NationStates Jolt Archive

After reading many threads for and against gay marriages I decided to make a poll so I can see how popular it is. Before you vote on the poll I would like to say that I am totally for gay marriages and I don't think there is any harm in them.

Also, remember to post reasons for why you chose that option in the poll.

After reading many threads for and against gay marriages I decided to make a poll so I can see how popular it is. Before you vote on the poll I would like to say that I am totally for gay marriages and I don't think there is any harm in them.
you will not find yourself alone. You may have a problem finding opponets-- we tend to go after them pretty strongly.

Until I see one good reason why the government has a pressing interest to ban gay marriages...

I think its pretty clear now that Bush only used the "gay marriage" issues to distract us from Iraq.

I wonder if any gay people are against gay marriage? Just curious.

you will not find yourself alone. You may have a problem finding opponets-- we tend to go after them pretty strongly.
yes we are so hounded you guys make it hard on me to even post becasue I know it will provoke your anger... see like right there :p

Who's that one person that voted against gay marriages and didn't leave any reason for why you chose that? (you don't need to come out if you don't want to)

I think its pretty clear now that Bush only used the "gay marriage" issues to distract us from Iraq.
Because Bush controls the Massachusettes Supreme Court and Mayor of San Fransisco.

If two people seriously love and care for one another, and want to spend their lives together...I see no reason why it wouldn't be appropriate. Or at least be able to have civil unions that recognize them as a couple in the eyes of the law.

Asylum Nova

Because Bush controls the Massachusettes Supreme Court and Mayor of San Fransisco.

Lets try and keep this out of american politics because we are not all from america.

I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to marry another adult, if both parties agree.

If two people seriously love and care for one another, and want to spend their lives together...I see no reason why it wouldn't be appropriate. Or at least be able to have civil unions that recognize them as a couple in the eyes of the law.

Asylum Nova

I agree here, and take that even farther. It is dangerous to them and to any children they have (yes, homophobes, some homosexuals *do* have children) to not recognize their unions.

This is why I just got my equality bumper sticker =)

I said no, because I think marriage is over-rated and that gays are too good for marriage. I say that the gov. should not recognize even straight marriages. Let's call everything civil unions.

If two people seriously love and care for one another, and want to spend their lives together...I see no reason why it wouldn't be appropriate. Or at least be able to have civil unions that recognize them as a couple in the eyes of the law.

Asylum Nova

Why can't they just call it marriage instead of all this other stuff like civil unions, it's all the same, it gets treated as a marriage.

Because Bush controls the Massachusettes Supreme Court and Mayor of San Fransisco.

You gonna blame Martin Luther King Jr. for "causing" racial unrest?

You gonna blame Martin Luther King Jr. for "causing" racial unrest?
What does that have to do with anything?

I said no, because I think marriage is over-rated and that gays are too good for marriage. I say that the gov. should not recognize even straight marriages. Let's call everything civil unions.

You're obviosly not very reliogous. I'm not really reliogous either but others are and they prefer marriages to civil unions.

So of course I'm for gay marriage.

The thing I don't understand is this . . . why is it that some people think gay people should only have civil unions? I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm thankful that you are for us having equal rights as human beings and all, but didn't we deal with that whole separate is NOT equal thing back when segregation was ended? I realize this is American politics and history 101 and apologize to the non-Americans.

Personally, it seems that the biggest problem is in semantics. Conservative Christians feel the need to force their views on everyone--forgetting of course that the Christian founders of our country did NOT want that to happen. So fight semantics with semantics. As far as the government is concerned NO ONE gets married. Let everyone have a civil union and leave "marriages" to religious organizations. This of course means that even if you are married in a church, it shouldn't be legally binding because that is showing favoritism . . . let everyone go to the courthouse and get the full license which is representative of the civil union.

So you could have a union and not be "married" or be "married" and not have a union. Its all up to you. I guess the only drag is those few churches who DO allow gay marriages. Whatever will we do about them? <sarcasm>

To sum it up: I want the right to marry a man!

You're obviosly not very reliogous. I'm not really reliogous either but others are and they prefer marriages to civil unions.

Nobody would deny them their religious marriage.

However, if the legal term for the *civil* marriage was civil union, a lot of the needless debate could be done away with.

You're obviosly not very reliogous. I'm not really reliogous either but others are and they prefer marriages to civil unions.

Please note that it was not said that people could not get married. They still could. It's just that as far as the government is concerned they would get a civil union. Why is it that people want to scream that marriage is in the eyes of God and isn't for the government to regulate, but you start taking the regulation out of it and they get upset? Want your cake and eat it too maybe?

To sum it up: I want the right to marry a man!

And I should have the right to marry a woman! Of course, never mind that I already want to marry a man, if he was a woman, I should still be allowed to marry him! hehe

What does that have to do with anything?

Well, you seemed to blame the gay activists, not the homophobes, for causing the election year controversy.

Well, you seemed to blame the gay activists, not the homophobes, for causing the election year controversy.

That would be the typical type A heterosexual male behavior of blaming the victim.

Well, you seemed to blame the gay activists, not the homophobes, for causing the election year controversy.

Never mind that none of them were gay (to my knowledge anyways) and only the San Fransisco mayor (who I sent a really nice email to not that long ago) was an activist.

Please note that it was not said that people could not get married. They still could. It's just that as far as the government is concerned they would get a civil union. Why is it that people want to scream that marriage is in the eyes of God and isn't for the government to regulate, but you start taking the regulation out of it and they get upset? Want your cake and eat it too maybe?


Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I AM a religious person, but am also a bisexual. I think that the government should categorize all unions as civil unions and leave the definition of "marriage" up to churches.

Well, you seemed to blame the gay activists, not the homophobes, for causing the election year controversy.
Ok then yes, MLK did cause racial unrest. That wasn't and this right now isn't necessarily a bad thing, but he undoubtedly did stir up racial tensions, whether he wanted to or not, by forcing the issue onto the national stage.

And I should have the right to marry a woman! Of course, never mind that I already want to marry a man, if he was a woman, I should still be allowed to marry him! hehe

Huh...? Women, man...? I don't follow...what's your point? :confused:

Ok then yes, MLK did cause racial unrest. That wasn't and this right now isn't necessarily a bad thing, but he undoubtedly did stir up racial tensions, whether he wanted to or not, by forcing the issue onto the national stage.

If bringing a problem to light is stirring up tensions so be it. It's something that NEEDS to come to light. Maybe many people at the time were against Civil Rights, its still something for which I hope the majority stand today.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I AM a religious person, but am also a bisexual. I think that the government should categorize all unions as civil unions and leave the definition of "marriage" up to churches.

Sounds right up my alley. Let's send a bill to congress. I can just imagine the look on some of their faces!

Ok then yes, MLK did cause racial unrest. That wasn't and this right now isn't necessarily a bad thing, but he undoubtedly did stir up racial tensions, whether he wanted to or not, by forcing the issue onto the national stage.

Agreed. Usually a little unrest precludes social change, to give an extreme example, the civil war over slavery.

If bringing a problem to light is stirring up tensions so be it. It's something that NEEDS to come to light. Maybe many people at the time were against Civil Rights, its still something for which I hope the majority stand today.
And I never said there is something bad with stirring up tensions. It would be wrong, however, to blame the fact that the issue was getting attention on some southern governor who simply wanted the status quo and not the Civil Rights movement's leaders.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I AM a religious person, but am also a bisexual. I think that the government should categorize all unions as civil unions and leave the definition of "marriage" up to churches.

Yes, that sounds fair to me.

Huh...? Women, man...? I don't follow...what's your point? :confused:

I was just playing around.

My point was that I, as a woman, should be able to marry a woman. However, I am already in a committed relationship with a man, so it is a right that I wouldn't exercise. =)

Yes, that sounds fair to me.


Yeah, I'm gonna post a poll on it now to see how many agree.

Yes, that sounds fair to me.


Yeah, I'm gonna post a poll on it now to see how many agree.

And I never said there is something bad with stirring up tensions. It would be wrong, however, to blame the fact that the issue was getting attention on some southern governor who simply wanted the status quo and not the Civil Rights movement's leaders.

I'll agree with you there. However, it would be wrong (if anything can be absolutely right or wrong) for that governor to use it as a campaign ploy. . .

I feel so dirty all of a sudden, normally I"m a Republican, I promise.

Yes, you heard me right, a GAY republican.

Why are we all argueing amongst ourselves? We should be fighting the people against gays...when they come out of hiding.

There's a whole organization of Gay Republicans.

Why are we all argueing amongst ourselves? We should be fighting the people against gays...when they come out of hiding.

Sometimes debating amongst yourselves is a good thing. Movements are far more effective if members of them agree as close to unanimous in purpose, methods, and semantics as possible. Plus, it helps prepare you for those far more difficult debates.

I must say that thus far, I'm highly impressive with everyone whose posted.

I'll agree with you there. However, it would be wrong (if anything can be absolutely right or wrong) for that governor to use it as a campaign ploy. . .

I feel so dirty all of a sudden, normally I"m a Republican, I promise.

Yes, you heard me right, a GAY republican.

There's nothing inherently wrong with being a Republican. =)

Although I hope that you (and all the log-cabin Republicans - are you a part of them officially?) don't vote Republican in this particular presidential election. In four years if McCain runs, i'll probably vote with you there =)

There's a whole organization of Gay Republicans.

(s)he speaks the truth... i know several myself who are supporting bush... i don't understand it, but... its the truth

All ya'll, I voted for gay marriage because I know for two gay people to make that kind of commitment to each other for the rest of their lives and they are gonna think long and hard about whether they want to marry their partner. Plus, look at straight marriages in the US. 50% OR MORE end in divorce while the gay couples that I know spend their entire lives finding the right one to spend whatever is left of their life. I support gay marriage and the rights of gay people to inheirit money, adopt children, and be legally married in the eyes of the law.

There's a whole organization of Gay Republicans.

Yeah, the log cabin Republicans. Interestingly, we aren't endorsing Bush in this election, but that's a whole other topic. Still:

www.logcabin.org

Always a good resource to find out what is going on in the realm of gay rights.

The Theocracy of Vaticanaan believes that there are no gay people, it is simply a myth perpetrated by the liberal leaning media.

OOC: Give gays the same rights as anyone else, it's really the only option in my mind.

There's nothing inherently wrong with being a Republican. =)

Although I hope that you (and all the log-cabin Republicans - are you a part of them officially?) don't vote Republican in this particular presidential election. In four years if McCain runs, i'll probably vote with you there =)

Yes, I am a card-carrying log cabin republican. And I must admit, though it pains me, that I will be voting Democrat in this presidential election. It was a hard decision to make as I dont' believe in letting one issue override everything else I stand for. However, it doesn't seem to be one issue anymore. The Republican party under Bush has abandoned the principles of federalism and self-determinism in favor of ultra-right wing radicalism. One day we'll manage to change things from within, because I firmly believe that most Republicans are more moderate and tolerant. For now though, it seems that the squeeky wheel gets the oil. The party even rejected a unity plank <sighs>.

Yeah, the log cabin Republicans. Interestingly, we aren't endorsing Bush in this election, but that's a whole other topic. Still:

www.logcabin.org

Always a good resource to find out what is going on in the realm of gay rights.

Thank God!! I was so worried you guys were still gonna support Bush after the RNC fiasco.

Oh, and watch carefully for what happens with the amendment in GA, where the legislature is willfully trying to deceive the voters.

Yeah, the log cabin Republicans. Interestingly, we aren't endorsing Bush in this election, but that's a whole other topic. Still:

www.logcabin.org

Always a good resource to find out what is going on in the realm of gay rights.


would it be correct to call them a "Logcabin republican"?

and would i be correct in saying a logcabin republican is a gay republican?

i would be EXTREMLY interested in discussing the whole other topic... just maybe not of this thread

OOC: Give gays the same rights as anyone else, it's really the only option in my mind.

Yes that's exactly what I want, not to get more than straight people, not to get less but to get equal rights as every straight person.

Thank God!! I was so worried you guys were still gonna support Bush after the RNC fiasco.

Oh, and watch carefully for what happens with the amendment in GA, where the legislature is willfully trying to deceive the voters.

After the party's platform was established with no unity plank, there just was no going with it. The group is still going to support many open-minded conservatives, but not Bush.

And sadly it does look like a lot of those amendments will pass. However, the one in Lousiana was overturned--by a Republican judge no less.

would it be correct to call them a "Logcabin republican"?

and would i be correct in saying a logcabin republican is a gay republican?

i would be EXTREMLY interested in discussing the whole other topic... just maybe not of this thread


Log Cabin Republican is correct. However, not all Log Cabin Republicans are gay. It is made up of gay, straight, transgendered, bisexual, and other. The group is founded on the concept of inclusion in the party while still be true to the bigger ideals of federalism et. al.

And I guess this thread has kind of been hijacked. If you'd like to get over to another that's fine, but my forum skills are rather limited so who knows if I could follow.

occasionally people are voting against gay marriages, yet I don't see any of them joining the argument...where are they??? Fight us! :mad:

occasionally people are voting against gay marriages, yet I don't see any of them joining the argument...where are they??? Fight us! :mad:

But that would mean that they might have to discourse with a "queer".

occasionally people are voting against gay marriages, yet I don't see any of them joining the argument...where are they??? Fight us! :mad:


I did vote against it, but only to say that all marriages are wrong. Lets make them all civil unions, gay and straight, and leave "marriage" interpritation up to churches.

But that would mean that they might have to discourse with a "queer".

Ah...I see

I did vote against it, but only to say that all marriages are wrong. Lets make them all civil unions, gay and straight, and leave "marriage" interpritation up to churches.

I understand your views and I agree with them.

As much as it pains me to leave, I have to be up in a few hours. Good luck here. Remember, right will win out in the end. I think it was Garth Brooks who said "We shall be free."

As much as it pains me to leave, I have to be up in a few hours. Good luck here. Remember, right will win out in the end. I think it was Garth Brooks who said "We shall be free."

It looks like we are already winning this poll.

let 'em marry if they want too

I wonder if any gay people are against gay marriage? Just curious.

the ones who don't want to be pressured into marriage by their families?

I've debated this one a fair amount by now, and I think I can sum up the opposition's arguments and refute them by memory.

1) Homosexuality is sinful/against the Bible/immoral/against God/etc...

Religion has no place in legislation. If you refuse to accept that, then there is no point arguing further with you.

2) Homosexuality is unnatural/a perversion/against nature/a mental illness/etc.

First off, homosexuality is fairly prevalent in animals. Secondly, who are you to determine what is "natural" or "perverted"? Would you want the government legislating based on whatever it thinks at the time is "unnatural"? What if someone thinks interracial marriage is a perversion...? That's what happened many years ago. Do not be so quick to judge others as "unnatural". They may find your sexual preferences just as disgusting as you find theirs.

3) Straight marriage needs to be defended against gay marriage.

No one is forcing straight people to get gay marriages. Straight marriages are far more "under attack" from high rates of divorce. Besides...no one threatens your marriage except for you and your partner. That's it.

4) Gays cannot have children.

And you want to ban their marriage because of that?! Many straight couples cannot have children, and you must therefore ban their marriages or risk being called a hypocrite. Actually, many gays do have children, either by artificial means or adoption...just like straight couples.

5) If we allow gays to marry, then we'll have to allow necrophelia and beastiality.

In a word: consent. And...if we ban gay marraige, then we'll have to ban interracial marriage too!



If you have any more, let me know...

I said that I was against gay marriage.

Arguments against gay marriage:
1. It's gross.- Cry me a river.
2. It's irreligious.- Relative opinions of a singular religion in a secular state that includes several religions doesn't fly far.
3. It violates the sanctity of marriage.- And bigotry violates the morality of America. Either way, you lose.
4. All marriage is wrong.- Then ban all marriage. Don't comprimise in a manner that makes you look like a bigot.
5. My parents/boss/president said so.- There's this great thing called thinking for yourself. Ever heard of it?

Did I miss anything?

There is no scientific evidence to show that someone becomes gay.

I have a question for those of you who both believe in macroevolution & support homosexuality:

How can these two things be compatible? The basis of macroevolution is that all living things, including humans, have the sole goal of being the fittest. Homosexuality, as far as I can see, does not contribute to fitness.

I have a question for those of you who both believe in macroevolution & support homosexuality:

How can these two things be compatible? The basis of macroevolution is that all living things, including humans, have the sole goal of being the fittest. Homosexuality, as far as I can see, does not contribute to fitness.Wow. You just disproved macroevolution. But that's off topic, now isn't it.

I have a question for those of you who both believe in macroevolution & support homosexuality:

How can these two things be compatible? The basis of macroevolution is that all living things, including humans, have the sole goal of being the fittest. Homosexuality, as far as I can see, does not contribute to fitness.

Actually the two are very compatible. Homosexuality occurs in most mammal species, specifically those with highly organized social groups. Why? One of the more popular lines of reasoning is that homosexuals actually benefit the community. Most of the time they do not have offspring, but still live in the community and assist. They help without adding to the hungry mouths to feed, to put it simply. In that way, homosexuality increases the fitness of the local population.

There is no scientific evidence to show that someone becomes gay.

Are you saying that people are born gay or that being gay is only a myth and it doesn't exist?

Are you saying that people are born gay or that being gay is only a myth and it doesn't exist?

I'm saying that being gay is a myth.

I'm saying that being gay is a myth.

Wait- if you listen very closely you can hear the voice of tens of thousands of scientists and psychologists screaming to the contrary.

I'm saying that being gay is a myth.

I am gay and it doesn't just change. When I was younger I tried to without succes as many other people have done before but now I'm just sitting back and enjoying the ride. I can't just decide not to be gay therefore it isn't a myth.

I'm for gay marriage.

Equality for everyone!!

Actually the two are very compatible. Homosexuality occurs in most mammal species, specifically those with highly organized social groups. Why? One of the more popular lines of reasoning is that homosexuals actually benefit the community. Most of the time they do not have offspring, but still live in the community and assist. They help without adding to the hungry mouths to feed, to put it simply. In that way, homosexuality increases the fitness of the local population.


As someone who has studied a lot of sociobiology, I agree. :)

Ok American politicis aside... since this is a world wide relevant question and not just the USA....

I am Canadian, where most of our provinces have allowed Gay Marriages, and our Federal Courts are now debating wheather or not it is constitutional to ban it or not.

And though I support the RIGHT for gays to marry, since I have many gay and lesbian friends... though I am straight.

But I ask the qestion.....

Marriage was founded as a Christian sacriment of union between two people.
Marriage is a religious institution. It is only because so much of Western Society has been based on Religion that Marriage exists as it does.
If Christianity has turned its back on Gays and Lesbians (except for the Protestants, very liberal people), why would they want any part in those religions?

Why does our society equate civil union to religious marriage? Can we not seperate it?
Why would a people, shunned by a religion, seek to marry within that religion?

I support the equality of rights, but I dont understand why they would want to. Then again, I turned my back on all forms of Christianity because I was discriminated against because my mother and father never married. Why do their sins dictate my life?

because the Church says so.

and thats all it comes down to. the Chruch may not be a government anymore.... but it has built our society into what we know today.



oooooo pointless ramblings.

I'm saying that being gay is a myth.

Well, that certainly doesn't explain the woman that wants to marry me (being a woman).

Joining in the discussion... I'm all for gay marriage, as I want to marry another woman (though I don't actually identify as homosexual. Bi-asexual is closer to it). Though lucky for me, I live where gay marriage is legal. And you know what? Since it was made legal, nothing seems any different. Imagine that.

There is no scientific evidence to show that someone becomes gay.

Even if you think that it's impossible to be gay then isn't it still fair to let people decide who they would like to get married to? For example two men who aren't gay, according to you, might want to get married anyway because they love each other?

Wait- if you listen very closely you can hear the voice of tens of thousands of scientists and psychologists screaming to the contrary.

Where is the evidence?

Actually the two are very compatible. Homosexuality occurs in most mammal species, specifically those with highly organized social groups. Why? One of the more popular lines of reasoning is that homosexuals actually benefit the community. Most of the time they do not have offspring, but still live in the community and assist. They help without adding to the hungry mouths to feed, to put it simply. In that way, homosexuality increases the fitness of the local population.

Everyone read what this person said, he makes a good point.

I have a question for those of you who both believe in macroevolution & support homosexuality:

How can these two things be compatible? The basis of macroevolution is that all living things, including humans, have the sole goal of being the fittest. Homosexuality, as far as I can see, does not contribute to fitness.

in nature, homosexual animals will adopt orphaned offspring of others, helping the species survive.

there are some animals that will engage in a one time coupling with an opposite sex animal and then raise the offspring with their mate.

Where is the evidence?

Chikyota already gave a piece of evidence before, it went like this:


Actually the two are very compatible. Homosexuality occurs in most mammal species, specifically those with highly organized social groups. Why? One of the more popular lines of reasoning is that homosexuals actually benefit the community. Most of the time they do not have offspring, but still live in the community and assist. They help without adding to the hungry mouths to feed, to put it simply. In that way, homosexuality increases the fitness of the local population.

I really like this piece of evidence, it explains a lot...

Okay maybe we should just toe the line between b/c this whole thing is completely crazy.:confused: "Marriage" is just too religious a word and all the very Conservative Christians out there are not going to condone tthis 'unnatural abomination'. Even if we passed a law stating that gays should be able to be 'married' the Federal juristiction of law enforcement doesn't include churches or any other place of worship. In other words Reverend Deacon So-and- So can refuse to Marry Bob and Bill and Mr. USA cannot do anything about (seperation of church and states). Personally I have no problem with homosexuals and I am Christian but since it's such a huge issue then maybe for now we should toe the middle and pass a law making Gay Unions accepted everywhere, recognized by each state, and promising the same benefits as married people for each state.

There is no scientific evidence to show that someone becomes gay.

I believe this is true. All of the (admittedly scanty) scientific evidence I have seen suggests that sexual orientation is formed in approximately the 5th week of gestation, along with other secondary sexual characteristics. (Meaning those determined by hormones, not by genetics.) There is no scientific evidence AT ALL to suggest that it can be consciously chosen, however.

I would prefer to do away with religious marriage as a legal institution in any case, and to replace it completely with civil unions open to all consenting adults. Those who still wish to be married in a church should be free to do so, but it should have no more legal significance than being baptized.

Just one person's opinion.

I wonder if any gay people are against gay marriage? Just curious.
Some "ex-gays" are. I'm not.
I'm saying that being gay is a myth.
So you believe that people actually don't, and in fact can't experience sexual and emotional fulfillment when engaged in a relationship with a person of the same gender? I can tell you from experience that that isn't true. Unless you think I'm just deluding myself. But why would I do that? Unless you are arguing that sexuality itself is mythical, and much more fluid than is commonly accepted. Which a totally different issue, and no reason at all to oppose gay marriage.

Marriage, as much as some people would like to think otherwise, is not a religious institution. It's a social institution. There are both legal andvantages and an acceptance of commitment from society attached, and these are things which cannot be denied to consenting adults on the basis of gender. Not to mention the emotional commitment it might symbolize to the participants.
To some it is also a religious symbol, but those people should also be allowed to marry whosoever they choose, as they are garaunteed freedom of religion in the constitution. They wouldn't believe that such a religious marriage was morally "bad", so why keep it from them?

I'm back, yay!


Marriage was founded as a Christian sacriment of union between two people.
Marriage is a religious institution. It is only because so much of Western Society has been based on Religion that Marriage exists as it does.
If Christianity has turned its back on Gays and Lesbians (except for the Protestants, very liberal people), why would they want any part in those religions?


As for the previous post, thank you for your tolerance and acceptance and I agree with that having civil unions ONLY as far as the government is concerned is the way to go.

However, I'm a nit-picker, histrionic, egotist so I do have to make one point. Marriage was around LONG before Christianity was and will probably be around long after is (if we don't destroy ourselves before then). Marriage dates back to prehistory. Still, overall your philosophy is sound

Where is the evidence?

<raises his hand> I'm the evidence. I have X and Y chromosomes and I sleep with men! What's more, I find emotional fullfilment in them, not just sexual attraction.

I support civil unions. They're a legal entity that just makes good sense. Marriage is a religous matter that should be decided by individual churches. if church A wants to marry 2 men, that's their business, not the govenrmnent's IMO. Likewise if Church B doesnt want to mary 2 women, that's also it's own busienss.

Because Why the Hell not?

On a more serious note:The issue of Gay Marriage is one of religion. Last i checked, the U.S. had a seperation of Church and State. So why the heck are we preventing some people one of thier most basic rights?

I think they should give gay couples "civil union" status, while still giving them all the benefits of marriage. For thousands of years, marriage has been a strictly religious tradition. And, for thousands of years, marriage has been classified as a union between a man and a woman. Therefore, it's sacrilege to let them marry. The different name will let them keep records of which couples are which, too.

I think they should give gay couples "civil union" status, while still giving them all the benefits of marriage. For thousands of years, marriage has been a strictly religious tradition. And, for thousands of years, marriage has been classified as a union between a man and a woman. Therefore, it's sacrilege to let them marry. The different name will let them keep records of which couples are which, too.

Seperate but Equal =! constitutional. It's been discussed many times before.

There is a compromise, which is using the label 'marriage' ONLY for the ceremony that occurs in a church... thus, 'marriage' would have no legal weight, and would afford you no legal rights.

Then 'civil unions' could be implimented to take over the role of the government's role in marriage - all current marriage rights would be attached to the civil union, and anyone could get one.

Only in this case would civil unions as a seperate entity from marriages be equal. Otherwise it's just the same discrimination given a fancier wrapping.

Well, it's not exactly the same discrimination. There is no doubt in my mind that civil unions would be better than what we have now in most states, and while it wouldn't be as good as the whole deal, no skimping on the trimmings, I wouldn't object if it was instituted. I'd still argue for full marriage rights, but sometimes you gotta take it one step at a time.

I think they should give gay couples "civil union" status, while still giving them all the benefits of marriage. For thousands of years, marriage has been a strictly religious tradition. And, for thousands of years, marriage has been classified as a union between a man and a woman. Therefore, it's sacrilege to let them marry. The different name will let them keep records of which couples are which, too.

See I'd be fine with Civil Unions if EVERYONE got one. Separating homosexuals from heterosexuals in that way puts us as second class citizens. Separate is NOT equal. Further, the current status of civil unions does NOT afford the same number of rights to partners as the current status of marriage. Now I'm not saying that cannot be rectified, but right not its not acceptable.

I understand it when people say take it one step at a time. I can see where that urge comes and perhaps that's the way it will have to be. But one step at a time does nothing for those gay men and women who have spent years with their spouses and who will be long gone before the change can happen. So I say equal rights for all now! No more waiting, we are humans too and have every right to spend our lives as humans!

I don't understand why I can't just marry my fiancee and continue to be happy with her in a way in which if I'm lying on my deathbed, she can be the last shining light of beauty I can see before my time on Earth is complete.

I don't understand why I can't just marry my fiancee and continue to be happy with her in a way in which if I'm lying on my deathbed, she can be the last shining light of beauty I can see before my time on Earth is complete.

It's a pitty some people can't see that. All they see is that it might be against their church.

Someone new join the argument, we need more argueing...

I like the comment a couple pages ago: Homosexuality is a myth. :p

See, we ban gay marriage, we tie gays to fences and beat them to death, we deny gays the right to adopt children cause "they're just gonna molest them", we fire gays from the military, we ban gays from teaching in public schools (Senatorial candidate Jim DeMint of South Carolina would do this, just letting you know), and all other assorted versions of discrimination against gays...

and all of a sudden...

WE SAY GAYS DON'T ACTUALLY EXIST!!! :D

WE SAY GAYS DON'T ACTUALLY EXIST!!!

haha right.

the dodo doesn't exist, let's do the same thing! :p

thats pretty harsh. why does it matter what other people do in their own homes?

/em hands Chipweemonk a potion of detect sarcasm ;)

I'm totally against gay marriage being recognised by Church or State.

I think its unnatural, there I've said it.

Anyone want to argue the point with me, thats fine, get personal but, and

you will only weaken your arguement as one that has to be protected by silly

insults, not reasonable debate.

I'm a Christian too.

(Puts flamesuit on.)

i dont plan to argue against your point by being silly as you said that would not help my point i would like to ask though christianity says all men are created equal shouldnt that mean they have the same rights, the right to marry the one they love for example?

I'm totally against gay marriage being recognised by Church or State.

I think its unnatural, there I've said it.

Anyone want to argue the point with me, thats fine, get personal but, and

you will only weaken your arguement as one that has to be protected by silly

insults, not reasonable debate.

I'm a Christian too.

(Puts flamesuit on.)

Are you also against straight marriage being recognized by the State?

And you needn't tell us you're a Christian, it's fairly obvious. ;)

Just my quick two cents:

I don't think gay marriage should be allowed. I view marriage as a religious institution between husband and wife, not husband and husband or wife and wife. I don't think it's right to bastardise this old institution for modernity.

However, I am all for gay civil relationships - effectively a marriage in the eyes of the law. This would allow for the same legal status, but would not harm the religious idea of marriage.

Just my quick two cents:

I don't think gay marriage should be allowed. I view marriage as a religious institution between husband and wife, not husband and husband or wife and wife. I don't think it's right to bastardise this old institution for modernity.

However, I am all for gay civil relationships - effectively a marriage in the eyes of the law. This would allow for the same legal status, but would not harm the religious idea of marriage.

Once the government stops recognizing marriage I will gladly support your proposal, even religious freedom to discriminate, although I will still roll my eyes at such quaint views on homosexuality.

i dont plan to argue against your point by being silly as you said that would not help my point i would like to ask though christianity says all men are created equal shouldnt that mean they have the same rights, the right to marry the one they love for example?

Dude, learn to use the comma more lol

Ok, now that thats off my chest, yes it says all men are created equal, that

doesnt mean it condones all men can go out and sodomise each other, and

expect God to accept it as natural.

[QUOTE=Chodolo]Are you also against straight marriage being recognized by the State?

No, marriage or straight marriage, as you call it, is the basic building block of

society, and must be preserved as thus.

Meaning a union of a man and woman only, to build a proper family,

supported fully by the Church and State.

I voted for gay marriges. And the reasons? Um, why the hell not.
I see myself as pretty liberal so I say that if someone want's to get a huge (or tiny) schlong up their ass its their choice to do so, and if they then by some strange reason want to get married in a church I wouldn't stand in the way or their happiness or misery or whatever might happen.

Legalize Gay marriage . . . homosexuals arent causing harm to us (maybe egotistically but screw the ego), it's none of our business who somebody decides to marry anyways, or what their sexuality is.

Warning: the post below may not be suitable for younger readers.

The human body was not designed for people of the same gender to have sexual relations. The male body was designed with a penis, the female's with a vagina. They were designed to fit together.

Warning: the post below may not be suitable for younger readers.

The human body was not designed for people of the same gender to have sexual relations. The male body was designed with a penis, the female's with a vagina. They were designed to fit together.

penises fit in anuses. mouths fit on either sort of genital. hands can stimulate just about anything. i guess we are designed for all those things, by your logic.

No, gay marriages should not be allowed.

And, no, I'm not going to explain my opinion because I have posted my thoughts on this topic so much before that I don't even feel like doing it again.

No, gay marriages should not be allowed.

And, no, I'm not going to explain my opinion because I have posted my thoughts on this topic so much before that I don't even feel like doing it again.

Then why post here at all?

I wonder if any gay people are against gay marriage? Just curious.

I can answer this: It's a complicated question, but I'll answer it this way. In a <i>sense</i> I'm against gay marriages (and I'm gay) in the sense that I think the government should not be involved in sanctioning marriages AT ALL. Leave it up to religious/secular groups to work it out; if someone wanted a document showing that s/he and and their partner were married, the group could give them a document to be notarized. Any partnership agreements could easily be worked out in the private sector. For example, if a couple wanted to be able to pick up each other's prescriptions, they could go to their drugstore and sign a form that stated they were both married and would like to be able to call in/pick up prescriptions for each other. And so on.

I don't see why people don't think of this...everyone wins; religious groups will not be forced to marry anyone they don't feel like marrying (in terms of sex, age, race or whatnot), but two consenting people will be able to have their union recognized.

Mariage itself is the religious ceremony. I don't personally care much for that, though some gays might like it, I think it's a waste of time/money. The real issue are the benefits which are being given in discriminatory fashion to heterosexual couples only. And I voted yes on the poll because I think this should not be regulated at all if it involves 2 consenting adults, let them do what they want.

Mariage itself is the religious ceremony. I don't personally care much for that, though some gays might like it, I think it's a waste of time/money. The real issue are the benefits which are being given in discriminatory fashion to heterosexual couples only.
marriage is NOT a religious ceremony for all people. in fact, the religious ceremony is usually refered to as the WEDDING, while the enduring relationship is referred to as the MARRIAGE.

my parents had a marraige ceremony performed by a justice of the peace in a non-religious building. they don't call their union a "civil union" or any such thing, they call it a marriage, and i don't think anybody could rightfully question that. religion has never had a place in their union, ever, but it is more of a marriage than 50% of the religious marriages in this country will ever amount to.

Warning: the post below may not be suitable for younger readers.

The human body was not designed for people of the same gender to have sexual relations. The male body was designed with a penis, the female's with a vagina. They were designed to fit together.
Actually, I think the vagina and assorted organs, were designed to accomodate for pregnancy and giving birth to our species' offspring. Sex is just a means to an end, usually for pleasure, sometimes to make babies. I do not think that vagina or penis were designed to have sex with each other. Following this logic, a penis and an anus are designed ot fit aswell or a penis and a mouth or a certain vegetable and a vagina or a dildo and an anus...

penises fit in anuses. mouths fit on either sort of genital. hands can stimulate just about anything. i guess we are designed for all those things, by your logic.

What this guy said is just like saying that glasses, automobiles, and polyester should be banned because they are not "natural". Or what about meat-eating? A lot of religious groups say that meat-eating is just as unnatural as some people say homosexuality is. Why not ban meat-eating?

marriage is NOT a religious ceremony for all people. in fact, the religious ceremony is usually refered to as the WEDDING, while the enduring relationship is referred to as the MARRIAGE.

my parents had a marraige ceremony performed by a justice of the peace in a non-religious building. they don't call their union a "civil union" or any such thing, they call it a marriage, and i don't think anybody could rightfully question that. religion has never had a place in their union, ever, but it is more of a marriage than 50% of the religious marriages in this country will ever amount to.
Well I meant the "wedding" with the religious thing. I don't much care for that, although for most it probably is part of a marriage. I think all partnerships between 2 consenting adults should be civil unions and detach the religious issue from the government definition of marriage altogether.

What this guy said is just like saying that glasses, automobiles, and polyester should be banned because they are not "natural". Or what about meat-eating? A lot of religious groups say that meat-eating is just as unnatural as some people say homosexuality is. Why not ban meat-eating?
the human hand did not evolve for the purpose of playing the piano, so i guess we should ban piano-playing because it's not what nature "intended."

logic? what logic? we have no logic here!! out, foul rationality!!!

There hasn't been a single argument made against allowing Gay Marriage anywhere that has even made me consider supporting a ban, being neither Religious nor Homophobic.

Well I meant the "wedding" with the religious thing. I don't much care for that, although for most it probably is part of a marriage. I think all partnerships between 2 consenting adults should be civil unions and detach the religious issue from the government definition of marriage altogether.
no argument here.

the only reason i think the government should be involved in marriage at all is that there are many legal rights that every married couple would have to get individually if they weren't included in the marital contract; survivor status, next of kin status, custody of kids, all that stuff would have to be individually worked out, and would cost couples money that could be better spent on their kids' college funds or a down payment on a house. economically speaking, it is wise for there to be one neat contract that includes all the benefits that a couple would want to seek, but that's a purely civil matter, and the religious side of things is totally irrelevant to the state's involvement...or at least, it is in my dream America, where theocracy has not yet been declared...

I said no, because I think marriage is over-rated and that gays are too good for marriage. I say that the gov. should not recognize even straight marriages. Let's call everything civil unions.

HEAR, HEAR!!!!!

occasionally people are voting against gay marriages, yet I don't see any of them joining the argument...where are they??? Fight us! :mad:

Fact is, each argument that has been used against gay marriage is theocratic or downright fallacious. I.E., inappropriate appeals to tradition, bandwagon, slippery slope, etc. They probably know this and don't feel like debating for that reason., because it requires too much cognitive energy..

There is no scientific evidence to show that someone becomes gay.

None to show that someone becomes straight, either. Check out the APA website, this should clarify things. Here's one page for starters:
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#cantherapychange

NOW do you see things a bit more clearly? Keep in mind that this is a scientific group, and not a front for Counterpunch.org or the "American Family Association".

I have a question for those of you who both believe in macroevolution & support homosexuality:

How can these two things be compatible? The basis of macroevolution is that all living things, including humans, have the sole goal of being the fittest. Homosexuality, as far as I can see, does not contribute to fitness.

Homosexuality is quite common in animals; in fact, I read a story about two gay penguins at the Central Park Zoo a while ago. Plus, it makes sense from the evolutionary perspective if you think of it as a natural method of population control. I've heard about experiments that have been performed with mice that illustrate this; if you have a lot of mice crammed into a small cage, a lot of them will become gay to control the population.

I'm saying that being gay is a myth.

Haha. Just like being straight is a myth? What gives you this idea?

Ever known any gay people? And, assuming you're correct, why would a person choose to subject themselves to all the bigotry, discrimination etc (from people like you I might add) that comes with being gay, if it were all a myth?

You need to read and get out more, to be blunt.

I am gay and it doesn't just change. When I was younger I tried to without succes as many other people have done before but now I'm just sitting back and enjoying the ride. I can't just decide not to be gay therefore it isn't a myth.

Hear, hear. I went through the same thing, and for that reason it really irritates me to hear people say $H!+ like that.

Where is the evidence?

http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#cantherapychange 'Nuff said.

I think they should give gay couples "civil union" status, while still giving them all the benefits of marriage. For thousands of years, marriage has been a strictly religious tradition. And, for thousands of years, marriage has been classified as a union between a man and a woman. Therefore, it's sacrilege to let them marry. The different name will let them keep records of which couples are which, too.

If it's strictly religious, why are atheists allowed to get married?

I'm totally against gay marriage being recognised by Church or State.

I think its unnatural, there I've said it.

Anyone want to argue the point with me, thats fine, get personal but, and

you will only weaken your arguement as one that has to be protected by silly

insults, not reasonable debate.

I'm a Christian too.

(Puts flamesuit on.)

This isn't a theocracy. You can keep your own beliefs to yourself and still be a perfectly "good Christian". A lot of religious sects, i.e. some Dianic Pagans, think meat-eating is unnatural. There are a lot of Dianic Pagans out there--do you see them trying to ban meat-eating? No. Keep your beliefs to yourself and we'll all be happy.

If being gay is so unnatural--why not ban vaccines, eyeglasses, Cheetos and fake flowers?

[QUOTE]

No, marriage or straight marriage, as you call it, is the basic building block of

society, and must be preserved as thus.

Meaning a union of a man and woman only, to build a proper family,

supported fully by the Church and State.

Baaaa! For eons the woman was also considered the property of the man in marriage. That changed too--did that harm the so-called sanctity of marriage? I'd love to hear your perspective on this.

Marriage is NOT about procreation--it's about love. Social Darwinism should stay out of the equation.

[QUOTE=Naissance]This isn't a theocracy. You can keep your own beliefs to yourself and still be a perfectly "good Christian". A lot of religious sects, i.e. some Dianic Pagans, think meat-eating is unnatural. There are a lot of Dianic Pagans out there--do you see them trying to ban meat-eating? No. Keep your beliefs to yourself and we'll all be happy.



Really, and whos all?

People who agree with gay marriage?

Thats not all, sorry.

I hate to burst your bubble, but its not just Christians and churches who are

against gays marrying. I'm curious as to how you expect the rest of society

just to accept something thats unnatural to this degree, under nothing but

the threat of PC thuggery and in return never expect no backlash to it?

People, who dont like gays trying to present something like this, as

normal, and of no harm to society, should not be discounted as easily as you

think, it only takes a few people to speak up and the rest will follow.

Expect a huge backlash from society, to gays someday.

Puts flame suit back on.

[QUOTE]



Really, and whos all?

People who agree with gay marriage?

Thats not all, sorry.

I hate to burst your bubble, but its not just Christians and churches who are

against gays marrying. I'm curious as to how you expect the rest of society

just to accept something thats unnatural to this degree, under nothing but

the threat of PC thuggery and in return never expect no backlash to it?

People, who dont like gays trying to present something like this, as

normal, and of no harm to society, should not be discounted as easily as you

think, it only takes a few people to speak up and the rest will follow.

Expect a huge backlash from society, to gays someday.

Puts flame suit back on.

A backlash, really? What would you propose? Tieing all gays to fences and beating them? That's already been done and it hasn't dettered us.

Perhaps burning crosses in our yards, lynching homosexuals, burning us at the stake, or fire-bombing our homes and places of work? Those were failed techniques tried in the past and they never succeeded. And they never will. We aren't going to give in nor are we going to go away. We deserve equality. I don't care about your acceptance. And I never will. All I care is that I get equal and fair treatment under the law of the land.

So, if you want a fight. You can have one.

I'm curious as to how you expect the rest of society

just to accept something thats unnatural to this degree, under nothing but

the threat of PC thuggery and in return never expect no backlash to it?

The bullshit "unnatural" argument has already been refuted plenty of times. Term, I know it's hard - but if you must contribute, at least do so intelligently.

If gays want to marry, let them! Why does it bother everyone else? If its not your life, don't worry. Besides homosexuality is bad, to Christian extremists! This is a free country where religion does not make national policy. To make gay marriage illegal would be putting a religious standing in American law. And we can't do that.

What happened to "land of the free"?

Why can't they just call it marriage instead of all this other stuff like civil unions, it's all the same, it gets treated as a marriage.
Because Marriage is the Lords.
Civil Unions are fine, nothing bad about them, so they should be a good compomise.

As a devout Socialist Libertarian, I believe people should have every right to choose who they wish to marry. The world has no moralism as in the Medieval ages, and traditionalism will never be able to withstand time. The time has come to allow the freedoms that we all have thirsted for.

Thank you,
φHRM of Luchiaφ

Yes, since Bush Jr. IS the Quayle of his admin., they (those who really run him) have to come up with ridiculous non-issues such as this and Mars, etc. to distract the american sheep from what's actually going on in the world.

In regards to this issue I say:

a) who gives a flying monkeys? The answer to this is simple. Christians do. The whole situation about Gay marriage is just fulfilling another bit of prophecy in the Bible. I hope Christians everywhere keep doing their best (in a non-forceful, respectful way) to save your little souls.

b) this issue is in fact one big, fat piece of genius on Satan's part. He takes a tiny little part of life and magnifies it, through public feeling, the (very necessary) need for equality and the media into one belter of an issue which everyone seems to have a cast-iron argument for or against, backed up by whatever they happen to believe at the time.

This issue's great. I am one chilled former spleenventer after posting a couple of times on this. Have a nice day

=Pracus]A backlash, really? What would you propose? Tieing all gays to fences and beating them? That's already been done and it hasn't dettered us.

Regarding what you said, no, it hasnt been done actually, so why make stuff

up that hasnt happenned to 'all' gays.


Perhaps burning crosses in our yards, lynching homosexuals, burning us at the stake, or fire-bombing our homes and places of work? Those were failed techniques tried in the past and they never succeeded.

Your talking about isolated incidences here, usually carried out by teenage

boys, not something that happens regularly and widely every year, if this did

happen of course, meaning the government allowing the general population

to do as they would like to gays with no fear of reprisal, you would be

running for your lives.

And they never will. We aren't going to give in nor are we going to go away. We deserve equality.


No you don't actually, your unnatural unions are anything, but the equal of a

man and a womans.



I don't care about your acceptance. And I never will. All I care is that I get equal and fair treatment under the law of the land.

Well if you dont care about my acceptance, then you musnt believe in the

majority of societys acceptance, or should I say non acceptance.

In that case you dont believe in Democracy.

Meaning if this whole issue was just simply put to a vote to accept or not, as

it should be, you would accept the out come as a fair democratic proceedure,

and not complain at the result, which would invaribly go against you.

If your so confident of the majority of people believing the same as you do,

then this proceedure shouldnt bother you, right?



So, if you want a fight. You can have one.

lol I hope you can handle loosing well then.

The bullshit "unnatural" argument has already been refuted plenty of times. Term, I know it's hard - but if you must contribute, at least do so intelligently.

Its been disagreed with, that doesnt make it 'refuted' and Dem, I know its

hard - but if you must contribute, at least see if you

can play the ball in an arguement for once.

Blah blah blah. I bring nothing new to the table. All I do is say "homosexuality is unnatural" over and over again. No, I don't have any proof. I'm really just a fucking moron who never listens to anything people around me say or do. In fact, I've only left my house once. THe outside world is scary. And flat.


**coughs**

Its been disagreed with, that doesnt make it 'refuted' and Dem, I know its

hard - but if you must contribute, at least see if you

can play the ball in an arguement for once.

Define natural:

1. being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature

Well, it exists in nature, so this one works.

2 : implanted or being as if implanted by nature : seemingly inborn

Certainly fits this one.

3 : of or relating to nature as an object of study and research

There are plenty of people researching homosexuality in animals (and humans)

4 : having a specified character by nature <a natural athlete>

People are "natural homosexuals"

5 a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural <natural causes>

Hey, guess what? Homosexuality meets this one too!

I believe its against forum rules to deliberately misquote people Goed, I'd stop

if I was you.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents]Define natural:

Not agreeing with homosexuality as a normal behaviour for one.

Not agreeing with homosexuality as a normal behaviour for one.

I see, so you are God and you define nature. Gotcha.

I see, so you are God and you define nature. Gotcha.

Well what purpose does it serve, it doesnt create familys.

Being attracted to your own sex is just wrong.

Well what purpose does it serve, it doesnt create familys.

Actually, a gay couple is a family, just as a straight couple is a family. My boyfriend, our dog and I are a family. What you mean is that homosexual sex does not create children. Of course, sex between two sterile people doesn't create children either. Sex between my boyfriend and I does not create children because I am taking a birth control pill. That doesn't degrade our purpose to each other.

If you honestly think that the sole purpose of a relationship is creating a child, I feel for you as you have never truly loved.

Being attracted to your own sex is just wrong.

This is like saying "Being attracted to someone who has blue eyes is just wrong." How can feeling attraction to someone be inherently wrong?

Being "natural" is as subjective as being "moral".

Killing fits the loose leaf definition of natural also, doesn't mean we sanction it.

I believe its against forum rules to deliberately misquote people Goed, I'd stop

if I was you.

Oh please. I'm not SERIOUSLY misquoting you. I'm using it as both a joke AND to prove a point.

I'm not doing it with malicious intent. Calm down, sparky.


I'd comment on you further, but Dem seems to be ripping you a nice big new one as it is, so I won't bother :D

Being "natural" is as subjective as being "moral".

No, not really. Being natural means occuring in or due to nature. That can be easily observed.

Murder fits the loose leaf definition of natural also, doesn't mean we sanction it.

Ah yes, but we have a logical reason to not sanction it, namely, that it harms another person, thus harming the function of society. Every look into the nature of how a wolf-pack works? The alpha male will allow the small dog on the totem poll to be aggravated and picked at, but if anyone actually harms that wolf, the alpha punishes them severely. Why? Having an injured animal is detrimental to the pack.

No, not really. Being natural means occuring in or due to nature. That can be easily observed.

umm

1. being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature

So how do you decide if it's in accordance with or actually "nature's" fault ?

2 : implanted or being as if implanted by nature : seemingly inborn

Another subjective meaning

3 : of or relating to nature as an object of study and research

Do you think we are so far removed that we can eliminate our personal biases, honestly? Not that I've looked, do you think I could find studies saying that it isn't?

4 : having a specified character by nature <a natural athlete>

Not really a good definition as it requires you to apply an intangible value, ie someone you may call a natural athlete, I may not.

5 a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural <natural causes>

Conformity is perception.

Ah yes, but we have a logical reason to not sanction it, namely, that it harms another person, thus harming the function of society. Every look into the nature of how a wolf-pack works? The alpha male will allow the small dog on the totem poll to be aggravated and picked at, but if anyone actually harms that wolf, the alpha punishes them severely. Why? Having an injured animal is detrimental to the pack.

So tell me, what's the logical solution to a non productive member of society?

ie if they take up more resources than they have the potential to return then you .... ?

Because Marriage is the Lords.

I haven't heard Him complaining yet.

Why does gov't even bother with licensing marriage? What purpose does it serve? Establishing a relationship with another person or people is not for law to accept or deny; it is for the people themselves. Gov'ts role is not to "bless" or sancitfy marriage, though it may be effectively argued that the foundation of any civil society is the family along with the values they inculcate in their offspring.

Respect for others is paramount.

Issues of 'family law' can be established upon existing principles of justness and right/wrong.

Moreover, the more children a society/culture has, the more advantages they have, and the more they can create opportunity.

Oh please. I'm not SERIOUSLY misquoting you. I'm using it as both a joke AND to prove a point.
I'm not doing it with malicious intent. Calm down, sparky.
I'd comment on you further, but Dem seems to be ripping you a nice big new one as it is, so I won't bother :D

Give it a rest.

=DempublicentsActually, a gay couple is a family, just as a straight couple is a family.

Your truly deluded if you believe that.


My boyfriend, our dog and I are a family.

Will this be going in the next census?

What school do you plan on sending your dog too, besides an obediance one?

What you mean is that homosexual sex does not create children.

No, really?


Of course, sex between two sterile people doesn't create children either.

They can adopt.


Sex between my boyfriend and I does not create children because I am taking a birth control pill. That doesn't degrade our purpose to each other.

What purpose is that?



If you honestly think that the sole purpose of a relationship is creating a child, I feel for you as you have never truly loved.

I never said it was the sole one, just the main reason for it.

Woah hang on, time out. This was specifically about marriages, remember?

The relationship comes first from the love, the marriage is to commit that

love to having children.

And I have loved/am still.

So much for your brilliant theory.





This is like saying "Being attracted to someone who has blue eyes is just wrong." How can feeling attraction to someone be inherently wrong?

Yeah great analogy, the relevance of it, is incredible. :rolleyes:

Well what purpose does it serve, it doesnt create familys.

Being attracted to your own sex is just wrong.

Well, in other species homosexuality is common so there must be a purpose for it. Possibly to keep child birth down when the group of animals gets too big, or maybe to take in orphans without creating more.

Sex between my boyfriend and I does not create children because I am taking a birth control pill. That doesn't degrade our purpose to each other.


Terminalia said:


What purpose is that?


Believe it or not, sex is healthy for you, whether you use it to reproduce or just for fun.

Well, in other species homosexuality is common so there must be a purpose for it. Possibly to keep child birth down when the group of animals gets too big, or maybe to take in orphans without creating more.

lol so were lowering ourselves to the status of animals then.

Thanks, you have convinced me even more its wrong. :)

Believe it or not, sex is healthy for you, whether you use it to reproduce or just for fun.

Tell that to all the Aids sufferers.

But your right, sex is good for you.

lol so were lowering ourselves to the status of animals then.

Thanks, you have convinced me even more its wrong. :)

If comparing ourselves to animals equals lowering ourselves to their level, then we're in big trouble. Can you actually say that you have no similarity between animals whatsoever? Animals can be albino. Is having a lack of skin pigment a sin?

lol so were lowering ourselves to the status of animals then.

Thanks, you have convinced me even more its wrong. :)

Lowering ourselves to the status of animals??? We are animals! And how does it make you think it's even more wrong?

Tell that to all the Aids sufferers.

But your right, sex is good for you.

Sex can be good for you even with a condom on, and that greatly decreases the risk of aids.

This is one of those issues which is a non-issue. It's something our descendants will look at us and go "what were you thinking?" like we do to our parents over the "interracial marriage issue". Thirty years ago, "The Jeffersons" was controversial. Now, its so normal to see interracial couples, its... normal.

The opposition to "Gay Marriage" is made up entirely of those who will not bend. And history shows that those who cannot adapt are crushed and left behind - evolution goes only one way, and it does not play favorites. Evolution favors the most adaptable, and this includes social as well as biological evolution.

Besides - think of the boon to the marriage industries (flowers, chapels, dresses and suits) and to divorce lawyers!

So of course I'm for gay marriage.

The thing I don't understand is this . . . why is it that some people think gay people should only have civil unions? I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm thankful that you are for us having equal rights as human beings and all, but didn't we deal with that whole separate is NOT equal thing back when segregation was ended? I realize this is American politics and history 101 and apologize to the non-Americans.

Personally, it seems that the biggest problem is in semantics. Conservative Christians feel the need to force their views on everyone--forgetting of course that the Christian founders of our country did NOT want that to happen. So fight semantics with semantics. As far as the government is concerned NO ONE gets married. Let everyone have a civil union and leave "marriages" to religious organizations. This of course means that even if you are married in a church, it shouldn't be legally binding because that is showing favoritism . . . let everyone go to the courthouse and get the full license which is representative of the civil union.

So you could have a union and not be "married" or be "married" and not have a union. Its all up to you. I guess the only drag is those few churches who DO allow gay marriages. Whatever will we do about them? <sarcasm>

To sum it up: I want the right to marry a man!

Let's be simple.

America tried "separate but equal" with the racial question. It didn't work, of course, and was rescinded and is now one of those things students of history in the US are quietly embarrassed by.

This is the same attempt, slightly different actors, and will end up going the same way.

History repeats itself because no one listens the first time.

This is one of those issues which is a non-issue. It's something our descendants will look at us and go "what were you thinking?" like we do to our parents over the "interracial marriage issue". Thirty years ago, "The Jeffersons" was controversial. Now, its so normal to see interracial couples, its... normal.

The opposition to "Gay Marriage" is made up entirely of those who will not bend. And history shows that those who cannot adapt are crushed and left behind - evolution goes only one way, and it does not play favorites. Evolution favors the most adaptable, and this includes social as well as biological evolution.

Besides - think of the boon to the marriage industries (flowers, chapels, dresses and suits) and to divorce lawyers!

I believe you are right, no matter how hard the opposition would argue gay marriages would eventually be allowed. All we have to do is wait, in the mean time we can argue about it.

If God never wanted homosexuals then he would never have created us with the ability to have homosexual feelings.

I believe you are right, no matter how hard the opposition would argue gay marriages would eventually be allowed. All we have to do is wait, in the mean time we can argue about it.

"An army can be repelled, but not an idea whose time has come"

If God never wanted homosexuals then he would never have created us with the ability to have homosexual feelings.

A good point, but it won't do any good convincing the religious right. They'll just come back at you saying that homosexual feelings are inspired by Satan instead of God.

A good point, but it won't do any good convincing the religious right. They'll just come back at you saying that homosexual feelings are inspired by Satan instead of God.

It's not a good argument, it's not even remotely close, heh, unless you would like to imply God wanted murderers, child molesters, thieves, etc etc

It's not a good argument, it's not even remotely close, heh, unless you would like to imply God wanted murderers, child molesters, thieves, etc etc

Well, the point works if you think of homosexuality as unavoidable. People don't chose to be homosexual. People chose to kill and steal.

If comparing ourselves to animals equals lowering ourselves to their level, then we're in big trouble. Can you actually say that you have no similarity between animals whatsoever? Animals can be albino. Is having a lack of skin pigment a sin?

I think if you put your prong up someones butt, your pretty much lowering

yourself to the level of an animal.

I think if you put your prong up someones butt, your pretty much lowering

yourself to the level of an animal.

Well, answer the question then. Are you completely above an animal in all respects? My arguements for homosexuality don't rely on animal behavior. Your statement just sounded pig-headed. People act like animals all the time. If I'm wrong, convince me otherwise. How are you totally unlike an animal?

If God never wanted homosexuals then he would never have created us with the ability to have homosexual feelings.

I dont think its genetic.

Is there a gay chromosone?

"An army can be repelled, but not an idea whose time has come"

True, would you then agree that an idea whos time has come does not

necessarily mean its a correct one, or even a permanent one?

I dont think its genetic.

Is there a gay chromosone?

It doesn't have to be genetic to be innate. Pschologists have pretty much agreed that homosexuality isn't a choice. You know full well that the entirety of the human personality can't just be explained by chromosomes. Don't we have far less chromosomes than the mean average among mammals?

I think if you put your prong up someones butt, your pretty much lowering

yourself to the level of an animal.

You can't lower yourself to the level of an animal because, as I said before, you are an animal. Just becuase we are more civilised then other animals does not make us that much different.

True, would you then agree that an idea whos time has come does not

necessarily mean its a correct one, or even a permanent one?

You got me there. That's outside of human knowledge - the time, that is. The Greek period of history was indeed the time. Who knows if that applies to todays world? But the thought is growing inside people's heads. Therefore, more and more people will form an opinion. It will be a few years before homosexuality is a non-issue. However, it just as easily could be repelled instead of embraced.

=Arcadian Mists]Well, answer the question then. Are you completely above an animal in all respects?

No.

My arguements for homosexuality don't rely on animal behavior. Your statement just sounded pig-headed.

I didnt bring it up.



People act like animals all the time.

You must be hanging around a bad crowd then.



If I'm wrong, convince me otherwise. How are you totally unlike an animal?

My ability to reason for one.

True, would you then agree that an idea whos time has come does not

necessarily mean its a correct one, or even a permanent one?

It would be permanent because it is a fair idea. Why do we, homosexuals, get seen as un-equal to the rest of society even though we never choose this path.

I think if you put your prong up someones butt, your pretty much lowering

yourself to the level of an animal.

You know, if you think about objectively, it's just as gross to put it in someone's mouth. No one really seems to mind that. Most people would consider it better than sex - no risk of pregnancy.

No.



I didnt bring it up.




You must be hanging around a bad crowd then.




My ability to reason for one.

Let's try this again. I'll be more specific. Your statement implied that you were nothing like an animal.

1. Why don't you have any urges or emotions, like a sexual drive or the desire to form communities like many mammals do?

2. If you were albino, would you consider yourself sinful in the same respect as if you were homosexual?

3. As a member of an onmivorous species, do you refuse to eat meat in all its forms? Eating the flesh of another animal seems VERY degrating to me, as a fairly typical hippie vegetarian.

4. Do you have absolutely no desire to reproduce and carry on your genes?

5. Do you lack any sense of fear or any general desire for survival, be it flight or fight?


My point: we're like animals. We're different as well. But animalistic tendancies are part of human nature. Answer the above points otherwise.

People act like animals all the time.



You must be hanging around a bad crowd then.


Animal activity: eat, sleep, breed, kill, think

Human activity: eat, sleep, breed, kill, think

We do all those things, which most animals do. We may have a few small differences but what animals doesn't. Ants work in colonies for their queen, vultures fly across the desert scavenging for themselves. We are different in some aspects, similiar in others.

It doesn't have to be genetic to be innate. Pschologists have pretty much agreed that homosexuality isn't a choice. You know full well that the entirety of the human personality can't just be explained by chromosomes. Don't we have far less chromosomes than the mean average among mammals?

Yeah,

Alligator 32, Bat 44, Camel 70, Cattle 60, Gorilla 48, Dog 78, Fox 36.

Thats just some of them.

I think homosexuality is a choice, and a bad one.

Yeah,

Alligator 32, Bat 44, Camel 70, Cattle 60, Gorilla 48, Dog 78, Fox 36.

Thats just some of them.

I think homosexuality is a choice, and a bad one.

I humans have about 23. I fail to see how this helps your point.

[QUOTE=Krikaroo]Animal activity: eat, sleep, breed, kill, think
Human activity: eat, sleep, breed, kill, think

Think... think about that.


We do all those things, which most animals do. We may have a few small differences but what animals doesn't. Ants work in colonies for their queen, vultures fly across the desert scavenging for themselves. We are different in some aspects, similiar in others.

Were not animals but.

If you think you are, then you have my condolences.

I humans have about 23. I fail to see how this helps your point.


It wasnt meant too, I was just answering your queery about the amount of

chromos animals have, you asked if the median average was more, it seems

to be alot more.

It wasnt meant too, I was just answering your queery about the amount of

chromos animals have, you asked if the median average was more, it seems

to be alot more.

Ok. I see. I'll let this point go then. But I am curious about your earlier post about male sex organs going where they don't belong. Apparently a lot of hetrosexual men are aroused by... that. And what about blowjobs? Are these things equally "unnatural" to you? Why then is only homosexuality being challenged?

I think if you put your prong up someones butt, your pretty much lowering

yourself to the level of an animal.

Have you ever seen sex? ANY sex?

I don't care what various guys or porns try to tell you.

It's not a pretty looking thing.




Funny, nobody ever thinks of straight sex as "putting your prong into someone's pisshole."




So far, your arguments have included "It MIGHT be wrong," and "It's icky!"

I think homosexuality is a choice, and a bad one.

Oh, I'm SO sorry!

I didn't know we were dealing with someone who's an expert on the human brain and knows about all it's nuances and how everything works.

Wait, we arn't.




Nobody gives a fuck what you think homosexuality is, because you're fucking WRONG.

Just for my own personal thoughts, I don't mind gay people or anything like that and hold no prejudice. I do however believe that the word "marriage" has a very special meaning, that to me represents family, a man, a women. It is a bond and as soon as the word "marriage" gets thrown about, it muddies the definition and ruins the sanctity of the thing.

Just for my own personal thoughts, I don't mind gay people or anything like that and hold no prejudice.
eh...come on...we all have prejudice, it's nothing to be ashamed of. it's just the way it is. growing up in our culture i don't think anyone can truthfully say that they are not biased in any way. ... no offence :)

Just for my own personal thoughts, I don't mind gay people or anything like that and hold no prejudice. I do however believe that the word "marriage" has a very special meaning, that to me represents family, a man, a women. It is a bond and as soon as the word "marriage" gets thrown about, it muddies the definition and ruins the sanctity of the thing.

I feel that humanity has already botched up the so-called 'sanctity of marriage', 'while before gay marriage became an issue...

first off to all the people on this site that are attracted to the same sex. I'm sorry so many straight/confused people to seem to be against something that could make you happy and hopefully will bring some joy to your lives. ie marriage/union.

anyway...
second point, WE ARE ANIMALS. Biologically speaking that is. And as someone mentioned earlier, a major part of being an animal is breading. Now unlike other types of animals, we don't go into "heat" at some time in the year. But are in-fact sexually active all the time. This means we have to base our attraction on visual cues. I have a girlfriend, when i met her, i found her attractive. So i made an attempt to get to know her, etc..... If i were to find out she could not have kids, or i could not, it would not change the fact that i love her. My instincts are to procreate and so are hers. Does not mean we would brake up, maybe adopt? or some other option.
Now if my visual cues said, wow that guy is hot, etc... why would that be wrong? I really don't understand it. being homosexual is NOT wrong, its just a different set of.... visual cues.

thirdly, the next time someone says, oh its not natural, can't have kids, marriage is man and women, etc... look up the latest studies that DNA research has brought up. It appears in the past polygamy was alot more common than we thought. ie one man = multiple wives. That does not mean its right, but seems to be more natural. (apologise, no link available. The article is from the Economist. from 2 weeks ago)

Well personally I don’t know what to vote for … not enough options

I feel like their should be a separation between church and state for example

Simplified version

EVERYONE (including strait couples) should be indoctrinated into a civil union status (with full privileges of marage) with the option of going farther and getting the religious title of married of your church sanctions this

This would mean EVERYONE would get equal rights under the law … all the benefits of insurance and doctors visits and EVERYTHING but also would allow religions to have some control of their own without harming the rights of the individuals

Well personally I don’t know what to vote for … not enough options

I feel like their should be a separation between church and state for example

Simplified version

EVERYONE (including strait couples) should be indoctrinated into a civil union status (with full privileges of marage) with the option of going farther and getting the religious title of married of your church sanctions this

This would mean EVERYONE would get equal rights under the law … all the benefits of insurance and doctors visits and EVERYTHING but also would allow religions to have some control of their own without harming the rights of the individuals

There we go. Problem solved. But until the government does that (which I seriously doubt it will, at least under Republicans and wimpy Democrats), then gay marriage it must be.

Tis legal here in Belgium.

There are loads of posts on here which are ridiculously offensive to anyone with Christian faith. I've posted about this topic on another thread and that was the short, short version. This will be the short, short, short etc. whatever version.

Why Christians Believe people should not marry other people of their own sex.

Grounding (Christian Beliefs):

God is right. Humans are wrong (pretty much all the time these days)
The Ten Commandments are the basis of Christian law
Marriage is between one man and one woman
Sex is a gift from God to be enjoyed with your spouse to (in no order of importance):
a) make babies
b) please your spouse by showing that you are willing to give yourself wholly to them.
c) make more babies

Logic bit:
God says one man and one woman. Not: one man and one man, one woman and one woman. Therefore people with homosexual feelings should not marry people to whom they are attracted. Therefore they should not have homosexual intercourse.

My personal belief is that homosexual urges are temptations, exactly the same as heterosexual urges to have extra-marital sex. I've seen the story of David and Jonathan bandied around on here, even being translated as 'they kissed each other until David became aroused/got a hard-on'. And then it says they parted. So David was tempted and resisted. He then had the same situation with Bathsheba, this time heterosexually. This time he screwed the pooch. Or more accurately, Bathsheba. After having her husband killed. Nice it was not.

Does that answer any questions as to why homosexual marriage is forbidden in Christianity?

...and how does the explanation of why you think christianity doesn't allow for homosexuality answer the question fo whether the government of a secular state should introduce equal marriage rights or not?

(you know, it's legal in these secular states to publicly state you don't honor your father and mother, or use the word of the lord in vain or whatever - you'll need to get over the thought that things will/will not become legislature just because the concur/don#t concur with christian beliefs

...and how does the explanation of why you think christianity doesn't allow for homosexuality answer the question fo whether the government of a secular state should introduce equal marriage rights or not?

(you know, it's legal in these secular states to publicly state you don't honor your father and mother, or use the word of the lord in vain or whatever - you'll need to get over the thought that things will/will not become legislature just because the concur/don#t concur with christian beliefs


Here I agree … separation of church and state (my previous post last page)

We should just give it different names so stupid people don’t get confused :-P

My personal belief is that homosexual urges are temptations, exactly the same as heterosexual urges to have extra-marital sex.
Does that answer any questions as to why homosexual marriage is forbidden in Christianity?

Interesting... so christians view homosexual urges as part of the innate make-up of people... as there is no point in writing a commandment denouncing, or in 'resisting' an urge that nobody has.

By extension, christians must therefore feel that ALL people have these urges to some degree... since we are all made up from the same basic 'parts'.... and that homosexuality, therefore, becomes a sin when you ACT on those urges.

Interesting... so christians view homosexual urges as part of the innate make-up of people... as there is no point in writing a commandment denouncing, or in 'resisting' an urge that nobody has.

By extension, christians must therefore feel that ALL people have these urges to some degree... since we are all made up from the same basic 'parts'.... and that homosexuality, therefore, becomes a sin when you ACT on those urges.


I have the urge to sleep … maybe we need a decision on when it is “right” to eat

And what to eat

(oh wait Leviticus … I’m a sinner … mmmmm shell fish)

I have the urge to sleep … maybe we need a decision on when it is “right” to eat

And what to eat

(oh wait Leviticus … I’m a sinner … mmmmm shell fish)

Fortunately for me, I am saved from that particular sin, by somehow (obviously heretically) NOT having the urge to eat shellfish... since I (blasphemously) don't like sea-food.

However, I must still be a sinner, since I distinctly remember once eating the fat on some beef. Curses. I am an abominator.

Fortunately for me, I am saved from that particular sin, by somehow (obviously heretically) NOT having the urge to eat shellfish... since I (blasphemously) don't like sea-food.

However, I must still be a sinner, since I distinctly remember once eating the fat on some beef. Curses. I am an abominator.


Lol I cant wait for the point of view that “Not all the bible keeps up with today’s society”


I mean if one part is wrong why can’t the rest be?
And if we are letting current society dictate which part of the bible is right (conveniently ignoring Leviticus) then why aren’t the other parts (like gay marriage and blasphemy) not changed because they are contrary to current society

Lol I cant wait for the point of view that “Not all the bible keeps up with today’s society”


I mean if one part is wrong why can’t the rest be?
And if we are letting current society dictate which part of the bible is right (conveniently ignoring Leviticus) then why aren’t the other parts (like gay marriage and blasphemy) not changed because they are contrary to current society

Simple matter of convenience.

Modern christians might want to eat shellfish, or wear animal AND vegetable fibres. Or maybe it is illegal to keep slaves....

In those cases, that law must be obsolete.

But, if it gives them the right to order others around, or if it doesn't harm what they want to do... well, that law must still be true.

At least, that's how it appears to me.

Interesting... so christians view homosexual urges as part of the innate make-up of people... as there is no point in writing a commandment denouncing, or in 'resisting' an urge that nobody has.

By extension, christians must therefore feel that ALL people have these urges to some degree... since we are all made up from the same basic 'parts'.... and that homosexuality, therefore, becomes a sin when you ACT on those urges.

Not everyone has the irresistible urge to do everything. If they did, we'd be screwed. And very tired. To help us know what things to do and what things to avoid a nice Deity gave us some rules telling us that some of these things aren't good. Examples:

1) Some people take pleasure out of killing other people
2) Some people take pleasure out of having sex with children
3) Some people take pleasure out of eating chocolate

Not everyone has these urges. Do you agree? Most people will agree that numbers 1) and 2) are wrong. These two (however indirectly) are covered in the Ten Commandments. The third is not (waits for the rules on food in Leviticus to be brought up. Bugger they have been). As for sin being the act or taking pleasure from thinking about doing the act, bingo. Cool someone reads and learns from my posts!

P.S. taking pleasure from thinking about it is not the same as the thought of the act popping into your head.

...and how does the explanation of why you think christianity doesn't allow for homosexuality answer the question of whether the government of a secular state should introduce equal marriage rights or not?

(you know, it's legal in these secular states to publicly state you don't honor your father and mother, or use the word of the lord in vain or whatever - you'll need to get over the thought that things will/will not become legislature just because the concur/don#t concur with christian beliefs)

Absolutely right. Sorry, I was just getting a little needled by various posts challenging the stance of Christianity on Gay marriage. If the state is secular technically there should be no 'marriage'. People not having beliefs in a faith which uses marriage should not be married in the religious sense of the word. And almost certainly not in a church.

The adoption of the term by secular governments is just showing their lack of imagination (this lack apparently doesn't spill over into intelligence information). This forum is the first place I've ever heard the term Civil Union. Bit clunky isn't it....?

Tis legal here in Belgium.

And has Belgium exploded in hellfire, dogs humping cats, the rabid populace rushing the graveyard and exhuming corpses for sexual gratification? ;)

Simple matter of convenience.

Modern christians might want to eat shellfish, or wear animal AND vegetable fibres. Or maybe it is illegal to keep slaves....

In those cases, that law must be obsolete.

But, if it gives them the right to order others around, or if it doesn't harm what they want to do... well, that law must still be true.

At least, that's how it appears to me.

Me too its rather sad … grew up Christian

But hypocrisy pisses me off

Me too its rather sad … grew up Christian

But hypocrisy pisses me off

I think the point one has to consider is the situation those particular rules were born from. Let me put it this way:

Are you a recently emancipated israelite looking forward to a stint in the desert with little or no knowledge of personal hygiene with no water save that which can be extricated from irregular monoliths?

OR are you a member of a recently founded nation with no knowledge of food hygiene or environmental damage (personal hygiene problem still in effect, although water can now be drawn from newly-found waterways like the Dead sea?)

If not please do not follow the food laws contained in the Bible which may only pertain to people in these situations.

Thank you

The Department of Stupidity Management

I think the point one has to consider is the situation those particular rules were born from. Let me put it this way:

Are you a recently emancipated israelite looking forward to a stint in the desert with little or no knowledge of personal hygiene with no water save that which can be extricated from irregular monoliths?

OR are you a member of a recently founded nation with no knowledge of food hygiene or environmental damage (personal hygiene problem still in effect, although water can now be drawn from newly-found waterways like the Dead sea?)

If not please do not follow the food laws contained in the Bible which may only pertain to people in these situations.

Thank you

The Department of Stupidity Management

So people are supposed to selectively pick wich parts pertain to them

Hmmm how are they laws then?

And how should I know what situations require what laws

There doesn’t seem to be any “guide” to instruct me on this new decision features. Here I thought they were trying to get people to do things because GOD said so…

Now we don’t have to because we have some decisions to make on what statements by God we really wish to follow

Ohhh unless we actually decide that the bible was not divinely contrived GASP


Department of stupidity management indeed

I voted no on this poll not because I'm directly against gay marriage, (although I don't like thinking about it which is my problem), but because the next step would be asking if gay couples could adopt children, and that, yes, I think it's wrong. Children should be raised by a father and a mother not two fathers or two mothers. And don't give me the crap about "oh, but what about single mothers" and the rest, because when you have just your mother, you still know that she is a mother-figure (and probably in those cases the child has an uncle, or a grandfather that he/she can regard like a father-figure). Because, you guys, women and men are different. Don't tell me that children don't need that kind of things "father-figure", "mother-figure", "that's so retrograde" and etc.. Children do need it. And, I say it again, man and women are different. People nowadays tend to forget it...

I voted no on this poll not because I'm directly against gay marriage, (although I don't like thinking about it which is my problem), but because the next step would be asking if gay couples could adopt children, and that, yes, I think it's wrong. Children should be raised by a father and a mother not two fathers or two mothers. And don't give me the crap about "oh, but what about single mothers" and the rest, because when you have just your mother, you still know that she is a mother-figure (and probably in those cases the child has an uncle, or a grandfather that he/she can regard like a father-figure). Because, you guys, women and men are different. Don't tell me that children don't need that kind of things "father-figure", "mother-figure", "that's so retrograde" and etc.. Children do need it. And, I say it again, man and women are different. People nowadays tend to forget it...

I fail to see what a single mother can do better than two mothers.

And your claim about an uncle or grandfather also applies in the latter.

I grant you that men and women are different, but fail to see the relevance.

:fluffle: i think marriage between teo people as an axpresion of love and achnoledge ment of a religion is great obviously if both agree etc.. however i am totoally against arranghed marriage or marriage through obligation as was more common 100 yrs ago, is there anyone who is contrary to this becasue i am interested to see any pro-arranged marriage aruments people ahev as i know so little abou them. :confused:

Originally Posted by Boredomesh
I voted no on this poll not because I'm directly against gay marriage, (although I don't like thinking about it which is my problem), but because the next step would be asking if gay couples could adopt children, and that, yes, I think it's wrong. Children should be raised by a father and a mother not two fathers or two mothers. And don't give me the crap about "oh, but what about single mothers" and the rest, because when you have just your mother, you still know that she is a mother-figure (and probably in those cases the child has an uncle, or a grandfather that he/she can regard like a father-figure). Because, you guys, women and men are different. Don't tell me that children don't need that kind of things "father-figure", "mother-figure", "that's so retrograde" and etc.. Children do need it. And, I say it again, man and women are different. People nowadays tend to forget it...

i am an only child an am much happier and have a much more stable life and upbringing than most of my class mates although i do acept ur point i dont think it is really true, anything i have lacked at home i have gained elsewhere but not simply by transfereing a 'father-figue' to anyone in partivcular, i have simply felt no los or lacking

It's not about what a single-mother can phisically do (of course two arms are worst than four on that matter), it's about what is perceived by the child. I know people don't like when someone says "this is normal, and that isn't", but I have to say it, it's not normal to be sexually atracted by someone of the opposite sex. Once I said to a friend of mine that that point was obvious since the body of a woman and the body of a man fit perfectly - to which he replied that two man fitted equally (I was a bit naïve then). But what I am trying to say is that when you join a woman and a man you end up with babies, and when you join two women or two men you do not. Of course you are going to tell me "what about infertility, eh?", but that clearly isn't the normal situation, is it? I mean, most people can have babies, but some, unfortunately, cannot. A man and a woman together is the natural thing.

Ok, so now you are all going to hate me because I used normal and natural quite a lot and you are going to accuse me of calling (which I'm not) gays freak .

Of course that a person can be atracted to a person of the same sex in many other ways. You may even have a "passion" over that person, because you have the same interests or you admire them utterly, or whatever the reason is. I'm not saying that it isn't natural for two people of the same sex to love each other... just not in that way.

(*me covers herself up and prepares for the shooting*)

It's not about what a single-mother can phisically do (of course two arms are worst than four on that matter), it's about what is perceived by the child. I know people don't like when someone says "this is normal, and that isn't", but I have to say it, it's not normal to be sexually atracted by someone of the opposite sex. Once I said to a friend of mine that that point was obvious since the body of a woman and the body of a man fit perfectly - to which he replied that two man fitted equally (I was a bit naïve then). But what I am trying to say is that when you join a woman and a man you end up with babies, and when you join two women or two men you do not. Of course you are going to tell me "what about infertility, eh?", but that clearly isn't the normal situation, is it? I mean, most people can have babies, but some, unfortunately, cannot. A man and a woman together is the natural thing.

Ok, so now you are all going to hate me because I used normal and natural quite a lot and you are going to accuse me of calling (which I'm not) gays freak .

Of course that a person can be atracted to a person of the same sex in many other ways. You may even have a "passion" over that person, because you have the same interests or you admire them utterly, or whatever the reason is. I'm not saying that it isn't natural for two people of the same sex to love each other... just not in that way.

(*me covers herself up and prepares for the shooting*)

I understand how you can not find it natural

We understand that part … it is fine for most of us that support it

BUT the biggest problem (that I see) is the fact that they can not get married … only have a civil union … now in theory that is fine with me as long as they have the same RIGHTS

But as of now you have to be strait to be married
And unless you are married you cant
Access medical records
Insurance dose not cover your “partner”
Tax breaks for married couples
Visiting rights at hospitals


And I am sure many more are restricted or non existent if you are not MARRIED and you cant be gay and married right now.

Other then that it is just a title … as long as in the eyes of the law they have the same rights who cares about the title … still call them civil unions

so your basing whats normal and natural on how your society works?
Just because your culture follows as certain norm, does not mean that it is natural or normal for humanity.

i am an only child an am much happier and have a much more stable life and upbringing than most of my class mates although i do acept ur point i dont think it is really true, anything i have lacked at home i have gained elsewhere but not simply by transfereing a 'father-figue' to anyone in partivcular, i have simply felt no los or lacking

Yes, I understand that many children don't feel a "father-absence" or whatever you like to call it.
This is not the same of course, but people use to say that if a children is not very stable (emotionally, or in other fields) and his/her parents are divorced, the divorce is the cause for that instability. I think that is rubbish: my parents divorced when I was little and I don't consider myself traumatised over the matter.
But I think that children brought up within gay families are going to look to gay couples as natural (see my previous post) and I think you can't found a society based on that. I think the basis of the society is the family - but, you see, if it was the gay family, in the limit, there would be hardly a society at all!
(Okay, so I agree that this last paragraph is a bit exaggerated)

so your basing whats normal and natural on how your society works?
Just because your culture follows as certain norm, does not mean that it is natural or normal for humanity.

Hmmm.. Maybe you don't agree with me on this matter (well we could cut off the maybe) but surely you will agree that there are natural and normal things for all humanity, although they aren't followed by some societies. For example, don't you agree that women should not be killed for having extra-marital relations? I think that is an example of a thing that should be followed by all humanity - unfortunately, it isn't. So my point is, there are some points that one's culture follows which one can extent to all humanity.
Of course that gay marriage isn't an extreme point like the killing of innocents, so it is much more controversial...

so your basing whats normal and natural on how your society works?
Just because your culture follows as certain norm, does not mean that it is natural or normal for humanity.
The only universal moral for humanity is self-interest. I think we should try and transcend that.

I understand how you can not find it natural

We understand that part … it is fine for most of us that support it

BUT the biggest problem (that I see) is the fact that they can not get married … only have a civil union … now in theory that is fine with me as long as they have the same RIGHTS

But as of now you have to be strait to be married
And unless you are married you cant
Access medical records
Insurance dose not cover your “partner”
Tax breaks for married couples
Visiting rights at hospitals


And I am sure many more are restricted or non existent if you are not MARRIED and you cant be gay and married right now.

Other then that it is just a title … as long as in the eyes of the law they have the same rights who cares about the title … still call them civil unions

I'm not informed at all about that legal part of the thing (maybe I should be, before writing this...) and I can understand that when two people want to stay together, they find it really unfair not being able to do the same things as others and not having the same rights. But... I can't say I'm changing my mind on the matter because of that... Maybe civil unions should have the same benefits as marriages? I don't really know... I'm a bit clueless on which regards the legal stuff.

Yes, I understand that many children don't feel a "father-absence" or whatever you like to call it.
This is not the same of course, but people use to say that if a children is not very stable (emotionally, or in other fields) and his/her parents are divorced, the divorce is the cause for that instability. I think that is rubbish: my parents divorced when I was little and I don't consider myself traumatised over the matter.
But I think that children brought up within gay families are going to look to gay couples as natural (see my previous post) and I think you can't found a society based on that. I think the basis of the society is the family - but, you see, if it was the gay family, in the limit, there would be hardly a society at all!
(Okay, so I agree that this last paragraph is a bit exaggerated)

Gay couples are normal!

A lot of kids growing up learn that eating cheese is normal. They also learn that eating salad is normal. Despite this, a lot of kids will tend to prefer cheese to salad, and vice versa.

Why do you think only straight couples can be normal?

I think that homosexuals should be able to get married.....but I cannot see why it has to take place in a church...

I think that if the priest agrees to give them his blessing, then there is no hindering them from getting married in a church...

if the priest does not want to give them his blessing (which i think is in his right, and not discriminating), then they would have to get married somewhere else....at the city hall, for example...

I have not voted yet, because I do not feel that my stance represents any of the avaliable answers...

:D

I'm not informed at all about that legal part of the thing (maybe I should be, before writing this...) and I can understand that when two people want to stay together, they find it really unfair not being able to do the same things as others and not having the same rights. But... I can't say I'm changing my mind on the matter because of that... Maybe civil unions should have the same benefits as marriages? I don't really know... I'm a bit clueless on which regards the legal stuff.

I agree … I had an earlier post on this

Esentialy

Everyone (strait and gay) civil union

Optional marriage on top of it from your religion of choice

Separate the church and state more

Gay couples are normal!

A lot of kids growing up learn that eating cheese is normal. They also learn that eating salad is normal. Despite this, a lot of kids will tend to prefer cheese to salad, and vice versa.

Why do you think only straight couples can be normal?

Because I think that is what it's biologically, socially, humanely, etc normal... Hmm, I can understand your point, but that is more a question of taste, which can hardly be comparible with this matter. I mean, you can be brought up in Japan and think that black hair is normal and then you see a German girl and suddenly you realise that there are things beyond black, and you consider dying your hair. But that is an aesthetics problem, a bit different from what you are discussing here, don't you think?

I voted that I have no problem with it, and reading the first few posts (I'm not gonna leaf through /15/ pages,) I gotta agree with the idea that the country should just call everything a civil union. There. Gays get married and the two arn't different in the eyes of the law. Why no poloitician has brought it up is beyond me.

Oh wait, no. They still have to pander to the sizable religious voter block.

You'd think we'd have some more educated people in this country.

I agree … I had an earlier post on this

Esentialy

Everyone (strait and gay) civil union

Optional marriage on top of it from your religion of choice

Separate the church and state more
I think marriage as it is now should be dissolved entirely.

Civil Unions: Govenrment arrangements where you can see your other in a hospital, own a pet together, etc., as long as you're not getting money or incentives.

Civil Unions+: Government arrangements where you get all the earlier benefits, and tax breaks but only if you're a male and female couple raising children.

Marriages: Church arrangements with no real meaning.

I apologise in advance if I don't reply to your posts, but I'm leaving now, because I've got a hell lot of work to do, and I've done nothing since I got home (which is pretty bad, since my 1st exams start within a week and a half...). But I'll try to come here tomorrow and catch up.

Bye and thank you for the debate.

I think marriage as it is now should be dissolved entirely.

Civil Unions: Govenrment arrangements where you can see your other in a hospital, own a pet together, etc., as long as you're not getting money or incentives.

Civil Unions+: Government arrangements where you get all the earlier benefits, and tax breaks but only if you're a male and female couple raising children.

Marriages: Church arrangements with no real meaning.

Soooo... why do the male and female couple get more rights and privliges?

Soooo... why do the male and female couple get more rights and privliges?


He is saying (like my original one did) that there are no rights difference

Just a meaningless title that was originally church derived anyways … they should still have control over the title just not the rights that go with it

Soooo... why do the male and female couple get more rights and privliges?
They get money. The rights are the same.

The point is they already live together. They already can file taxes together. They already have their civil unions. Now why do they want marrage. Something that has traditionally been associated as the first step into making a family and frankly they can't make a family. I am sory. I don't want to sound like a bigot but I just came out of a debate (http://www.gameskickass.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1551)

The point is they already live together. They already can file taxes together. They already have their civil unions. Now why do they want marrage. Something that has traditionally been associated as the first step into making a family and frankly they can't make a family. I am sory. I don't want to sound like a bigot but I just came out of a debate (http://www.gameskickass.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1551)


But they DONT have all rights ... read above post ... they dont have the same rights on insurance
doctors
hospital visits
taxes (marrage deduction)

a LOT of things

if thoes being equil ... the title is meaningless

But they DONT have all rights ... read above post ... they dont have the same rights on insurance
doctors
hospital visits
taxes (marrage deduction)

a LOT of things

if thoes being equil ... the title is meaningless
Doctors, hospitals, and insurance organizations are private entites, they don't have to give anyone anything. I'm only in favor of tax deductions for married couples with kids.

So how do you decide if it's in accordance with or actually "nature's" fault ?

If it occurs in nature, it is in accordance with nature.

Your truly deluded if you believe that.

No, I am simply a logical person who actually knows homosexuals, rather than forming biases based on what some preacher boy told me.

Will this be going in the next census?

Probably.

What school do you plan on sending your dog too, besides an obediance one?

He goes to daycare.

They can adopt.

So can homosexual couples.

What purpose is that?

A strong emotional bond of love between two people is a purpose in and of itself. We support each other and take care of each other. That is our purpose to one another, as it should be with any couple who wishes to get married. If a couple wants to have children, that purpose is extended to taking care of children, but that is a big if.

I never said it was the sole one, just the main reason for it.

And you were absolutely wrong. If children are the main reason for marriage, it is no wonder that so many end in divorce.

The relationship comes first from the love, the marriage is to commit that love to having children.

That is your personal opinion, not a universal fact. And I feel for your wife, if you have one.

I say, let em. They dont piss and moan and gripe because straight people get married. And, if you are straight, you dont get an opinion in gay marriage, because if you arent gay, its a non-issue for you. Anyone who says it undermines marriage is dumb, what undermines marriage is divorce. :)

I humans have about 23. I fail to see how this helps your point.

Wrong, humans have 46 - 23 pairs. No problem though.

I voted no on this poll not because I'm directly against gay marriage, (although I don't like thinking about it which is my problem), but because the next step would be asking if gay couples could adopt children, and that, yes, I think it's wrong. Children should be raised by a father and a mother not two fathers or two mothers. And don't give me the crap about "oh, but what about single mothers" and the rest, because when you have just your mother, you still know that she is a mother-figure (and probably in those cases the child has an uncle, or a grandfather that he/she can regard like a father-figure). Because, you guys, women and men are different. Don't tell me that children don't need that kind of things "father-figure", "mother-figure", "that's so retrograde" and etc.. Children do need it. And, I say it again, man and women are different. People nowadays tend to forget it...

Your own example shows a flaw in logic. According to you, a person can have only a mother, but also have a father figure who is an uncle, grandfather, etc. This holds just as true for homosexual couples. The child may have two mother figures or father figures in their parents, but can also have an opposite-gendered role model in the form of an aunt, uncle, grandparent, etc.

In truth, it is a fallacy to say that a child needs only one male and one female role model. A child needs many role models, and these can be provided regardless of whether the child is raised by a mother and father, a single parent, or a homosexual couple.

Because I think that is what it's biologically, socially, humanely, etc normal... Hmm, I can understand your point, but that is more a question of taste, which can hardly be comparible with this matter. I mean, you can be brought up in Japan and think that black hair is normal and then you see a German girl and suddenly you realise that there are things beyond black, and you consider dying your hair. But that is an aesthetics problem, a bit different from what you are discussing here, don't you think?

You haven't studied much biology, my dear. Homosexuality is quite normal, although the most common sexuality is bisexuality in nature.

You also seem to have the (completely erroneous) idea that children seeing homosexuality as being a normal part of society will make more homosexuals. Understand that your logic on this is flawed, as homosexuality does not occur any more frequently in children raised by homosexuals. These children are simply more tolerant of others.

The point is they already live together. They already can file taxes together. They already have their civil unions. Now why do they want marrage. Something that has traditionally been associated as the first step into making a family and frankly they can't make a family. I am sory. I don't want to sound like a bigot but I just came out of a debate (http://www.gameskickass.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1551)

They cannot file taxes jointly. They only have civil unions in one state. What they want is equal rights.

A family is defined by the people within it, so yes, they can. And you do sound like a bigot. In fact, if these are really your views - you are a bigot.

The only reason that people have a problem with same sex marriages is because the church says that it's wrong. The reason that the church says that it's wrong is because same sex couples can't have children together. This is no longer true since they can adopt.

I personally am straight, but I wouldn't want to spend my life with another man, sexually, because I like women. The same can be said about homosexuals. If they like the same sex, you can't force them to like, and have sex (which is what marriage is really about, procreation in a stable environment for the child) with the opposite sex. If a person likes the same sex and not the other, imagine what kind of father/mother figure they would have, constantly depressed and self loathing.

If marriage is the joining of two people who love eachother (supposedly), why force two people together who aren't compatible?

Doctors, hospitals, and insurance organizations are private entites, they don't have to give anyone anything. I'm only in favor of tax deductions for married couples with kids.

So you would be in favor of deductions for homosexual couples with kids?

I voted for gay marriage, but for reasons slightly different than the typical ones. I am not politically motivated, though I am from America.

I voted for it because people who love each other in a sexual, romantic way, and willingly agree to the union, should be able to form one union where they are legally the same person in some respects.

I do not refrain this to marriage between a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. It includes a man who has many wives, a woman who has many husbands, and group marriages.

Unfortunately, poligamy has been so stereotyped, people aren't willing to accept it. If we can find a way to allow it and prevent forced marriages, I will support legalizing it. Men are so horny, and women more lax, that sometimes, a man more or less needs more than one woman. Some men are one-lady- excuse me, one-person- guys, and that's fine. I picked out my boyfriend partly based on that; I don't want to share, personally. I don't think that I should impose my preference on others. Anyway, to get back to the subject at hand, the same works visa versa. Women need so much emotional help, all the time, it's more than one guy can handle. In poligamy, she can turn to the other wives, and if she has many husbands, they can share that responsibility. Combine the reasons for guys to have many wives, and girls to have many husbands, and you get group marriage.

There are more bonuses to poligamy and group marriage, too. One person, as long as it's not the same guy/girl every night, can be left at home with the kids and housework, and the others can a have a night out on the town, or have sex, without fear of interuption, or the cost of a babysitter and maid. They are their own community withing a household, not just a family in a house.

The ultimate reason I'm promoting all types of marriage is that I don't believe that my preferences and decisions, even if they go along with the norm, should be imposed on others.

Hmmm.. Maybe you don't agree with me on this matter (well we could cut off the maybe) but surely you will agree that there are natural and normal things for all humanity, although they aren't followed by some societies. For example, don't you agree that women should not be killed for having extra-marital relations? I think that is an example of a thing that should be followed by all humanity - unfortunately, it isn't. So my point is, there are some points that one's culture follows which one can extent to all humanity.
Of course that gay marriage isn't an extreme point like the killing of innocents, so it is much more controversial...

yeah i think we have differing views on this topic.
are you for or against killing though?
anyway, yes you could say that there are norms, that humanity tends to follow.
historically though, homosexuality and bi-sexuality have only been seen as a negative by 'civilised' society for a short time. what, several hundred years?

The only universal moral for humanity is self-interest. I think we should try and transcend that.

????

nothing wrong with self-interest if you think about it in the right manner.

no transcending needed

Nobody gives a fuck what you think homosexuality is, because you're fucking WRONG.

Take your pills angry man... :rolleyes:

Were not animals but.

If you think you are, then you have my condolences.

And where'd you get that idea from?
We are similair to them in many different ways surely this is enough to prove that we are animals ourselves. We evolved from apes, they are animals aren't they?

I say, let em. They dont piss and moan and gripe because straight people get married. And, if you are straight, you dont get an opinion in gay marriage, because if you arent gay, its a non-issue for you. Anyone who says it undermines marriage is dumb, what undermines marriage is divorce. :)

here here

Goed[/B]]

[QUOTE]Funny, nobody ever thinks of straight sex as "putting your prong into someone's pisshole."

Is that how you view the sex of the female gender is it?

A 'pisshole'?

Dont ever write poetry mate, especially to women.

By the way, you dont have sex with their 'pisshole' its the next opening

down, and a bit bigger, its in your biology book brightspark.

The only reason that people have a problem with same sex marriages is because the church says that it's wrong. The reason that the church says that it's wrong is because same sex couples can't have children together. This is no longer true since they can adopt.


And adopting children is good for the society. Most straight people won't see the need to adopt but for gay people that's their only option (well, there are some others but adopting is probably the most popular). So gay people are helping orphans find homes.