debate, could eventually become as accepted in society as any other marriage. Disallowing it could in fact be considered culturally discriminating. Polygamy might break down the structure of Western culture but I personally believe this would be beneficial to humanity. Too long has there been such a divide in humanity. Neither side of the Earth can understand the other, and consequently, wars break out because both sides think they are in the right. I believe it would be beneficial to fuzz the barrier between Eastern and Western culture and mix them up. This is already happening and should continue to happen as I feel it will gel humanity together in such a way as to diminish East-West hostility and wipe the scourge of war from the planet.

Apoligies for the long lecture. Gratitude for reading this far.

:) Peace and Love. ;)

It is discriminatory against homosexuals, as they are unable to marry..
But that is also the case for polygamists.


Homosexual couples can offer parenting just as easily as heterosexual coupls can. Study after study has shown gay couples to be just as capable and the children they raise to be perfectly fine.
That is not true. It is just unnatural. And the children suffer from that.

I think we have to stick to the traditional model.
Everything else is only a destraction from it and undermining it and the Western civilisation. It can not be presented as a model for children.

Why do the people on here think that gays can't have children?
I was under the belief that gays had the same reproductive organs as everyone else. Silly me. I guess the fact that I have a gay uncle who has 2 children can be confusing.

This is the last time I'm saying this, nobody has the right to marry multiple partners, so polygamists are not being discriminated against, it is a complete flaw in logic.

That is not true. It is just unnatural. And the children suffer from that. Most every study would suggest otherwise. And as for being "natural", you are aware that homosexuality occurs in most mammalian species, no? That it has appeared in humans since recorded time? That most studies find homosexuals to be born with that orientation? But then, your opinions MUST be better than factual science.

You are wrong. All those question exist for the normal marriage as well. And gay marriage also contains a lot of problems - regarding the question of adoption and regarding moral and ethical issues.
Should the relationship man-woman not be presented as the ideal any more? Should we change Adam and Eve to Adam and Steeve? Should we include homosexual kings and queens (queers) in fairy-tales?
All that can be seen as "discrimination". And what about polygamy?
This is an attack on civilisation. President Bush is right. And I´m convinced he wins.
Then he is showing the guts to the lefties in Europe - including my own country. We need "regime change" as well. I hope for the elections to do so, though.
Uh...you need to read more carefully. All of the questions Canuck posed were about POLYGAMY not gay marriage. And not everyone believes in "Adam and Eve." And if you're going to say it's an attack on civilization, then learn some friggin' history. In ancient civilization it was more common for same-sex couples to live with each other because they found it more congenial. The only reason they had sex with the opposite gender is for procreation. And you're absolutely right, everything you said can be seen as discrimination, especially the part when your referred to homosexuals as queer. I believe you're the queer one here.

That is not true. It is just unnatural. And the children suffer from that.

I think we have to stick to the traditional model.
Everything else is only a destraction from it and undermining it and the Western civilisation. It can not be presented as a model for children.
unfortunately, science establishes that homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality, and that children raised by homosexual parents don't suffer any more than children raise in heterosexual homes. would you care to present any evidence at all that might support your positions?

That is not true. It is just unnatural. And the children suffer from that.

I think we have to stick to the traditional model.
Everything else is only a destraction from it and undermining it and the Western civilisation. It can not be presented as a model for children.

The APA says otherwise:

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

I think the debate about homosexual marriages will travel down the same route as inter-racial marriages and will eventually be accepted despite the disagreements of individuals. I'm sure that eventually more of society will encompass polygamy in the same way. This needn't be a problem, as society can and will adapt to changes in itself. The current debate needn't, however, feature polygamy as a factor to consider. In the same way that to disallow an inter-racial marriage would be considered racist, some could consider that disallowing a homosexual marriage would be sexist. A large part of the debate is discrimination, allowing only a particular social group a particular rights.
Polygamy, although not so relevant to the current debate, could eventually become as accepted in society as any other marriage. Disallowing it could in fact be considered culturally discriminating. Polygamy might break down the structure of Western culture but I personally believe this would be beneficial to humanity. Too long has there been such a divide in humanity. Neither side of the Earth can understand the other, and consequently, wars break out because both sides think they are in the right. I believe it would be beneficial to fuzz the barrier between Eastern and Western culture and mix them up. This is already happening and should continue to happen as I feel it will gel humanity together in such a way as to diminish East-West hostility and wipe the scourge of war from the planet.
Apoligies for the long lecture. Gratitude for reading this far.

I think you are wrong and naive.
Certain cultures are simply incompetible. I agree with Huntington (Clash of civilisations?). In order to have a more peaceful world we should force other cultures - but we neither should allow to force their culture on us.
It is better that everybody sticks to its own kind.
An islamic state and a western society can´t merge. It is impossible.
Even the close alliance of western countries in Europe (EU) is causing much resentment although of many differences.
I think this forced cultural globalisation is actually cause for much of the hatred in the world. Because other societies simply refuse to take it over.
Japan for example is still Japanese -and since they were successful with their concepts in the 1970s and 1980s they are even more pointing out their differences to the west. The same can be said for European countries.
The world is not going to merger. It is too different. Globalisation is only an economic issue and a security issue. But it won´t led to a world culture. There is none. This is simply an illusion.
There are hundreds of different national cultures and about 5-6 big civilisations as Huntington says. And those can´t merge.

Sorry if most of this has been said already, but I can't read all 7 pages of this topic. And I am what the original poster was looking for, I am well educated and I oppose gay marriage. I also am scientifically minded, meaning that I base my opinions on facts and my reasonable interpretations of them.

I don't call myself Atheist because I believe that God is a creation of man, and that this God is as real as many things we call real, but I know that all the stories and magic are just stories. So now you know about me.

Gay Marriage. I am against it. My reasoning (which I am open to revising) goes like this:

1) Homosexuality is an ailment. People who are homosexual have a harder time at life than those who are Heterosexual. This is caused by a basic instinctual aversion to homosexuality. People can repress this aversion if they try.

2) Children of homosexual parents are more likely to be homosexual themselves. There is so little data available that this can't be proven or disproven, but it makes sense. (I use prove loosely here)

3) 1 and 2 combine to show that homosexual parents should not raise children. It is unfair to that child.

4) This reasoning shows that homosexual parents should not raise children, and to me that also means that homosexual couples should not form families. This is where marriage fits in to this reasoning.

Currently, laws allow a gay couple to adopt a child and raise it as their own. Because of this I believe homosexual couples should be allowed to be "married", to help fix a bad situation.

It is my opinion, however, that a homosexual couple should not adopt and should not be married. My reason for opposing gay marriage is to oppose adoption and the idea of a homosexual family.

I understand that my reasoning does not stand if:

1) positive portrail of homosexuality does not promote homosexuality
or
2) it is not detrimental for a person to be homosexual

So I welcome any comments that can demonstrate either of these.

This is the last time I'm saying this, nobody has the right to marry multiple partners, so polygamists are not being discriminated against, it is a complete flaw in logic.

I'm not sure what it says in the international declaration of human rights. It probably doesn't allow for polygamy. Polygamist cultures may however feel discriminated against and although currently society does not, generally, accept it in the same way that it does normal marriage, it may come to do so.

One issue I noticed earlier, I think it was from MuhOre on the first page of the thread, was that of adoption in a gay marriage and receiving possible government benefits in the same way that another married couple with a child might. Why should the fact that the child was adopted make a difference? The couple is still raising the child and probably doing a better job of it than a potentially less stable couple that doesn't want the child. If a gay couple wish to raise a child, adopted or produced by IVF and surrogacy, why should they be denied that wish, if the child has as much potential and the same rights to life as any other child? Traditional values are outdated and should constantly be updated to allow for adaptation in society.

That is not true. It is just unnatural. And the children suffer from that.

I think we have to stick to the traditional model.
Everything else is only a destraction from it and undermining it and the Western civilisation. It can not be presented as a model for children.
The "traditional model" also does not allow for divorce and single parents and steps parents. The traditional model you refer to is a rarity. As for the children suffering I can see them suffering from the persecution of those opposed to same-sex marriage and in that case it is not the marriage that is harming the child but the acts of those trying to protect the child and the sanctity of marriage. I do not see any more “damage” being done than what might occur in any single parent home where there is an absence of one gender during the child’s upbringing.

Gay Marriage. I am against it. My reasoning (which I am open to revising) goes like this....

Could you clarify why you feel that homosexuality is an ailment? Your whole argument, as you've inferred, does seem to hinge on the idea that homosexuality is detrimental.

The "traditional model" also does not allow for divorce and single parents and steps parents. The traditional model you refer to is a rarity. As for the children suffering I can see them suffering from the persecution of those opposed to same-sex marriage and in that case it is not the marriage that is harming the child but the acts of those trying to protect the child and the sanctity of marriage. I do not see any more “damage” being done than what might occur in any single parent home where there is an absence of one gender during the child’s upbringing.
not to mention that the model he refers to ISN'T TRADITIONAL. the mommy + daddy + children model of a family is less than 100 years old; for centuries before that, the traditional model of the family was more of a group effort, with extended family and community participating in child rearing. the one man - one woman core of a family unit is from the era of the nuclear family, and has been "tradition" for far, far less time than the more complex model.

I reason that homosexuality is bad, and here is an example to demonstrate my thinking.

Two people who are exactly alike in every way will have lives that are equally good.

Now, say one of those persons has HIV. They can live a good life, but they will have to work hard to make their life as good as their identical counterpart without HIV.

The same reasoning applies to homosexuality. People will ridicule you. You will have a more difficult time finding a life partner. Many social situations become akward for you, like someone asking you if you have a girlfriend when you don't, but you do have a boyfiriend.

I reason that homosexuality is bad, and here is an example to demonstrate my thinking.

Two people who are exactly alike in every way will have lives that are equally good.

Now, say one of those persons has HIV. They can live a good life, but they will have to work hard to make their life as good as their identical counterpart without HIV.

Huh? I'm confused. How is homosexuality similar to HIV?

The same reasoning applies to homosexuality. People will ridicule you. You will have a more difficult time finding a life partner. Many social situations become akward for you, like someone asking you if you have a girlfriend when you don't, but you do have a boyfiriend.

Actually, if you were to work towards getting rid of the stereotypes and social pressures to be straight, we wouldn't have those awkward moments.

Not to mention awkwardness is the least of their worries at the moment.

I reason that homosexuality is bad, and here is an example to demonstrate my thinking.

Two people who are exactly alike in every way will have lives that are equally good.

Now, say one of those persons has HIV. They can live a good life, but they will have to work hard to make their life as good as their identical counterpart without HIV.
i guess you just argued against allowing people with illnesses to marry...how compassionate of you.

The same reasoning applies to homosexuality. People will ridicule you. You will have a more difficult time finding a life partner. Many social situations become akward for you, like someone asking you if you have a girlfriend when you don't, but you do have a boyfiriend.
wow, AND you like to blame the victim! remind me to tell all the mixed-race heterosexual couples in America that their unions are now desolved because some people will make fun of them, and because some people don't like that mixed-race couples exist.

1) Homosexuality is an ailment. People who are homosexual have a harder time at life than those who are Heterosexual. This is caused by a basic instinctual aversion to homosexuality. People can repress this aversion if they try.That is not a scientifically sound accusation. The cause of homosexuality is not known. As for the ability to repress homosexual urges people can repress the urge to do alot of things. I have seen people repress the urge to pull their hand out of a flame to prove how much pain they could tollerate. I have seen people go on hunger strikes and repress the urge to eat. The ability to repress anurge is not proof that the urge should be repressed or that the urge is not natural and healthy.

2) Children of homosexual parents are more likely to be homosexual themselves. There is so little data available that this can't be proven or disproven, but it makes sense. (I use prove loosely here)It is not that there little evidence of this but I would go so far to say that there is nothing supportng this.[/QUOTE]

3) 1 and 2 combine to show that homosexual parents should not raise children. It is unfair to that child.1 and 2 are not based in any factual, scientific, nor provable theories which dismantles the remainder of your arguments which are based on them.

Since I don't know how to do the quote...

Quote:
"i guess you just argued against allowing people with illnesses to marry...how compassionate of you."

If that illness is passed on to others through that marriage, then yes, for the sake of those others I do oppose that marriage.

Quote:
"wow, AND you like to blame the victim! remind me to tell all the mixed-race heterosexual couples in America that their unions are now desolved because some people will make fun of them, and because some people don't like that mixed-race couples exist."

EXCELLENT point! Thanks for bringing that up. The difference is that biologically there is no reason that a man and woman of a different race shouldn't join together. In fact, this union is likely to produce fitter offspring (biological fitness, not physical fitness). A homosexual union actually has biological reasons against it, in addition to the behavioral ones that it does share with a mixed race couple.

I've got more but I'd better get this out because of how busy this topic is.

And a true thanks for that comment on mixed race marriage, I hadn't thought of that.

Now, say one of those persons has HIV. They can live a good life, but they will have to work hard to make their life as good as their identical counterpart without HIV.

But this is true for anyone with a terminal illness. The above statement can apply to heterosexual couples, who, I'm sure you know can also contract HIV.

The difference is that biologically there is no reason that a man and woman of a different race shouldn't join together. In fact, this union is likely to produce fitter offspring (biological fitness, not physical fitness). A homosexual union actually has biological reasons against it, in addition to the behavioral ones that it does share with a mixed race couple.

Why is this an issue with today's technology? A gay couple can reproduce by way of egg donors, in-vitro fertilisation and surrogacy.

1 and 2 are not based in any factual, scientific, nor provable theories which dismantles the remainder of your arguments which are based on them.

I think I figgured out the quote part.

Yes, I understand that 1 and 2 are not based in fact or probable theories. And this is why I can not use my argument to convince you to think in the way that I do.

The only thing my reasoning does is support why I feel the way I do, and demonstrate that one can feel this way and not be "wrong".

1 and 2 are conjectures that I have drawn on my own, and if you can show me how they are wrong then I can see that my belief that homosexual unions are wrong is... wrong.

Since I don't know how to do the quote...

Quote:
"i guess you just argued against allowing people with illnesses to marry...how compassionate of you."

If that illness is passed on to others through that marriage, then yes, for the sake of those others I do oppose that marriage.

what about allowing the potential spouse to make that choice for themselves? if i love my partner and wish to marry him despite his infection with a communicable disease, then i am accepting the risk on my own. why do you think you need to deny me the right to make that choice?


EXCELLENT point! Thanks for bringing that up. The difference is that biologically there is no reason that a man and woman of a different race shouldn't join together. In fact, this union is likely to produce fitter offspring (biological fitness, not physical fitness). A homosexual union actually has biological reasons against it, in addition to the behavioral ones that it does share with a mixed race couple.

so, again, we reach the conclusion that infertile couples should never be allowed to wed, nor should heterosexual couples that do not intend to produce children. we also are forced to, AGAIN, correct the misconception that homosexuals are infertile; many homosexuals have biological children of their own.


I've got more but I'd better get this out because of how busy this topic is.

And a true thanks for that comment on mixed race marriage, I hadn't thought of that.
sadly, it looks like you still haven't thought about it much. but you're welcome, and i hope we can get through to you by the end of this...you seem reasonable enough, so there is some hope.

I reason that homosexuality is bad, and here is an example to demonstrate my thinking.

Two people who are exactly alike in every way will have lives that are equally good.

Now, say one of those persons has HIV. They can live a good life, but they will have to work hard to make their life as good as their identical counterpart without HIV.

The same reasoning applies to homosexuality. People will ridicule you. You will have a more difficult time finding a life partner. Many social situations become akward for you, like someone asking you if you have a girlfriend when you don't, but you do have a boyfiriend.So wouldn't your argument also work against short people (including those with dwarfism), the balding, the obesse, people with colored hair, piercings, tattoos, and an unconventional style of dress?

The argument that people should not be allowed to marry because they might be ridiculed and made fun of and as a result have a more difficult time finding a life partner does not hold up too well. Viewing the divorce rate I would not say that many people are having an easy time finding a life partner.

Viewing the divorce rate I would not say that many people are having an easy time finding a life partner.
and making gay marriage fully legal would DOUBLE everyone's options for finding the perfect partner!

But this is true for anyone with a terminal illness. The above statement can apply to heterosexual couples, who, I'm sure you know can also contract HIV.

Again, this only matters if it is detrimental to the children.

So, should terminally ill parents start a family if that illness won't be passed along to their children? The answer depends on how badly the parents early deaths will affect the child.

And thanks for this point, it helps me think about my reasoning on homosexual marriage.

im bi and me n my friends will marrie whoever the hell we please

So wouldn't your argument also work against short people (including those with dwarfism), the balding, the obesse, people with colored hair, piercings, tattoos, and an unconventional style of dress?


Yes, this does apply to any parents that have traits that reflect badly on their children's lives.

The difference is, how hard is it for a child to be raised by that couple? If your parents are both short and you are short, you will be ridiculed for being short. The rest of your life can go on as normal, with a few health advantages for not being too large.

There is a reason that some couples are denied adoption of a child. Many couples are, and the reason is because the courts decide that something about them will reflect badly on the child. Badly enough to say the child is better off without them.

Yes, this does apply to any parents that have traits that reflect badly on their children's lives.

The difference is, how hard is it for a child to be raised by that couple? If your parents are both short and you are short, you will be ridiculed for being short. The rest of your life can go on as normal, with a few health advantages for not being too large.

There is a reason that some couples are denied adoption of a child. Many couples are, and the reason is because the courts decide that something about them will reflect badly on the child. Badly enough to say the child is better off without them.
is there any particular reason that you would rather take away the freedoms of those who are different, instead of teaching the rest of the world to quit being such jackasses? do you really want to send that message to children? "be just like everybody else, or you don't deserve to have rights. the other children are right to make fun of you for any deviency, and if you fail to conform in any way then your government will deny you the right to wed and have children."

President Bush is right. Gay marriage is an attack on the western civilisation. It is going to cause the end of the instituition of marriage. You can give privileges to one group. But if you give it to all that aren´t privileges anymore.[/QUOTE]

I think we have the point right here...the whole issue is to keep certain privledges for the select few...like country clubs exclusion of persons of color (including jewish and hispanic persons)...it's all about fear...and the need to be "above" someone else. :headbang:

Which is exactly what they said about interracial marriage in the 60s. Fourty years later marriage is still going quite strong. Maybe you should look to banning divorce before gay marriage. After all, divorce actually does damage the institution of marriage.

And another intelligent response!!!

is there any particular reason that you would rather take away the freedoms of those who are different, instead of teaching the rest of the world to quit being such jackasses?

Yes. Some things are wrong and should not be accepted. How do we know what we should accept and what we should make laws to prevent?

I haven't found an easy answer to that, but what I've found so far is that if a behavior harms others more than it helps, it should be avoided.

Does a homosexual union harm others? Does it harm a child of that union?

I haven't found a good answer to that yet.

Who's to say that the end of marriage wouldn't be a good thing?

Personally, I'm all for getting rid of it totally and sticking to civil unions. Since there's no legal argument for denying rights homosexual couples, they should be able to get every single right that heterosexual couples get. Just get rid of the religious aspect.

My husband had the same viewpoint--we had to settle for a court ceremony--he's even suggested we renounce our marriage and apply for a civil union--if that becomes an option :p

I think we have the point right here...the whole issue is to keep certain privledges for the select few...like country clubs exclusion of persons of color (including jewish and hispanic persons)...it's all about fear...and the need to be "above" someone else. :headbang:


I disagree with this. The reason to not allow homosexual unions is not to keep gays down. Some people believe this, but others do not. I think more think the reason is to prevent the degredation of society.

I disagree with this. The reason to not allow homosexual unions is not to keep gays down. Some people believe this, but others do not. I think more think the reason is to prevent the degredation of society.
and FINALLY we get to the heart of the matter. you don't want to prevent gay marriage to protect children from disease, or to protect gay people from rejection and insults, you simply think being gay is icky and don't want to let people make that choice for themselves. why did you try to white-wash the matter with all that other bunk? just come right to the point, it saves time.

now, demonstrate how allowing gay marriage leads to negative outcomes for society. keep in mind that maintenance of tradition alone does NOT count as a benefit, since many traditions are harmful and need to be torn down (i.e. slavery, mysogenism, etc), and that the simple fact that gay marriage is unusual doesn't make it wrong. also, please don't try to claim homosexuality is unnatural, since it has already been thoroughly established that it is as natural as heterosexuality.

I disagree with this. The reason to not allow homosexual unions is not to keep gays down. Some people believe this, but others do not. I think more think the reason is to prevent the degredation of society.
Well, according to recent studies, Gays make more money on average than heterosexuals. If you look at this, I would say that Gays have adapted quite well to the society where they live.

I disagree with this. The reason to not allow homosexual unions is not to keep gays down. Some people believe this, but others do not. I think more think the reason is to prevent the degredation of society.
How does the loving commitment of two adults degrade the loving commitment of any others? Our society's throwaway version of marriage is more destructive...Brittney Spears is much more degrading than Rosie O'Donnell. :rolleyes:

How does the loving commitment of two adults degrade the loving commitment of any others? Our society's throwaway version of marriage is more destructive...Brittney Spears is much more degrading than Rosie O'Donnell. :rolleyes:
No, it is about setting examples. What modell do we present to the young generation. The relationship one man and one woman - as endorsed by marriage - or other life styles.
If we present other life styles actually as equal to marriage we may encourage people to take such life styles. That is going to lead to result in the decline of the traditional family and to less children.
Example: Europe which already has a declining population. Especially those countries who have allowed gay marriages (like the Netherlands or Spain).

Woah, the last three posts assumed something not correct.

I disagree with this. The reason to not allow homosexual unions is not to keep gays down. Some people believe this, but others do not. I think more think the reason is to prevent the degredation of society.

I think most people against gay marriage believe it is destroying humanity, that it is a terrible social blunder.

I myself do not think that is the reason to not allow homosexual marriage. I do agree that society is harmed by allowing marriage to be between any two persons, but my main reason for not supporting marriage is because I do not think a homosexual couple should raise a child.

No, it is about setting examples. What modell do we present to the young generation. The relationship one man and one woman - as endorsed by marriage - or other life styles.
If we present other life styles actually as equal to marriage we may encourage people to take such life styles. That is going to lead to result in the decline of the traditional family and to less children.
Example: Europe which already has a declining population. Especially those countries who have allowed gay marriages (like the Netherlands or Spain).
Ok :rolleyes: But I'd rather my children grew up respecting the beliefs and choices of others...even the beliefs that they don't share...The lifestyle many object to is the "Club Scene", very few commited couples are involved in that scene...about the same percentage of married couples who "swing"... are you going to go after them as well? :confused:

Yes, this does apply to any parents that have traits that reflect badly on their children's lives.

The difference is, how hard is it for a child to be raised by that couple? If your parents are both short and you are short, you will be ridiculed for being short. The rest of your life can go on as normal, with a few health advantages for not being too large.

There is a reason that some couples are denied adoption of a child. Many couples are, and the reason is because the courts decide that something about them will reflect badly on the child. Badly enough to say the child is better off without them.It sounds like you are saying that only children raised in homosexual households are incapable of moving beyond the hardships of life and getting on with normal lives. Dwarfism is a genetic disorder that is more likely to actually causes health problems and physically limits the persons ability to have a "normal" life. Are you suggesting that they are more fit, in your opinion, to raise children and they are more capable of rising above the public ridicule than a child raised by homosexual parents?

It sounds like basically you are saying that it is a certainty that children raised by homosexual parents, and only these children, are guaranteed a cursed life for no other reason than the two people that raised them are homosexual? I am having difficulty seeing the logic behind that one.

Woah, the last three posts assumed something not correct.



I think most people against gay marriage believe it is destroying humanity, that it is a terrible social blunder.

I myself do not think that is the reason to not allow homosexual marriage. I do agree that society is harmed by allowing marriage to be between any two persons, but my main reason for not supporting marriage is because I do not think a homosexual couple should raise a child.

But a single mother with a string of loser boyfriends should? Why shouldn't a commited couple share the burden and joys of raising children...One person can raise a child, but it's much easier w/ two. :fluffle:

Ok :rolleyes: But I'd rather my children grew up respecting the beliefs and choices of others...even the beliefs that they don't share...The lifestyle many object to is the "Club Scene", very few commited couples are involved in that scene...about the same percentage of married couples who "swing"... are you going to go after them as well? :confused:
No, I think that more people - like bisexuals - are than chosing a partner of the same gender who wouldn´´t chose that if marriage remains what it is.
I think this question is about what behaviour we want to encourage and what we don´t want to encourage.

No, I think that more people - like bisexuals - are than chosing a partner of the same gender who wouldn´´t chose that if marriage remains what it is.
I think this question is about what behaviour we want to encourage and what we don´t want to encourage.
I disagree, vehemently! Accepting individual differences isn't the same as encouraging...if I teach my children to respect the heritage of native americans, I am not encouraging them to BECOME native americans... unless they ARE native americans, at which point I'm merely trying to prevent a cycle of self-loathing which destroys self-image. :headbang:

about the same percentage of married couples who "swing"... are you going to go after them as well? :confused:OOO! good point with the swingers argument.

I disagree, vehemently! Accepting individual differences isn't the same as encouraging...if I teach my children to respect the heritage of native americans, I am not encouraging them to BECOME native americans... unless they ARE native americans, at which point I'm merely trying to prevent a cycle of self-loathing which destroys self-image. :headbang:
But it belongs to the historic truth that the native Americans needed to be "removed" in order to make space for the US. Otherwise it wouldn´t exist as a nation as it is today.
So - disrespecting this group united America "from sea to shinning sea".

Otherwise it wouldn´t have happened.

But it belongs to the historic truth that the native Americans needed to be "removed" in order to make space for the US. Otherwise it wouldn´t exist as a nation as it is today.
So - disrespecting this group united America "from sea to shinning sea".

Otherwise it wouldn´t have happened.
My mouth hangs open in disbelief...I'm hoping that was in jest...but of course it wasn't...I thought I was having a discussion with someone a bit misguided, but evidently...well, vile is the word I'd use. Yep, the people who lived on this continent had to be removed...just like the jews during WWII and the Arabs today...vile! :mp5:

More like the.... Willing to get Germany out of the depression at any cost...Unification of Germany as a whole people. I remember i used to have a list of the good merits of him... when i find it, i'll show you.
I know Hitler was one of the most evil people ever to live, but he did come up with autobahns, volkswagens and he turned Germany from failing state to superpower in less than a decade.

take quebecexample they proposed a new regim to solve the case:

theycall it union civil

which is litterally civil union.

gives thus under that regim to have the same civils rights of heterosexuals wedings wihtout the religious side.

ayway...

It sounds like basically you are saying that it is a certainty that children raised by homosexual parents, and only these children, are guaranteed a cursed life for no other reason than the two people that raised them are homosexual? I am having difficulty seeing the logic behind that one.

No, I have been trying to say that there are no black and white differences. Not all heterosexual parents should raise children. And that continues to say that not all homosexual parents should be dissalowed the opportunity to be married and have children.

It sounds like I'm saying there's no reason to dissalow all homosexual unions, doesn't it? I'll have to think about this some more.

If we present other life styles actually as equal to marriage we may encourage people to take such life styles. That is going to lead to result in the decline of the traditional family and to less children.
Example: Europe which already has a declining population. Especially those countries who have allowed gay marriages (like the Netherlands or Spain).
This is total rubbish. People don't choose to be gay. They choose to be honest with themselves, which, IMO is better than going into sham marriages to hide their natural homosexuality.

Spain only legalised gay marriage three days ago, and you're claiming that it is already haveing a demographic effect? There are other countries like France and Germany, which don't allow gay marriage. They have declining populations too.

But it belongs to the historic truth that the native Americans needed to be "removed" in order to make space for the US. Otherwise it wouldn´t exist as a nation as it is today.
So - disrespecting this group united America "from sea to shinning sea".

Otherwise it wouldn´t have happened.
Yeah, it was necessary to "remove these people" to create "living space" - we've heard this from another German before.

My mouth hangs open in disbelief...I'm hoping that was in jest...but of course it wasn't...I thought I was having a discussion with someone a bit misguided, but evidently...well, vile is the word I'd use. Yep, the people who lived on this continent had to be removed...just like the jews during WWII and the Arabs today...vile! :mp5:
I don´t say it was right: I haven´t made a moral statement about it. But without it the US wouldn´t exist as they are today.
And the United States are a great and important nation.
Comparing that with the genocide of the Nazis or imperial Japan is not acceptable. It was not that cruel.
Well, and you can say: it was successful.
God bless America.

Isn't this a fun area to talk about.... :p

Yeah, it was necessary to "remove these people" to create "living space" - we've heard this from another German before.
First of all that guy was an Austrian.
Secondly I´ve not made a moral statement about it. Of course it was immoral. But without that the US wouldn´t exist and wouldn´t be the greatest nation on earth. That is the truth. Many nations are built on stolen land. Lets take Russia for example. From a small kingdom around Moscow to the biggest country on earth (even today although they lost 5 million square kilometers). Some countries were succesful with such a strategy, others weren´t. Because they were obviously more evil and stupid.
I don´t advocate it.
I like Ireland. It was able to liberate itself from an oppressor - well, because he was tired of fighting after World War I.
But that is the way nations use to act and still act today.
I´m therefore glad that the US is the strongest nation on earth, because it is still the best of all compared to the other potential leading powers of the world Russia or China.

This is total rubbish. People don't choose to be gay. They choose to be honest with themselves, which, IMO is better than going into sham marriages to hide their natural homosexuality.

Spain only legalised gay marriage three days ago, and you're claiming that it is already haveing a demographic effect? There are other countries like France and Germany, which don't allow gay marriage. They have declining populations too.
Well Germany is actually having a civil union law.
Ireland doesn´t. And it is having the highest birth rates in Europe. Coincident?

I will try my best to not mention anything about religion, but I am against it. They say that they will damage the institute of marriage, in my opinion I think straight people have done a lot to damage it already, the reason why I am against it is because the parts don't fit, you were made a man or a woman for a reason, not so you can go against nature.

Yep, the people who lived on this continent had to be removed...just like the jews during WWII and the Arabs today...vile! :mp5:
I think you are to unfair judging your country. There was no genocide. The people where just put into reservations.
And there are no plans to remove the Arabs.
The plan is to free them from oppressive regimes and to democratise the region in order to pull away the support from islamists ideologies, which are breeding under the situation of opression, economic stagnation and poverty, just like the Nazis came to power in Germany under this circumstances.
The United States has also brought democracy to Western Europe by freeing it. And with the strong policy during the Cold War it pressured the USSR which finally wasn´t able to keep the burden of the arms race (20% of its GDP) and which finally collapsed due to the nationality conflict.
I´m very thankful to the US for that.
And today the United States is promoting those ideas in the Middle East against the totalitarian threat of the 21 rst century - radical Islamism.
This time the aim is prevention. Preventing radical regimes from getting WMDs, preventing a nuclear Iran. Probably it is better to act before those regimes are in a position where it is too late - like it was in Germany in 1939. 1935 or 1936 or even 1938 would have been a better situation to act. It would have been less bloody and more quickly. And Germany was in violation of its obligation of the treaty of Versailles in the field of military restrictions.

The US saved Europe from its two biggest threats: Nazi-Germany and Soviet Russia. And it saved the pacific region from the biggest threat: Imperialistic Japan.
And today the US is saving Europe and the world again from its biggest threat: Radical Islamism.
I´m not concerned since the US and Israel are doing the job in the Middle East. Without them I would be concerned because then we would need to defend ourself. And we are unacapable and unwilling to do so, since most of us don´t value our freedoms as much as the US does and are not ready to defend it.

No, it is the hypothetical ability.
And if you change one parts of the definiton of marriage (sex), why can´t you change another part (numbers).
If you change it you open the door to the end of marriage. You can give privileges to one group but not to all. That is just not feisable.

In the US, it is pretty simple. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is banned, discrimination based on number is not. We give driver's licenses to single people and we give marriage licenses to couples. Your argument is like saying that just because we give a driver's license to Bob, we have let Mary and Jo share one.

As for your "some cultures allow polygamy" argument, it does not apply. Those cultures allow polygamy because their religion allows it, it has nothing to do with civil marriage.

I know Hitler was one of the most evil people ever to live, but he did come up with autobahns, volkswagens and he turned Germany from failing state to superpower in less than a decade.
The Autobahns were not his idea. And most were built after WW II.
Germany was never a superpower.
It was stronger before World War I actually.
The French were just disorganized and the Soviet Union actually made a pact with Germany in 1939 (Hitler-Stalin pact).
Without that a two-front war would have existed from the begining on like during World War I. And without that the France wouldn´t have fallen.
So, you can say the stupidity of the Soviets allowed it to happen. Well; they gained a lot of territory due to the pact. But it didn´t prevent a war of course.
The thing would have been much shorter without that.

In the US, it is pretty simple. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is banned, discrimination based on number is not. We give driver's licenses to single people and we give marriage licenses to couples. Your argument is like saying that just because we give a driver's license to Bob, we have let Mary and Jo share one.
As for your "some cultures allow polygamy" argument, it does not apply. Those cultures allow polygamy because their religion allows it, it has nothing to do with civil marriage.
After all: you argue it is a matter of free choice. And I don´t understand how you can deny polygamy if you allow gay marriages.

The right to marry is not given to a couple but to every individual above a certain age to marry a person of the opposite gender.
It is not the right of a couple. It is an individual right.

If you don't allow gay marriages, then can transexuals get married? Or do those people not exist?

It is not the right of a couple. It is an individual right.

It is the individual right to marry the one person you love. Which homosexual people are being denied.

Since the discussion has become off-topic I just want to state that Hitler was certainly one of the most evil human beeings.

I know that I was very provocative. But with my point I just pointed to one aspect of American history. That doesn´t mean that I justify this.

But I pointed out that the US as it is today wouldn´t exist without it.
So, I think we can´t look complettly from an idealistic perspective at it. Because no nation has a history which is made up of angels.
On the other hand - none of the nations would not be what it is today without its history.
And the US is a good nation.
Also Germany has turned into a democracy after the realisation that a dictatorship is not good and is only leading to desaster.

Sometimes good can come out of evil.

.
And the US is a good nation. That is your perspective at least, but you are entitled to it.

Also Germany has turned into a democracy after the realisation that a dictatorship is not good and is only leading to desaster.

Sometimes good can come out of evil. Sometimes. But two wrongs do not often make a right and I'd rather the wrongs be avoided in the first place. The ends do not justify the means.

If you don't allow gay marriages, then can transexuals get married? Or do those people not exist?
Well: i think it depents on the biological sex of the person.
There are people who change their sex - biologically through an operation.
Then they have changed.
I would say: the biological sex is the criteria. So: two person of the opposite gender (biologically) can marry. Regardless of the way they dress.

Well: i think it depents on the biological sex of the person.
There are people who change their sex - biologically through an operation.
Then they have changed.
I would say: the biological sex is the criteria. So: two person of the opposite gender (biologically) can marry. Regardless of the way they dress.
Eh...there are people who are biologically (through an operation) somewhere in between the two sexes...

Well, back to homosexuality.
My two cents on the subject...
______________________________________________
http://www.inoohr.org/homosexualstatistics.htm
- One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime

- 73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization

- The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75

-About 50% of the women on death row are lesbians

- Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molestor, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molestor

-73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age

http://traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php
- 32 percent of those child molestation cases involved homosexuals.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040227-111236-5901r.htm
- Eighty-one percent of sex crimes committed against children by Roman Catholic priests during the past 52 years were homosexual men preying on boys

- a 1978 American study found that 43 per cent of male homosexuals estimated they had sex with more than 500 partners and 28 per cent had more than 1 000 partners

- the incidence of sexually transmitted disease (including hepatitis) was seven times higher among homosexuals and in some categories it was as high as 20 times

- the life expectancy from all causes of homosexual males was 43, and with the advent of AIDS, it is now 39

- 52 per cent of the AIDS cases in the US are among homosexuals

http://www.narth.com/docs/pedophNEW.html
- Then in 1990, the Journal of Homosexuality produced a special double issue devoted to adult-child sex, which was entitled "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" (1). One article said many pedophiles believe they are "born that way and cannot change"

Did that last part sound familiar?

- NAMBLA representatives marched in gay-pride parades as a fringe element of the gay-rights movement

Slippery Slope, once again rears its ugly head

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_SPECRPT_pedo-sum.html
- While homosexual spokesmen have disputed his conclusion, in a paper published in 2000 by Blanchard, Barbareee, Bogaert, Dicky, Klassen, Kuban, and Zucker2 the authors noted that the best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men..; in contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys.... Thus the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles" (p. 464)

Quoting statistics from a heavily biased and partial site does not score you any points mate. Maybe you should actually look for neutral data instead of that which will only enforce your pre-concieved expectations?

That is your perspective at least, but you are entitled to it. Sometimes. But two wrongs do not often make a right and I'd rather the wrongs be avoided in the first place. The ends do not justify the means.
Human history is a continuation of fatal errors.
It is like a child: he puts his hand on the hot plate once, twice or three times. Sometime the child gets it. But to assume that it learns it without doing mistakes is somehow unrealistic.
The United States also does some mistake.
But it is after all following the right line and philosophy. I would like my country to follow more the US - like the UK does for example.
Both in the field of economic and social reforms - more competition, more free-market economy (like Thatcher and Reagan) - and more efforts together with the US in Afghanistan. And I don´t think that we can avoid to engage in Iraq more. It is also in our interests.
I think Chirac and Schröder acted very short-sighted by damaging the relations to the US.

Eh...there are people who are biologically (through an operation) somewhere in between the two sexes...
You mean Hermaphrodites? That is a special case indeed. But it is common that those people are getting a sex at the time of birth - through an operation.
Some change that during life time - through an operation.
But a person is alway registered under one sex. And that is the determining factor for that issue.

Human history is a continuation of fatal errors. Admittedly so, but that again is not a justification for them.

The United States also does some mistake.
But it is after all following the right line and philosophy. Again, a personal opinion which you are entitled to. I disagree with much of US politics and philosophy, but that is my personal opinion.


I think Chirac and Schröder acted very short-sighted by damaging the relations to the US. Which we differ in, since I think Bush was being shortsighted in damaging US relations with the world

After all: you argue it is a matter of free choice. And I don´t understand how you can deny polygamy if you allow gay marriages.

The right to marry is not given to a couple but to every individual above a certain age to marry a person of the opposite gender.
It is not the right of a couple. It is an individual right.

I'll try to butt in and phrase this in simple terms. Imagine that this is a sock-puppet show:

Pete: Hey Mr. Government, can I marry Mary?
Government: Why yes you can, Pete.
Pete and Mary: Hooray!
Beth: Hey Mr. Government, can I marry Gloria?
Government: No you can't, Beth.
Beth: Why not?
Government: Because Gloria's a woman.
Beth: But you let Pete marry a woman!
Government: Okay, I misspoke. You can't marry because *you're* a woman.
Beth: But, but. . . the "due process" bit of the constitution ensures that you can't decide what I can and can't do based solely on gender!
Government: Hmmm. . . my response to that is. . . uhhh. . . "You unpatriotic scumbag! Stop destroying Western society!"
Beth and Gloria: >=(.

Now, let's see how that compares to polygamy:
Peter: Hey Mr. Government, can I marry Sam and Pat?
Mr. Government: No. You can only marry one other person.
Beth: Hey Mr. Government, can *I* marry Sam and Pat?
Mr. Government: No. You can only marry one other person.
Beth: Well, at least the law is applied equally to all.
Peter: Yeah, I don't have a right that I'd like, but at least denying me that right is not unconstitutional.

Does that make it any clearer why the polygamy analogy is no good? And why denying same-sex marriage is giving a right to some people and not others for a reason that the constitution recognizes as invalid?

Quoting statistics from a heavily biased and partial site does not score you any points mate. Maybe you should actually look for neutral data instead of that which will only enforce your pre-concieved expectations?
Hey, asshat, maybe you should look at those sites before you trash them. The statistics are from different sites and surveys, and the information didn't change! It still remains very close. Not to mention that one of those sites is part of the American Psychiatric Association. Ignoring the facts doesn't score you points either!

Um , you shouldn't be against gay marriage but everyone deserves the right to love one another without being discriminated. Love is life is love.

<3

That's right, and I'm not going away. I bring up facts that are found in numerous different cases, as well as articles from newspapers, and all you can do is ignore them. Look at the facts, they are undisputed except by people like you who just don't like them, and so refuse to believe them.

Um , you shouldn't be against gay marriage but everyone deserves the right to love one another without being discriminated. Love is life is love.

<3
...............
Awww, its a Utopian world!!! Everyone loves everyone! yay!
:rolleyes:
Get a grip on reality.

Admittedly so, but that again is not a justification for them.
There is no justification for them. Except greed - and the ability to get what one wanted or at least the opinion to be in such a position.
At the end the winner writes the history book.
And because of that Hitler is seen as more evil as Stalin. Whether there was a significant difference between the two I leave open though.

Again, a personal opinion which you are entitled to. I disagree with much of US politics and philosophy, but that is my personal opinion.
But the US is pretty successful with it in the last 200 years. So, they seem to be working. Also the US economy is much faster growing than the European economiey, especially compared to the stagnating german one. I think we need to take over more of the anglo-saxon system (more competition, deregulation).

Which we differ in, since I think Bush was being shortsighted in damaging US relations with the world
There is no "the world". There are other players and powers. Many supported President Bushs decision. Most countries in Europe did and also many others.
You now the impressive lists of the "coalition of the willing". Germany and France are just a part of Europe: Old Europe. But Europe is changing. The centre is moving eastward.
I think the policy of the German government is stupid. The US is more and more replacing us with Poland. It is withdrawing troops and it is going to redeploy some to Poland.
Germany is losing its position of the most important US ally on the European continent to Poland.
That is the result of the short-sighted policy of Chancellor Schröder.
He makes Germany dependent on France.
And France has also a stagnant economy in contrast to the US. So I would say: bad choice.

Hey, asshat, maybe you should look at those sites before you trash them. The statistics are from different sites and surveys, and the information didn't change! It still remains very close. Not to mention that one of those sites is part of the American Psychiatric Association. Ignoring the facts doesn't score you points either!

When the "facts" are from sites such as International Organization of Heterosexual Rights and the person quoting is immature enough to attack dissenters as "asshats", I've little reason to give it much by way of credibility. Every single site listed is essentially uncredible and I would not trust a word printed on them. You want to score actual points instead of looking ignorant? Produce data from neutral sites.

I'll try to butt in and phrase this in simple terms. Imagine that this is a sock-puppet show:

Pete: Hey Mr. Government, can I marry Mary?
Government: Why yes you can, Pete.
Pete and Mary: Hooray!
Beth: Hey Mr. Government, can I marry Gloria?
Government: No you can't, Beth.
Beth: Why not?
Government: Because Gloria's a woman.
Beth: But you let Pete marry a woman!
Government: Okay, I misspoke. You can't marry because *you're* a woman.
Beth: But, but. . . the "due process" bit of the constitution ensures that you can't decide what I can and can't do based solely on gender!
Government: Hmmm. . . my response to that is. . . uhhh. . . "You unpatriotic scumbag! Stop destroying Western society!"
Beth and Gloria: >=(.

Now, let's see how that compares to polygamy:
Peter: Hey Mr. Government, can I marry Sam and Pat?
Mr. Government: No. You can only marry one other person.
Beth: Hey Mr. Government, can *I* marry Sam and Pat?
Mr. Government: No. You can only marry one other person.
Beth: Well, at least the law is applied equally to all.
Peter: Yeah, I don't have a right that I'd like, but at least denying me that right is not unconstitutional.

Does that make it any clearer why the polygamy analogy is no good? And why denying same-sex marriage is giving a right to some people and not others for a reason that the constitution recognizes as invalid?
All it made clear to me was that first, you don't know what due process is, and second, you have no clue what the Constitution says.

When the "facts" are from sites such as International Organization of Heterosexual Rights and the person quoting is immature enough to attack dissenters as "asshats", I've little reason to give it much by way of credibility. Every single site listed is essentially uncredible and I would not trust a word printed on them. You want to score actual points instead of looking ignorant? Produce data from neutral sites.
Look at the rest of the sites...
Or hush...
If you can only check out a single site, without any reference to the other 5, then you have no business debating. Seeing as how you have no facts whatsoever. Your only defense is to call me immature, when you have nothing else to back you up.

All it made clear to me was that first, you don't know what due process is, and second, you have no clue what the Constitution says.
I don't exactly see the Constitution arguing against gay marriage mate. Furthermore, rather than just attacking him you might want to produce something to support yourself. That is how debate works.

It is the individual right to marry the one person you love. Which homosexual people are being denied.
No, marriage is the right to marry a person of the opposite gender.
If you change the definition about marriage in respect to gender why don´t you change it regarding numbers (polygamy)?

So, I see a slippery-slope process which leds to the end of the instituition of marriage in the long-run.

But this right doesn´t exist. Marriage is an individual right. It is the right for a man to marry a woman and for a woman to marry a man. There is no discrimination in that.

If marriage were an individual right, we would give marriage licenses to individuals. If it were an individual right, we would grant the license to the man or woman and they could go out and marry whomever they choose (without consent). Of course, this is not the case. Marriage rights are given to two people (ie. a couple) who decide to bind themselves as one.

But they can offer the children father and mother.
Homosexuals can´t do it.

This would be a great argument, if all children needed was one male and one female role model. Of course, since this is not true, your argument is moot.

First off, NARTH is the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuals, and is part of the American Psychiatric Association. But they are biased... Right....
And so is the Washington Times...
And the two seperate surveys I quoted, and that you have utterly failed to repudiate with evidence.

And back to the Constitutionality of the subject.
Due Process only ensures that you recieve a fair and equal chance, and that you are not deprived of your rights in a trivial or frivolous manner. However, due to the amount of debate and research that was put into these resolutions, it is impossible to regard them as trivial or frivolous. I work at a law firm, and am a law student, thanks very much :).

Also, considering that he did not provide anything to prove his point other than an obviously inaccurate idea of the American judicial system, I'd say that telling me to support myself is a little bit hypocritical...

If marriage were an individual right, we would give marriage licenses to individuals. If it were an individual right, we would grant the license to the man or woman and they could go out and marry whomever they choose (without consent). Of course, this is not the case. Marriage rights are given to two people (ie. a couple) who decide to bind themselves as one.



This would be a great argument, if all children needed was one male and one female role model. Of course, since this is not true, your argument is moot.
Unfortunately, your Utopian ideals are out of sync with the law in this country. Your interpretation of the Constitution is obvious fallacy.

Well, back to homosexuality.
My two cents on the subject...
______________________________________________
http://www.inoohr.org/homosexualstatistics.htm
- Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molestor, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molestor

http://traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php
- 32 percent of those child molestation cases involved homosexuals.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
-Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation.

-The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in only 2 of the 269 cases in which an adult molester could be identified – fewer than 1%

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chil.htm
-The fact behind these conflicting statements is that most pedophiles are not homosexuals! Or to put it another way, most homosexual molestation is not done by homosexuals.

In short,
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/5883/debunking3.html
-empirical data exists that disproves both statements

Look at the rest of the sites...
Or hush...
If you can only check out a single site, without any reference to the other 5, then you have no business debating. Seeing as how you have no facts whatsoever. Your only defense is to call me immature, when you have nothing else to back you up.


http://www.inoohr.org/homosexualstatistics.htm -already covered this one's lack of credibility.
http://traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php -flagrant bias and prejudice against homosexuality all over the place
http://www.washtimes.com/national/2...11236-5901r.htm -one of the least credible newspapers in the US and owned by the Moonies; hardly a good source for anything
http://www.narth.com/docs/pedophNEW.html -uncredited organization that claims to be able to treat homosexuality, despite the biological and psychological evidence to the contrary
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/F...T_pedo-sum.html yet another heavy bias with little by way of neutrality

I've gone over every source you listed and not one is credible. And I called you immature for jumping to uncalled-for attacks (asshat ring a bell?), not for dredging up crappy sources. Surely you can comprehend that.

If marriage were an individual right, we would give marriage licenses to individuals. If it were an individual right, we would grant the license to the man or woman and they could go out and marry whomever they choose (without consent). Of course, this is not the case. Marriage rights are given to two people (ie. a couple) who decide to bind themselves as one.
It of course needs to involve to people and it needs consent to be valid. But it are two declarations of will - not one. Therefore it is an individual right.
And it is defind as to be between one hand and one woman. That is the common law tradition.
Utah had to ban polygamy and to reduce the definitoin to monogamous marriages (defined as to be between one man and one woman) to join the US. So, marriage is clearly defined. It is you who wants to chance this definiton. And it is therefore on you to back-up and prove why this is necessary and needed. And you haven´t done so.


This would be a great argument, if all children needed was one male and one female role model. Of course, since this is not true, your argument is moot.
NO,it isn´t. A child needs to role-models. And it is the best if they are of opposite gender: a father and a mother-figure. They are distinctively different. And homosexuals can´t give that to children.

After all: you argue it is a matter of free choice. And I don´t understand how you can deny polygamy if you allow gay marriages.

You can argue what is a matter of free choice? Sexuality? You can only argue that if you are a complete idiot willing to ignore all evidence of the actual situation.

As for how I can deny polygamy, it is simple. Civil marriage is a legal construct used specifically to make monetary and responsibility delineations convenient. Two people decide to bind themselves and entwine their lives to the point that it is difficult for an outside observer to determine what belongs to whom, who has what responsibilities, etc. Therefore, the government has civil marriage, which dictates that the couple shall be seen as a single legal entity for the purposes of purchasing, debts, ownership, etc. In addition, each spouse shall have the rights of power-of-attorney and next of kin to the other spouse. This is specifically designed for two people. If you add more, the convenience is lost and the government has no compelling interest in recognizing it at all.

The right to marry is not given to a couple but to every individual above a certain age to marry a person of the opposite gender.
It is not the right of a couple. It is an individual right.

Is it? Ok, then I'm going to go all by myself down to the justice of the peace and get a marriage license. After all, it is an individual right, so I can get one right now.

its funny you know, it seems like people never learn. the US had problems like this before, big ones, bigger then this. when the civil rights movment was in full swing there were people who wanted to deny them rights, just like some people want to deny gays rights now. but it seems as if throughout the history of the uninted states life and liberty have always prevaled. those who wish to crush others rights under an iron heel (so to speak) of oppression, fail to see through the eyes of the opressed. being able to put youself in the position of others is the key to understanding the world, those who cannot or will not do this are those who have long slowed the advance of rights. maybe someday we will teach a philosophy of tolarance and all people will be eqal in thier right to seek life, liberty, and happneiss.

maybe someday we will teach a philosophy of tolarance and all people will be eqal in thier right to seek life, liberty, and happneiss.
Ok: lets include pedophilia into that now, since it makes people happy?

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
-Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation.

-The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in only 2 of the 269 cases in which an adult molester could be identified – fewer than 1%

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chil.htm
-The fact behind these conflicting statements is that most pedophiles are not homosexuals! Or to put it another way, most homosexual molestation is not done by homosexuals.

In short,
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/5883/debunking3.html
-empirical data exists that disproves both statements

You quoted a Geocities website....
Now that is what I would call untrustworthy.

Interestingly, religioustolerance.com managed to achieve its results by not considering cases where a male molested a male child. I would consider that a homosexual act, as well as child-molestation.

Psychology website did a very clever job of stating that none of the men were "exclusively homosexual," but did it with a comparatively small group and did not address how many of them had homosexual encounters, along with heterosexual ones. AKA Bisexuals. They ignored acts of homosexuality.

Hey, asshat, maybe you should look at those sites before you trash them. The statistics are from different sites and surveys, and the information didn't change! It still remains very close. Not to mention that one of those sites is part of the American Psychiatric Association. Ignoring the facts doesn't score you points either!

Those sites ignore a very simple fact - most pedophiles are attracted to children of a particular gender, but this gender is not necessarily, and in fact quite often, is not the same as the gender they are attracted to in adults. A male pedophile that is attracted to male children is, more often than not, attracted to female adults.

So if you actually look at pedophilia as what it really is, a completely separate category from normal sexuality, you realize that the percentage of homosexual pedophiles is actually no larger than the percentage of homosexuals in the general population.

And I called you immature for jumping to uncalled-for attacks (asshat ring a bell?), not for dredging up crappy sources. Surely you can comprehend that.
Well, I do believe I attacked you for something that you later condemned me for, which was trying to repudiate my arguments without using any fact. And as for crappy resources, I do believe I have covered yours as well, with their selective use of the term homosexual.

Those sites ignore a very simple fact - most pedophiles are attracted to children of a particular gender, but this gender is not necessarily, and in fact quite often, is not the same as the gender they are attracted to in adults. A male pedophile that is attracted to male children is, more often than not, attracted to female adults.

So if you actually look at pedophilia as what it really is, a completely separate category from normal sexuality, you realize that the percentage of homosexual pedophiles is actually no larger than the percentage of homosexuals in the general population.
I still have to disagree, on the basis that NAMBLA is accepted by the Gay Rights Organizations. If they choose to associate with men who love young males, and women who love young females, then I would most definitely tie both groups together, as they have already done so themselves. Including studies done by the Journal of Homosexuality on pedophilia.

All it made clear to me was that first, you don't know what due process is, and second, you have no clue what the Constitution says.

This is not regarding same-sex marriage, but one would hope that the Supreme Court would apply to same reasoning to similar cases:
Because the statute ''provides that different treatment be accorded to the applicants on the basis of their sex,'' Chief Justice Burger wrote, ''it thus establishes a classification subject to scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.'' The Court proceeded to hold that under traditional equal protection standards-- requiring a classification to be reasonable and not arbitrarily related to a lawful objective--the classification made was an arbitrary way to achieve the objective the State advanced in defense of the law
From http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/31.html#4

the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances
From http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/equal_protection.html

I referred to it as "due process" when "equal protection" would probably have been more clear, but both should bring to mind the 14th amendment.

Psychology website did a very clever job of stating that none of the men were "exclusively homosexual," but did it with a comparatively small group and did not address how many of them had homosexual encounters, along with heterosexual ones. AKA Bisexuals. They ignored acts of homosexuality.
Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in only 2 of the 269 cases in which an adult molester could be identified – fewer than 1% (Jenny et al., 1994).
Did your eyes just skip over this one? Or how about this one?

In yet another approach to studying adult sexual attraction to children, some Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult men responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child, pubescent, and mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners. In some of the slides shown to subjects, the model was clothed; in others, he or she was nude. The slides were accompanied by audio recordings. The recordings paired with the nude models described an imaginary sexual interaction between the model and the subject. The recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the model engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming). To measure sexual arousal, changes in the subjects' penis volume were monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989).

It of course needs to involve to people and it needs consent to be valid. But it are two declarations of will - not one. Therefore it is an individual right.

If it needs two people to consent, then it is a right granted to those two people in tandem, thus a right given to a couple. If you are having trouble understanding, remember that the entire purpose of a marriage is to make the two people a single legal entity. The wish to obtain a marriage license is their first act as that legal entity.

And it is defind as to be between one hand and one woman. That is the common law tradition.
Utah had to ban polygamy and to reduce the definitoin to monogamous marriages (defined as to be between one man and one woman) to join the US. So, marriage is clearly defined. It is you who wants to chance this definiton. And it is therefore on you to back-up and prove why this is necessary and needed. And you haven´t done so.

I have backed it up numerous times. It is not my fault that you ignore it. But here, in short:

Homosexual couples are denied the rights to make decisions for their life-partners and truly have joint ownership. If two homosexuals live together for forty years and build an entire life together, unless they are insanely rich, the surviving partner will lose at least half of what he/she should legally own. Homosexuals cannot even adopt a dog together. ANd so on and so on. For all intents and purposes, a homosexual couple that binds themselves together for life is exactly the same as a heterosexual couple that does so. However, if a tragedy occurs or if, heaven forbid, they wish to dissolve that relationship like so many heterosexual marriages do, they do not have the same protections that they are every bit as clearly entitled to.

NO,it isn´t. A child needs to role-models. And it is the best if they are of opposite gender: a father and a mother-figure. They are distinctively different. And homosexuals can´t give that to children.

Wow, I hope you never have children. A child needs multiple role models in their lives and if you can't see that, I hope you are sterilized immediately.

I still have to disagree, on the basis that NAMBLA is accepted by the Gay Rights Organizations. If they choose to associate with men who love young males, and women who love young females, then I would most definitely tie both groups together, as they have already done so themselves. Including studies done by the Journal of Homosexuality on pedophilia.

You disagree with the medical definition of pedophilia? Ok, but take it up with the experts in the area.

I still have to disagree, on the basis that NAMBLA is accepted by the Gay Rights Organizations. If they choose to associate with men who love young males, and women who love young females, then I would most definitely tie both groups together, as they have already done so themselves. Including studies done by the Journal of Homosexuality on pedophilia.
blah blah blah reason a blah blah blah reason b blah blah blah reason is reaosn c blah blah

UNDISTRIBUTED MIDDLE

Well this is why i would appose it. What if someone who just married someone of same sex wanted to go a step further and marry his cat? What if he didn't like cats and wanted to marry his nice car? Or how about if he wanted to marry my nice car? I would have a huge problem with that, understandably. Limits are needed (ie. different sex marriage) so stupid oddities never occur. I seriously, honestly would not be suprised to see people marrying inate objects in the US a decade from now.

You may say that same sex marriage has nothing to do with cats and objects, but I beg to differ. 50 years in the past same-sex wasn't the slightest issue, yet now is the reality. Whats to stop these people in oncoming years?

Well this is why i would appose it. What if someone who just married someone of same sex wanted to go a step further and marry his cat? What if he didn't like cats and wanted to marry his nice car? Or how about if he wanted to marry my nice car? I would have a huge problem with that, understandably. Limits are needed (ie. different sex marriage) so stupid oddities never occur. I seriously, honestly would not be suprised to see people marrying inate objects in the US a decade from now.

You may say that same sex marriage has nothing to do with cats and objects, but I beg to differ. 50 years in the past same-sex wasn't the slightest issue, yet now is the reality. Whats to stop these people in oncoming years?
so in other words, you oppose it because you are completely ignorant

Ok: lets include pedophilia into that now, since it makes people happy?

So not only do you ignore evidence, but you are also ignorant enough to forget the word consent? Amazing.

Well this is why i would appose it. What if someone who just married someone of same sex wanted to go a step further and marry his cat? What if he didn't like cats and wanted to marry his nice car? Or how about if he wanted to marry my nice car? I would have a huge problem with that, understandably. Limits are needed (ie. different sex marriage) so stupid oddities never occur. I seriously, honestly would not be suprised to see people marrying inate objects in the US a decade from now.

You may say that same sex marriage has nothing to do with cats and objects, but I beg to differ. 50 years in the past same-sex wasn't the slightest issue, yet now is the reality. Whats to stop these people in oncoming years?

You have just made a complete ass out of yourself by forgetting a single word - it's called consent.

Homosexual couples are denied the rights to make decisions for their life-partners and truly have joint ownership. If two homosexuals live together for forty years and build an entire life together, unless they are insanely rich, the surviving partner will lose at least half of what he/she should legally own. Homosexuals cannot even adopt a dog together. ANd so on and so on. For all intents and purposes, a homosexual couple that binds themselves together for life is exactly the same as a heterosexual couple that does so. However, if a tragedy occurs or if, heaven forbid, they wish to dissolve that relationship like so many heterosexual marriages do, they do not have the same protections that they are every bit as clearly entitled to.
I think the problem you raise is the high tax on properties after once death in the US. That is one of the areas where the US has actually higher taxes than we have in Europe.
Therefore I would suggest you to support President Bush cutting down the tax in that respect.
That is also just. After all: some people may want to write their will in favour of a non-relative or for someone else.
He/she has this problem as well. Gay marriage is not the solution for that, but cutting this tax.

I think the problem you raise is the high tax on properties after once death in the US. That is one of the areas where the US has actually higher taxes than we have in Europe.
Therefore I would suggest you to support President Bush cutting down the tax in that respect.
That is also just. After all: some people may want to write their will in favour of a non-relative or for someone else.
He/she has this problem as well. Gay marriage is not the solution for that, but cutting this tax.
but you have high taxes in europe because the government DOES STUFF, the US government just likes big fat paychecks.

So not only do you ignore evidence, but you are also ignorant enough to forget the word consent? Amazing.
And if the child gives consent?
And where do you draw the line then?

Medical definition of Pedophilia
http://www.medem.com/MedLB/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZUZRUZGLC&sub_cat=355
pedophilia involves sexual activity by an adult with a prepubescent child

How am I disagreeing with that definition?

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Homosexuality
Definition of Homosexuality
Homosexuality is a sexual orientation characterized by sexual desire or romantic love exclusively, or almost exclusively, for people who are identified as being of the same sex.

Well, it seems that according to the definitions of homosexuality and pedophilia that anyone who has sexual relations with a member of the same sex, regardless of age, is a homosexual, and can at the same time commit pedophilia.

And if the child gives consent?
And where do you draw the line then?
children cant give consent, not legally. now if the PARENTS consent, its ok. but thats already legal as it is i think.

im christian, and im straight. but i could care less if gays wanna get married. good for them. its kinda fucked up that two people in love cant even get married just because the law says that it is morally wrong. i dont think it is the law's choice. people need to be able to live their own lives. i dont think that gay marrige is going to hurt a damn thing. so fuck it, let gays get married and worry about more important shit like the economy and security.

Exactly what I say. Plus, it'll shut up those damn right-wing biblethumpers too. And if the gays go to hell and all who're we to stop them? Let them live and be happy at least.

children cant give consent, not legally. now if the PARENTS consent, its ok. but thats already legal as it is i think.
..........
Dear God, I do believe someone just stumbled on a wonderful example I came across where an admitted homosexual and his "buddy" adopted a child. His friend turned out to be a convicted child molester. Not only did the two of them engage in sexual relations with the child, but they permitted at least 3 other men to do so. Of course, they went to jail. Since they legally had the right to give consent, should they have been arrested? I believe so.

:) Well, as fun as this has been, I have to go. Ill come back tomorrow and check out whats been added. Have fun!

..........
Dear God, I do believe someone just stumbled on a wonderful example I came across where an admitted homosexual and his "buddy" adopted a child. His friend turned out to be a convicted child molester. Not only did the two of them engage in sexual relations with the child, but they permitted at least 3 other men to do so. Of course, they went to jail. Since they legally had the right to give consent, should they have been arrested? I believe so.
1) that is "parents" and "child", not married couple
2) im talknig about consent to marry
3) im pretty sure you can have sex with your wife

It depends on which assumption you make. If you assume people are "born gay" and are incapable of making decisions about the sexual behaviors. Then you might believe that they are being discriminated against.

I believe that homosexuality is a behaviorial choice. It is learned, just like being a heterosexual is learned behavior. We are all born with the ability to make decisions about the types of behaviors we are going to participate in. Certain behaviors are reinforced while we are young, some are discouraged.
I do not believe that homosexuals are completely incapable of changing to heterosexual if it were their desire to do so.

A black man has no "choice" in being a black man. Every man has the ability to decide for his own what behaviors he chooses to indulge in. Should people who have essentially chosen to live the gay lifestyle be given the same protections as the black man who has been subjected to discrimination?

Part of the issue is also legal. Should "the people" be able to decide the legal definition of marriage and encode it into law? Or should the courts say the people are wrong and one unelected judge says marriage is now this instead of that?

All of the benefits of marriage can be attained by a contract between to homosexuals. One could go to an attorney and formalize an agreement that would give them the rough equivilent of marriage. Be treated "equal" in the eye of the law will not result in being treated equally by "the people" Being homosexual for the forseeable future will involve a certain amount of discrimination. All the laws in the world do not stop many blacks from being discriminated against. If I told you I struggle with porn you would think differently of me and possibly discriminate against me. I do not want to know or even imagine what my heterosexual friends do in the bedroom. I am even less interested in what gay people do in their bedrooms. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. All of us are in need of God's salvation. For God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten Son. So that all who believe in Him might have everlasting life. Whether my sin is homosexuality or lying or stealing, it is still falling short of God's demanded perfection thus making Christ's death and ressurection a necessity. I care far more about whether you come to work everyday so I don't have to do my work and your work too at deadline time.

I think the real issue of "gay marriage" lies here. "The people" went to their legislators and encoded into law that marriage is "X". The homosexual community is not content with affecting the legislative process it seeks to overturn decades of accepted standards and practices by have a handfull of judges change the meaning of marriage into something "the people" are not ready to accept. You can change any law you want the people will not accept the homosexual community "winning" in court. Abortion is so divisive because the courts invented the "right" out of thin air instead of allowing the legislative process to run its course. We might have ended up in same place but the courts short circuited the whole thing and the people resent the end run around the rule of law.

but you have high taxes in europe because the government DOES STUFF, the US government just likes big fat paychecks.
Yes, wasting it and making even more deficits than President Bush since years.
Spending it to the EU and other countries and wasting it for "alternative stuff" like renewable energies, civil unions and other things. Spent, spent, spent and more, more, more depth. That is the desasterous policy. And because that is the case since decades the state has to cut, cut, cut now.
SO - The European social state stands for its end: it is going to be cut down because it is necessary. You are going to hear about it.

I rather spent my money myself and don´t let government decide. Most smart people have already moved their money out of the country (to Switzerland or other places). That is the result of the stupid socialists policies.
Free-market policies and low taxes are good for all. Only then money is invested, jobs are created and the well-being of all is inshured.
That is not done by playing Robin Hood. That has the opposite effects.
Therefore I have to say that Reagan and Bush are right with their policy. I think we see a boom of the US economy in the next years like during the 1980s.

It depends on which assumption you make. If you assume people are "born gay" and are incapable of making decisions about the sexual behaviors. Then you might believe that they are being discriminated against.

I believe that homosexuality is a behaviorial choice. It is learned, just like being a heterosexual is learned behavior. We are all born with the ability to make decisions about the types of behaviors we are going to participate in. Certain behaviors are reinforced while we are young, some are discouraged.
I do not believe that homosexuals are completely incapable of changing to heterosexual if it were their desire to do so.

A black man has no "choice" in being a black man. Every man has the ability to decide for his own what behaviors he chooses to indulge in. Should people who have essentially chosen to live the gay lifestyle be given the same protections as the black man who has been subjected to discrimination?

Part of the issue is also legal. Should "the people" be able to decide the legal definition of marriage and encode it into law? Or should the courts say the people are wrong and one unelected judge says marriage is now this instead of that?

All of the benefits of marriage can be attained by a contract between to homosexuals. One could go to an attorney and formalize an agreement that would give them the rough equivilent of marriage. Be treated "equal" in the eye of the law will not result in being treated equally by "the people" Being homosexual for the forseeable future will involve a certain amount of discrimination. All the laws in the world do not stop many blacks from being discriminated against. If I told you I struggle with porn you would think differently of me and possibly discriminate against me. I do not want to know or even imagine what my heterosexual friends do in the bedroom. I am even less interested in what gay people do in their bedrooms. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. All of us are in need of God's salvation. For God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten Son. So that all who believe in Him might have everlasting life. Whether my sin is homosexuality or lying or stealing, it is still falling short of God's demanded perfection thus making Christ's death and ressurection a necessity. I care far more about whether you come to work everyday so I don't have to do my work and your work too at deadline time.

I think the real issue of "gay marriage" lies here. "The people" went to their legislators and encoded into law that marriage is "X". The homosexual community is not content with affecting the legislative process it seeks to overturn decades of accepted standards and practices by have a handfull of judges change the meaning of marriage into something "the people" are not ready to accept. You can change any law you want the people will not accept the homosexual community "winning" in court. Abortion is so divisive because the courts invented the "right" out of thin air instead of allowing the legislative process to run its course. We might have ended up in same place but the courts short circuited the whole thing and the people resent the end run around the rule of law.
what a load of asinine tripe "sexuality is a learned behavior" what bullshit

and who pray tell did they learn to be gay from in a hardcore religious family? were their parents gay? if so, where tid they learn to be gay?

if you are going to make completely incompetent assertions, back them up with something that stands up to even light scrutiny

All of the benefits of marriage can be attained by a contract between to homosexuals. One could go to an attorney and formalize an agreement that would give them the rough equivilent of marriage.

I highly doubt this. Even if it is true, it's a whole heck of a lot more work than getting married. If same-sex couples could get the same rights, there would be much less commotion.

Be treated "equal" in the eye of the law will not result in being treated equally by "the people" Being homosexual for the forseeable future will involve a certain amount of discrimination.

We know.

I think the real issue of "gay marriage" lies here. "The people" went to their legislators and encoded into law that marriage is "X". The homosexual community is not content with affecting the legislative process it seeks to overturn decades of accepted standards and practices by have a handfull of judges change the meaning of marriage into something "the people" are not ready to accept. You can change any law you want the people will not accept the homosexual community "winning" in court. Abortion is so divisive because the courts invented the "right" out of thin air instead of allowing the legislative process to run its course. We might have ended up in same place but the courts short circuited the whole thing and the people resent the end run around the rule of law.

So what's the role of the judicial branch? Apparently not to interpret the laws or find where they contradict.
As I see it, the laws were created with the notion that marriage is "X," and this wasn't questioned. Later the people decided that "Y," the 14th Amendment, people wouldn't be legally discriminated against based on trivial factors (race, sex, etc.). They may not have realized it at the time, but "Y" implies "not X," thus overriding any decision that may or may not have been made about marriage being "X."

In any case, part of the role of government is to prevent tyranny by majority and give minorities the rights they are due. The legislative is not the branch that accomplishes this - the judicial is.

Yes, wasting it and making even more deficits than President Bush since years.
Spending it to the EU and other countries and wasting it for "alternative stuff" like renewable energies, civil unions and other things. Spent, spent, spent and more, more, more depth. That is the desasterous policy. And because that is the case since decades the state has to cut, cut, cut now.
SO - The European social state stands for its end: it is going to be cut down because it is necessary. You are going to hear about it.

I rather spent my money myself and don´t let government decide. Most smart people have already moved their money out of the country (to Switzerland or other places). That is the result of the stupid socialists policies.
Free-market policies and low taxes are good for all. Only then money is invested, jobs are created and the well-being of all is inshured.
That is not done by playing Robin Hood. That has the opposite effects.
Therefore I have to say that Reagan and Bush are right with their policy. I think we see a boom of the US economy in the next years like during the 1980s.
you, sir, are an idiot. which is exactly why the US is taking in just as much if not more taxes than any country with socialist programs even though we dont have socialist programs. only idiots like you would let shit like that happen.

smoking is learned behavior
drinking beer is learned behavior
drinking coffee is learned behavior
going to the gym is learned behavior
etc.

you have the ability to change your behavior. Homosexuality is a choice that people choose to be. It is not hardwired into anybody when we are young we experiment and find we like certain things and find we don't like other things.

Therefore, if I choose to live the gay lifestyle some in society will accept me and some won't. The law cannot change that.

smoking is learned behavior
drinking beer is learned behavior
drinking coffee is learned behavior
going to the gym is learned behavior
etc.

you have the ability to change your behavior. Homosexuality is a choice that people choose to be. It is not hardwired into anybody when we are young we experiment and find we like certain things and find we don't like other things.

Therefore, if I choose to live the gay lifestyle some in society will accept me and some won't. The law cannot change that.
asinine
choose

so you choose to be attracted to females or you choose to be attracted to males

you please explain to me how some oen can choose to be attracted to something

asinine
choose

so you choose to be attracted to females or you choose to be attracted to males

you please explain to me how some oen can choose to be attracted to something
Appetative and aversive conditioning. Psych 101.

You think your argument is self evident. I think my argument is self evident.

I was not born a smoker. I said that looks neat. I think Ill try that. I smoked for 15 years. I quit several years ago.

The homosexual when he's young says I find more identification and confirmation from my own sex than the opposite sex... maybe he tries some things and finds he likes them and never developes a sexual desire for the opposite sex. Is this inately wrong on the homosexuals part? No, I don't think so. But society is more accepting of what it sees as normal. On the whole, I do no think society sees homosexuality as normal. Changing the law will not change peoples hearts.

The bible certainly looks down on it. I think the church is wrong to imply the sin of homosexuality is worse than the sin of stealing, lying or any other sin. We have all fallen short of God's demand of absolute perfection. Thankfully God has reconciled that perfection through Christ's death and ressurection.

Can homosexuals turn into heterosexuals? Are fat people able to become skinny people? Can smokers turn into non-smokers? Can alcolics turn sober?Can bad drivers turn into good drivers? Are these behaviors or are they inate things about ourselves that we cannot change? That is far too easy an answer and releases us from any responsibility for the things we choose to do to others or ourselves.

Have you looked at any of the many scientific studies that indicate that homosexuality is not a choice?

And how do you explain someone choosing to be homosexual with the knowledge that they will be brutally teased, discriminated against, and completely unaccepted by society?

If homosexuality is a choice, why do homosexuals commit suicide so much more often than heterosexuals - why don't they just change their minds?

When we are young we don't always think things through to their likely conclusions. I had to try to like smoking but I beat the hacking and choking to become a smoker. I loved it.

We try things. We find we like them. By the time we are older we are what we are. I admit it is difficult to change. And being what we are sometimes causes us to be looked down upon by others. I cannot pass a law that says all men must become christians. A gift that is demanded is no gift at all.
You cannot pass a law that says society must accept homosexuality.

Is there a difference between predispostion and cause. I have read that American Indian have a predisposition to alcoholism. Does this cause them them to be alcolholics? I don't believe it does, they have a choice not to drink. If they start drinking they might fall down the slope into alcoholism sooner than others might. I believe that some have a predisposition to homosexuality. Read the book, Bringing Up Boys, by Dobson. You will read of studies that support the view that homosexuality is a behavior.

I will grant you Mr. Dobson is not likely to be objective, pro-homosexual. Neither is a study done by pro-homosexual group such as Harvard or Berkley likely to be truly objective. Both groups are largely preaching to the choir.

. . . pro-homosexual group such as Harvard or Berkley . . .

Sorry, I just have to stop you here. You are assuming, I take it, that Berkeley is pro-homosexual because of its proximity to San Francisco (where, apparently, everyone is pro-homosexual), and that Harvard is pro-homosexual because it's in MA?
Both schools accept students from around the world, and both are among the foremost scientific institutions in the nation, whom, we hope, are not subject to too much bias. I wouldn't rule out the findings of Harvard just because it's in a state that legalized same-sex marriage.

I think the problem you raise is the high tax on properties after once death in the US. That is one of the areas where the US has actually higher taxes than we have in Europe.
Therefore I would suggest you to support President Bush cutting down the tax in that respect.
That is also just. After all: some people may want to write their will in favour of a non-relative or for someone else.
He/she has this problem as well. Gay marriage is not the solution for that, but cutting this tax.

You missed the point entirely, as usual. The common sense reason for not having *any* inheritance tax between spouses is that they have lived their entire lives together and co-own everything anyways. Tus, if your spouse dies, everything they leave to you already belonged to you in the first place, so it cannot be taxed. This is the protection that equally committed homosexual couples are being denied.

It is not even the amount of the tax, although whether or not it should be high is debatable, it is the principle of not taxing spouses, regardless of the gender.

And if the child gives consent?
And where do you draw the line then?

Somebody needs to study up a bit. The child cannot legally give consent - that is part of being a child.

Well, it seems that according to the definitions of homosexuality and pedophilia that anyone who has sexual relations with a member of the same sex, regardless of age, is a homosexual, and can at the same time commit pedophilia.

There is actually a separate medical term for same-sex pedophilia. And one way or another, you are ignoring that otherwise straigth men that are pedophiles often target young boys. This has nothing whatsoever to do with what they do in their normal, adult sex lives.

I believe that homosexuality is a behaviorial choice. It is learned, just like being a heterosexual is learned behavior. We are all born with the ability to make decisions about the types of behaviors we are going to participate in. Certain behaviors are reinforced while we are young, some are discouraged.
I do not believe that homosexuals are completely incapable of changing to heterosexual if it were their desire to do so.

You, sir or ma'am are a complete idiot if you really believe this. How exactly, pray tell, do you decide to be attracted to someone? How often have you looked at someone that you had no attraction whatsoever to and thought to yourself "I want to be attracted to that person, therefore I will be!!" Or, like with every other human being on the planet, have you simply though "Wow, that person is attractive."

And do you really believe that all of the hetero-/bi-sexual animals chose the other animals that they want to have sex with?

What you mean by "changing to heterosexual" is pretending to be heterosexual to please society. You know, I have no desire to eat peas. In fact, I really don't like them. But if society tells me that I have to eat my peas, I could force it down and go with it. I will never truly love my peas, and I will certainly not feel comfortable eating them, but I could do it if I had to. That is what you are describing when you tell a homosexual person to "become heterosexual."

A black man has no "choice" in being a black man. Every man has the ability to decide for his own what behaviors he chooses to indulge in. Should people who have essentially chosen to live the gay lifestyle be given the same protections as the black man who has been subjected to discrimination?

Attraction is not a behavior, it is attraction. Now, if your problem is that people act upon their attractions when both parties are consenting adults, then you can shove it. The truth is, it is the attraction that defines sexuality, not what you do in the bedroom. And yes, those who are inherently attracted to the same gender (who have been equally, if not more discriminated against than the black man) should be given the same protections as the inherently black man who has been subjected to discrimination.

Part of the issue is also legal. Should "the people" be able to decide the legal definition of marriage and encode it into law? Or should the courts say the people are wrong and one unelected judge says marriage is now this instead of that?

If the people decide something that is discriminatory, it is the courts' job to intervene. This was true with interracial marriages as well - another construct that "the people" did not want to allow but the courts could find no legitamite reason to ban. You see, the people have defined a legal construct which we refer to as marriage. It is the courts' realm to ensure that the laws regarding that construct are applied equally to all citizens. As of right now, they are not.

All of the benefits of marriage can be attained by a contract between to homosexuals.

Absolutely and completely wrong. Look up marriage law.

Be treated "equal" in the eye of the law will not result in being treated equally by "the people" Being homosexual for the forseeable future will involve a certain amount of discrimination.

What does this have to do with the price of eggs in China? Some people discriminate based on hair color, does that mean that we should encode that discrimination into law? The government cannot express preference for one type of person over another, unless that person has harmed another. Who the hell cares what bigotted individuals think?

I think the real issue of "gay marriage" lies here. "The people" went to their legislators and encoded into law that marriage is "X". The homosexual community is not content with affecting the legislative process it seeks to overturn decades of accepted standards and practices by have a handfull of judges change the meaning of marriage into something "the people" are not ready to accept. You can change any law you want the people will not accept the homosexual community "winning" in court.

Nobody really cares what individual people accept or do not accept. The government has no business not accepting it.

And as for your judge rant - they are doing their job, interpreting the laws. You may disagree with the interpretation because of your own deep-seated prejudices, but that doesn't make the fact that they are doing their job wrong.

Abortion is so divisive because the courts invented the "right" out of thin air instead of allowing the legislative process to run its course. We might have ended up in same place but the courts short circuited the whole thing and the people resent the end run around the rule of law.

Abortion is divisive because people disagree very strongly on it. That doesn't mean that the courts should stop protecting the rights of the people, as they are supposed to do.

Is there a difference between predispostion and cause. I have read that American Indian have a predisposition to alcoholism. Does this cause them them to be alcolholics? I don't believe it does, they have a choice not to drink. If they start drinking they might fall down the slope into alcoholism sooner than others might. I believe that some have a predisposition to homosexuality. Read the book, Bringing Up Boys, by Dobson. You will read of studies that support the view that homosexuality is a behavior.

I will grant you Mr. Dobson is not likely to be objective, pro-homosexual. Neither is a study done by pro-homosexual group such as Harvard or Berkley likely to be truly objective. Both groups are largely preaching to the choir.


Uhhh, Dr. Dobson is probably the last person on earth anyone should refer to for nearly anything and if his so called solid cited references supporting homosexual orientation as a 'choice' are of the same caliber as other studies he's cited elsewhere, such as gay males have 3000+ sex partners and are 7-9 times more likely to "commit" pedophilia based on the intellectually dishonest Dr. T. Cameron, then I'd have to defer to the so called pro-homosexual universities which unlike the religio-politically motivated Dr. Dobson, value their intellectual integrity.

Marrige is a RELIGOUS BOND, and I don't think the government should screw up religon, they've screwed up everything else, so... But seriously, there's no reason why they can't become LEAGALLY BONDED, but it's really up to the church that's marrying them if they can become RELIGOUSLY BONDED.

to know of Dan Steward, Republican Mayor of Plattsburgh, New York (it's very far north, on Lake Champlain, the last major city before hitting Quebec, in what's called the North Country).

Dan Stewart is a very successful moderate republican. He's also gay. He has a partner who lives in Quebec, with whom he is legally married. He wears a wedding ring. He worked with GW Bush moderating between his camp and log cabin republicans.

Plattsburgh is fairly dang conservitive, especially for a college town (Plattsburgh use to be home to a rather major Air Force base until 1990, when it closed, leaving the State University at Plattsburgh as the largest thing in town). But it keeps on electing this gay, log cabin republican.

I don't think his marriage, a successful one, is destroying Plattsburgh. I think those who claim the downfall of western civilzation need to look at the Philldelphia Eagles, World Wrestling Entertainment and the fact that William Shatner has not one but two new shows as signs of the downfall of the west before the fact that Adam and Steve can file jointly.

But it is a fact: you don´t have an argument against polygamy if you allow gay marriage.The argument that it isn't "the concept of [marriage in] our western culture" is a crap argument, and preventing gays from marrying doesn't change that. Heck, should interracial marriages have been banned when they weren't part of "the concept of [marriage in] our western culture"? (They arguably still aren't). I don't think it is at all unreasonable to ask for a better reason to exclude couples (or trianges or vees or whatever) from marriage. I can't think of one offhand, but as I'm not opposed to (the recognition of) polygamy, I don't see why that should be my problem.

I go bact the difference between a legal bond and a religous bond. A person should be allowed to legally bond with whomever or as many people as he wishes, but weither or not they can religously bond is up to the religon they practice.

The argument that it isn't "the concept of [marriage in] our western culture" is a crap argument, and preventing gays from marrying doesn't change that. Heck, should interracial marriages have been banned when they weren't part of "the concept of [marriage in] our western culture"?
exactly!

We should be pushing for gay marriage hard. I'm told gay couples are given preference over straight ones in adoption, because they've been statistically proven to have more stable, lasting homes than straight couples.

We should be pushing for gay marriage hard. I'm told gay couples are given preference over straight ones in adoption, because they've been statistically proven to have more stable, lasting homes than straight couples.
I haven't heard of any gay couples that were 'allowed' to adopt any child. Maybe it's an american thing, though?

I haven't heard of any gay couples that were 'allowed' to adopt any child. Maybe it's an american thing, though?

haha, I have a gay friend who worked in child services - he said that the group he was with gave them preference. I think rosie o'donel has a charity devoted to finding gay parents orphans to adopt. Straight people are too busy fucking the world into oblivion to bother with the starving children they've ignored for millenia. Nothing but good could come of gay marriage.

haha, I have a gay friend who worked in child services - he said that the group he was with gave them preference. I think rosie o'donel has a charity devoted to finding gay parents orphans to adopt. Straight people are too busy fucking the world into oblivion to bother with the starving children they've ignored for millenia. Nothing but good could come of gay marriage.

Way to once again blame all the world's problems on one group. So now it's straight people's fault, eh? My folks are hetrosexual (I hope!) and they adopted a girl from China, abandoned in front of the police station. Let's not be too hasty to just blame straight people, eh?

Hey, made it through all 16 pages. Among all the factually inaccurate stuff that's been thrown about, one really glaring one hasn't been argued.

Kybernetia: I think you are to unfair judging your country [USA]. There was no genocide. The people where just put into reservations.

There are numerous examples of massacres of Native Americans by US government soldiers and citizens. One of the more digusting ones is that the US gov't had a policy of handing out free blankets to Native Americans. The blankets were purposefully infected with smallpox, an Old World disease, which Native Americans had no evolved resistances against. Whole tribes were wiped out like this.
----

Gay marriage? I think a step away from the minutiae is in order.

1. I don't even know that's it's possible to know the cultural effects of gay or interracial marriage within a few generations, so the downfall of our culture isn't happening any day soon. Plenty of time to apply corrective measures, if necessary.

2. The cultures that fail are those that fail to change with the times. Usually they get stuck, and other cultures just race on by. We're very fortunate to live in a culture that can change it's rules peacefully as the need arises.

3. People who value: Home, Health, Safety, Family, Community, Love, Beer, and wants me to have them in equal measure, isn't likely to hurt me very badly. Even if I find their approach to acheiving these things rather unpalatable.

4. Given point three, the only real objection you can have is versus homosexuality itself. Trying sitting down with a gay human being and speaking to them as a human being. You might be surprised to find most of them not all that different from yourself. The differences are :D merely stylistic.

Marrige is a RELIGOUS BOND, and I don't think the government should screw up religon, they've screwed up everything else, so... But seriously, there's no reason why they can't become LEAGALLY BONDED, but it's really up to the church that's marrying them if they can become RELIGOUSLY BONDED.
Agreed. However, as long as the institution of marriage recieves legal benefits, there is discrimination against those who can't be married.

And any kind of legal union (like civil union in Quebec) has to give all the associated benefits of marriage. That is sadly not the case for the various civil unions found in north america.

You missed the point entirely, as usual. The common sense reason for not having *any* inheritance tax between spouses is that they have lived their entire lives together and co-own everything anyways. Tus, if your spouse dies, everything they leave to you already belonged to you in the first place, so it cannot be taxed. This is the protection that equally committed homosexual couples are being denied.
It is not even the amount of the tax, although whether or not it should be high is debatable, it is the principle of not taxing spouses, regardless of the gender.
That is not the case in every country though. So, your point is moot. The question should be: Why do we tax inheritence that high (like in the US) if the people have paid tax on it their entire life?
In that sense even European countries (mostly) have lower inheritence tax but in contrast higher income taxes.
It is a question of taxation. You want higher taxes but to exclude certain groups from them. I want lower taxes for all and no barriers. I don´t see a reason why inheritence tax should not exist between relatives. It can be lower. But there are numerous ways how to regulate your inheritence issues. Like via "gifts" before you die. That is always a matter of the taxation system of your country.
The best thing would be: lower taxes instead of complicated regulations and numerous exceptions. That would be the best for all.

Somebody needs to study up a bit. The child cannot legally give consent - that is part of being a child.
And why is that the case? A child can say yes or no if it is able to speak.
So the reasoning behind is is at the end: because the law says so.
But the law also says: marriage is between one man and one woman.
Since you argue that the law is not important in that respect you can not refer to the law in that respect as well, since you defy what the law says.
So: Why can´t a child not give consent?

children cant give consent, not legally. now if the PARENTS consent, its ok. but thats already legal as it is i think.
So, it is OK if the parents give consent on behalf of the child???

you, sir, are an idiot. which is exactly why the US is taking in just as much if not more taxes than any country with socialist programs even though we dont have socialist programs. only idiots like you would let shit like that happen.
You don´t have to look at the tax burden only but on the mandatory social security premiums (which are also mostly paid as a percentage of your income). You have to add that. And for Germany that means: you have often less than half of your income to spent on your own will after tax and social security.
That is much more than in the United States. From 1990-2001 the US economy grew on average about 3,4% each year, the German economy 1,5% on average.
And from 2001-2003 the growth was zero and this year only 1,5%. We would be happy to have your problems, Sir Idiot.