NationStates Jolt Archive

As a Christian, I am against gay marriage, as I believe the Bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman.

That's been argued to death here before, but regardless of that point hear this:

NOT all marriages are Christian
NOT all marriages are religious.
I can't speak for YOUR country, but in THIS country, the government doesn't get to make laws based on what one group of religious people think. We have something called freedom of religion and the government doesn't get to force the moral of one group off on another group.


Also, it supposedly says that homosexuality is a sin. I've not done any real research into that yet, so I don't currently have a view on that one.


Then why are you talking about it?


As for rights of a married couple; in Britain, these rights are diminishing under the current Labour government - there is now little difference between a husband and wife and a co-habitant man and woman.


Then I'm sorry for you. Fight to get these rights back--maybe you will know how the rest of us feel.


I was quite surprised to see the votes for gay marriage outweighing those against by 3 to 1 - although I suspect it does not represent a true microcosm of society - people on this site seem much more bleeding-heart liberal / idealist than the average.

It always amazes me to hear a "Christian" talk about bleeding-hearts. Jesus was the biggest bleeding heart in history! He wanted you to take care of others, he cared about and healed others, even those who you wouldn't think deserved it. If we who believe in equality and freedom are bleeding hearts, then you are more like Pharoah in the story of Moses--a hard heart.

i dislike diehard religionists(its my word i think)
y cant gay ppl get married?

ime straight and so r all my friends but i dont mind if gay people get married.i mean wat impact duz it hav on my life?


qoute:''God wont extol his wrath upon such peoples just yet...that will all happen when Jesus returns on Judgement Day, as it says in the Bible.

Although I do respect your own personal choice, I cannot condone it in any way, and I can only hope that through Christ you will see the truth. That is all I can do.''

bloody hell what is up with you people??ur thinking is jus plain crazy.

Judgement day?Gods wrath?wat the hell r u on about?

didnt god make all people?or so the bible sez.so surley he made homosexuals 2?y wuld he want 2 strike them down?
i can respect people hu believe in god tho i dont but 2 think the way akka-akka duz is just stupid and well idiocy!

First of all...I suggest you read the Bible before making comments like that on it. And then maybe you will understand 'wat the hell i am on about'.

God created the first two people...so through him all humans are created. But that is all. We have free will - this means that God does not control our lives.

Just because God made something, does not mean he would not want to destroy it - if you make something that is imperfect, some of the time you will destroy it.

My beliefs come from the Bible on this issue - if they are wrong and there is no God, I have nothing to lose. But there is a God, he is all powerful, he created this world and his Son is our salvation. Those who do not accept him have everything to lose.

And finally...my accepting homosexuality is just crazy???? That's what you said...and if it is - I could be much worse.

Here's a simple solution:
Any two conscenting adults may be Civily Unified.
All forms of marriage have no power whatsoever, don't matter, and are only recognized by religious institutions.
Everyone's happy- the nutjobs don't have to call homosexuals married but the homosexuals have just as many meaningful rights as the heterosexuals.

God wont extol his wrath upon such peoples just yet...that will all happen when Jesus returns on Judgement Day, as it says in the Bible.

Although I do respect your own personal choice, I cannot condone it in any way, and I can only hope that through Christ you will see the truth. That is all I can do.

And one third of the population supporting something is nowhere near a majority - if we based laws on minorities alone, where is the democracy?

Civil rights are not a matter to be determined by majorities. Think of what happened in times when they were--think of the attacks made against Catholics by Protestants and Protestants by Catholics in your own nation's history. Think of slavery. Think of the inequalities given women.

As for my personal "choice" you do not respect it in any way. Respect means youw ould get out of my way. You wouldn't say that gay marriages should be illegal. You would support equality.

As for Jesus' return, I think He is going to be far less concerned of what a good person did in his/her bedroom in showing love to another than He is about a group of close-minded buttwipes who tried to make a group of His father's creations feel inferior and treated as if they weren't human.

Here's a simple solution:
Any two conscenting adults may be Civily Unified.
All forms of marriage have no power whatsoever, don't matter, and are only recognized by religious institutions.
Everyone's happy- the nutjobs don't have to call homosexuals married but the homosexuals have just as many meaningful rights as the heterosexuals.
Well, that would be all fine and good if there weren't the sticklers for the there's nothing like the bonds of marriage and crap like that. It wouldn't work.

All of the Bible does comes from God - it says so in the Bible. Scripture is 'God-breathed'.

Somewhere in your obviously poor education in logic, you missed the part where you can't prove something by itself. It's like trying to define a word by using the word.


No - according to my reasoning and religion, God created just Adam and Eve. They sinned when they decided to become law-makers, and to live their lives their own way. From the time of the Fall, men and women were born with the inevitability of sin - inherited from Adam, not God.


Accoridng to religion yes. . .reason, I don't think so. And if your version of God created everything, then yes indeed he had to create sin too.


Genesis 2:24: 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.'
Here, if nowhere else does the Bible say that marriage between man and woman is what is right - at this time mankind was still perfect.


It also doesn't say that two men or two women is wrong. Circumstantial evidence if best. Of course why I'm arguing your religion with you I do not know. You can believe what you like. You just cannot, let me reiterate CANNOT force me to live by your religion's standards nor deprive me rights based upon it.


I understand that you don't believe in God - and that's your problem in the end, but as a Christian it is also my duty to share God's word - and this is part of it.
No, it doesn't harm me, but it will seriously harm them in the long-run, so I'm just pointing out their folly.

Duly noted. You've done your job. Now get out of our way and let us fight for equality and fairness.

It always amazes me to hear a "Christian" talk about bleeding-hearts. Jesus was the biggest bleeding heart in history! He wanted you to take care of others, he cared about and healed others, even those who you wouldn't think deserved it.

Jesus was not the biggest bleeding-heart in history. He wanted to take care of those who truly deserved it.
And by the universal tone in which you speak, it suggests that Jesus' actions apply to everyone.

Interesting how your trumpted tolerance and equality don't seem to apply to me.

Here's a simple solution:
Any two conscenting adults may be Civily Unified.
All forms of marriage have no power whatsoever, don't matter, and are only recognized by religious institutions.
Everyone's happy- the nutjobs don't have to call homosexuals married but the homosexuals have just as many meaningful rights as the heterosexuals.

And lo and behold I think we have a winner. Good compromise and one that It hink homosexuals would be willing to agree with. We do not care about forcing religious groups to marry us. . . only in being treated equally by a government that belongs just as much to as it does to straigh people.

Jesus was not the biggest bleeding-heart in history. He wanted to take care of those who truly deserved it.

dude, Jesus actually BLED FOR PEOPLE. he bled for the people who were KILLING HIM, bled his life away for EVERYONE ELSE ACROSS HISTORY. you don't think that qualifies as the biggest bleeding heart?!

Jesus was not the biggest bleeding-heart in history. He wanted to take care of those who truly deserved it.
And by the universal tone in which you speak, it suggests that Jesus' actions apply to everyone.

Interesting how your trumpted tolerance and equality don't seem to apply to me.

Hmmm, let's see. <flips through Bible> Nope, don't see a line where Jesus said "Go away, I'm too busy."

Of course ther ewas that one time he got onto the "righteous" people who were espousing biblical law for not taking care of the poor and needy.

I am tolerant of you in so far as you can do whatever you like in your own life. However, you try to interfere in my life. You lose your right to have me sick back and leave you to do as you will.

If that makes me intolerant, so be it. I will accept that. Of course my intolerance is born our of a desire for everyone to be as free as possible. Your intolerance is born out of the need to control the actions of others.

I wonder which is worse.

dude, Jesus actually BLED FOR PEOPLE. he bled for the people who were KILLING HIM, bled his life away for EVERYONE ELSE ACROSS HISTORY. you don't think that qualifies as the biggest bleeding heart?!

Of course not, because according to Akka, Jesus only died for those who deserved it.

Woudlnt' it be funny if he thought only people who wore stripes and polka dots were worthy?

Interesting how your trumpted tolerance and equality don't seem to apply to me.
you are more than welcome to hold your views, and nobody is trying to pass laws that forbid you to do so. we are perfectly tolerant of your views, we simply don't want you to be able to pass your unequal and unjust views into law. it's like how being a racist is perfectly legal, but you are not allowed to forbid black people to marry just because some people are racists.

Interesting how your trumpted tolerance and equality don't seem to apply to me.

Interesting how your self-righteousness and avidity for enforcing what you view as Biblical law on others doesn't apply to yourself.

Accoridng to religion yes. . .reason, I don't think so. And if your version of God created everything, then yes indeed he had to create sin too.

for I think the third time in about 5 posts....God created FREE WILL. This free will led to men sinning. God knew it would happen as a consequence of free will, but if he stopped from happening then free will wouldn't exist!

You can believe what you like. You just cannot, let me reiterate CANNOT force me to live by your religion's standards nor deprive me rights based upon it.

And where in any of my posts have I said I wish to force you not to have gay marriage or any of the related trappings?
I have just said that although I think it's wrong, I accept that it occurs and will do no more to stand in your way than by using argument.

One reason why you will find the struggle for gay rights so much harder is enshrined in the combative attitude you have taken above - immediately lashing out at anyone who does not agree with your view. Consensus and compromise can never be reached along such lines, and I suggest you need to understand this before raging on any further.

Interesting how your self-righteousness and avidity for enforcing what you view as Biblical law on others doesn't apply to yourself.

Oh dear. See my post above...where have I attempted to force my 'Biblical law' onto anyone else?

you are more than welcome to hold your views, and nobody is trying to pass laws that forbid you to do so. we are perfectly tolerant of your views, we simply don't want you to be able to pass your unequal and unjust views into law. it's like how being a racist is perfectly legal, but you are not allowed to forbid black people to marry just because some people are racists.

Respect to you.
I do not wish laws to be passed forbidding gay marriage - that would be coercing people against their will - something which is totally wrong in my opinion.
I have much respect for you and what you have written - unlike the other people in this thread who have just exploded at the mere scent of someone not agreeing with them.

for I think the third time in about 5 posts....God created FREE WILL. This free will led to men sinning. God knew it would happen as a consequence of free will, but if he stopped from happening then free will wouldn't exist!

Again, if he created free will and sin is a consequence then HE CREATED SIN as well. Are you telling me an all-powerful god had the restriction that to give free will he had to give sin? If he is all powerful then he could have gotten around that.


And where in any of my posts have I said I wish to force you not to have gay marriage or any of the related trappings?
I have just said that although I think it's wrong, I accept that it occurs and will do no more to stand in your way than by using argument.

By arguing, you are trying to opposed it. Thank you for saving me the time I would otherwise have to spend going back and reading your posts again.

But to give you a few more feet of rope, let's say that gay marriage came up to a popular vote. . .how would you vote?


One reason why you will find the struggle for gay rights so much harder is enshrined in the combative attitude you have taken above - immediately lashing out at anyone who does not agree with your view. Consensus and compromise can never be reached along such lines, and I suggest you need to understand this before raging on any further.

Don't presume to lecture me on being attacked. I've spent my whole life being attacked by self-righteous, hypocrites who are more concerned about what I do in my bedroom than about the hypocricy of their own lives (judge not lest ye be also judged). As for compromise, there is none to be reached. The ONLY one I and the majority of people who beelieve in equality are willig gto accept is the one proposed many times already (by myself included) in not having Civil marriage and having Civil Unions for everyone.

I cannot and will not compromise on equality. And I will not back down just because I dared to argue with you and point out the truth about your beliefs and what you are.

Respect to you.
I do not wish laws to be passed forbidding gay marriage - that would be coercing people against their will - something which is totally wrong in my opinion.
I have much respect for you and what you have written - unlike the other people in this thread who have just exploded at the mere scent of someone not agreeing with them.

This post has won you my respect. I apologize for going postal on you, but I'm afraid you really did seem like the typical bigot posting on here. We hear it often, Jesus said it was wrong, blah blah blah, Gays are going to hell, blah blah blah, better to burn them and ban them all, blah blah.

Yes I do get angry. Generally I am calmer than I was tonight, but pharm is kicking my butt pretty hard.

If that makes me intolerant, so be it. I will accept that. Of course my intolerance is born our of a desire for everyone to be as free as possible. Your intolerance is born out of the need to control the actions of others.

I wonder which is worse.

Controlling the actions of others is necessary. If there were no limits on people's action, nor any corresponding obligations to go with rights, you would most probably be dead by now, I expect I would, and the world as we know it wouldn't exist. There would be no civilised society, and it would truly be a world of 'survival of the meanest motherf**ker with no morals'.

Your utopian idealism is far from perfect...people don't work that way.

Controlling the actions of others is necessary. If there were no limits on people's action, nor any corresponding obligations to go with rights, you would most probably be dead by now, I expect I would, and the world as we know it wouldn't exist. There would be no civilised society, and it would truly be a world of 'survival of the meanest motherf**ker with no morals'.

Your utopian idealism is far from perfect...people don't work that way.

You misunderstand what I am saying. I am a libertarian (I believe that is the right word). People should have the right to do whatever they want as long it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. I agree with what bottle said earlier--you are free to hate gays as long as you don't deprive us of equal rights under the law.

This post has won you my respect. I apologize for going postal on you, but I'm afraid you really did seem like the typical bigot posting on here. We hear it often, Jesus said it was wrong, blah blah blah, Gays are going to hell, blah blah blah, better to burn them and ban them all, blah blah.

Yes I do get angry. Generally I am calmer than I was tonight, but pharm is kicking my butt pretty hard.

Super :)
No worries. I'm glad we're not flaming now :)

I don't think Jesus said homosexuality was wrong...I don't know if he said anything about it.
Burning and banning gays would be the last thing on my mind...I would be actively opposed to such actions.
There's nothing that riles me up more than bigots who think gays should be killed, or non-indigenous peoples killed (despite often not being indigenous) for no reason other than said bigots are a bunch of twats.

If it came to a public vote, I would abstain - although unfortunately in Britain, abstentions aren't counted, unlike Australia.

Super :)
No worries. I'm glad we're not flaming now :)

This just begs the super horrible pun that I am always flaming :)


I don't think Jesus said homosexuality was wrong...I don't know if he said anything about it.

I can save you time on that research. Jesus never said anything about it. He did admonish striaght people multiple times though. The other tiimes homosexual sex is supposedly mentioned in English translation, there is contention over the translations themselves. http://whosoever.org/bible/ has some decent info on it. Granted, its one man's opinion, but he is considered to be a Biblical scholar.


If it came to a public vote, I would abstain - although unfortunately in Britain, abstentions aren't counted, unlike Australia.

Well, there might still be some work for us to do on you yet, but I can live with that ;)

You misunderstand what I am saying. I am a libertarian (I believe that is the right word). People should have the right to do whatever they want as long it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. I agree with what bottle said earlier--you are free to hate gays as long as you don't deprive us of equal rights under the law.

Much clearer :)
Your first post made you out to be an anarchist (in the true political sense of the word...not scally thugs burning MacDonalds on May Day).

I don't agree with the libertarian view...but that's a political divide which is to be expected really :fluffle:

I can save you time on that research. Jesus never said anything about it. He did admonish striaght people multiple times though. The other tiimes homosexual sex is supposedly mentioned in English translation, there is contention over the translations themselves. http://whosoever.org/bible/ has some decent info on it. Granted, its one man's opinion, but he is considered to be a Biblical scholar.

just had a quick look...interesting.
and yes...straight people are sinners as much as gay people...it's human nature.
personally, I blame it all on men and the Catholic Church. They both suck.

Well, there might still be some work for us to do on you yet, but I can live with that ;)[/QUOTE]

as long as said work doesn't involve torture implements, I'm all ears.

just had a quick look...interesting.
and yes...straight people are sinners as much as gay people...it's human nature.
personally, I blame it all on men and the Catholic Church. They both suck.

Well, there might still be some work for us to do on you yet, but I can live with that ;)

as long as said work doesn't involve torture implements, I'm all ears.[/QUOTE]

LOL, I prefer to get to know people before I invite them into my dungeon. I'd also like to keep chatting and debating with you int eh future, however right now the antihyperlipidemic drugs is calling my name. I can't until Friday night when tests will be over and I can sleep the sleep of a happy man.

Sweet.
Well good luck with them! Hope they go well!

Originally Posted by Gnomish Republics
Here's a simple solution:
Any two conscenting adults may be Civily Unified.
All forms of marriage have no power whatsoever, don't matter, and are only recognized by religious institutions.
Everyone's happy- the nutjobs don't have to call homosexuals married but the homosexuals have just as many meaningful rights as the heterosexuals.
Is that similar to the laws that have been passed in New Zealand? I love those Kiwis, they put us Aussies to shame in so many areas. (Indigenous issues, anti-discrimination issues, relations with our Asian neighbours etc etc etc...)

straight people are sinners as much as gay people..If that's true, why should gay people be vilified and/or denied rights moreso than straights?

If that's true, why should gay people be vilified and/or denied rights moreso than straights?

They shouldn't. I've never said that. In fact, I've argued the opposite, if you actually bothered to read my posts.

They shouldn't. I've never said that. In fact, I've argued the opposite, if you actually bothered to read my posts.

I think Preebles was agreeing with something another person said, not disagreeing with you...Hey Preebles! We live in the same area! Melbourne!

I think Preebles was agreeing with something another person said, not disagreeing with you...Hey Preebles! We live in the same area! Melbourne!
Yeah it was a general statement.
Yay, Melbourne! Although I live half in Sydney since my family and boyfriend live here. Basically I go to uni in Melbourne and spend holidays here.
I'm a displaced person! :p

All of the Bible does comes from God - it says so in the Bible. Scripture is 'God-breathed'.


Nope. Afraid not.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say "All of the Bible does come from god".

Bad start, friend... hard to see how you can go on to support anything from there...

hooah!

Yeah it was a general statement.
Yay, Melbourne! Although I live half in Sydney since my family and boyfriend live here. Basically I go to uni in Melbourne and spend holidays here.
I'm a displaced person! :p

Yeah! Melbourne! Gay! Melbourne! Gay!...sorry, I'm not ussually like this, anyway, lets get back to argueing.

By the way, the bible wasn't written by god or by jesus, or so I've heard.
It's also written to have stories with morals in them, not all stories in the bible are to be taken word for word, you're just meant to learn from them.

Nope. Afraid not.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say "All of the Bible does come from god".

Bad start, friend... hard to see how you can go on to support anything from there...
Lol another one that did not read it ... tell me it isen't so!

there's nothing at all wrong with gay marriages

Merry Christmas everyone.


Oh, he's a Liberal. I understand now. The Liberal party in Australia would love nothing more than to drag us to the the 50's where there were no darkies or gays and we lived in fear of some great enemy.

First fool, check how well Australia has done under the Coalition since 96,

before you denigrate them simply as some neo fifties party.

All our foreign dept has almost gone, sensible economic policys and trade

agreements have floated Australia through turbulant economic times that

have caused alot of our neighbors to fall backwards.

The country hasnt been this well led, and in such good shape, since probably

the fifties you hate so much.

You see Australia of the fifties in a typical negative light cast by libertarians.

Well lets see, unemployment then almost nil, education enjoyed by all, crime

practically non existant, drug taking practically non existant as well, the

country a great sucess economically, Aboriginials encouraged to work(which

they did well) particually in the country, gays were not as outcoming, but

neither were

they villified like the jews of Europe in Nazi Germany.


The great enemy of the fifties.. study the Cold War...

Australia today which you seem to prefer with all its faults bought on by

idiotic PC do gooders, aka: The Green Party to mention one.

Unemployment, falling to its lowest since the late seventies, thanks to the

Liberals, Education, good, but lack of discipline, mainly in State Schools, have

given our kids no basic training in learning to respect people properly.

Marriage, nearly half divorced within ten years, drug taking and binge

drinking in now epidemic proportions, depression hitting 1 in every 4 kids, alot

of which are put on medication for, Aboriginals reduced thanks to the civil

Dumertarians to a people reliant on government handouts and little incentive

to work hard for anything.

A welfare state consisting of bludgers, junkies, people claiming sickness and

disabilitys so they wont work, single mothers who get another pay rise on the

dole for every kid they have, regardless of who they sleep with, that takes

nearly fifty billion of the Federal budget each year.

A defence force that is well trained and armed but pathetic in organisation

and general equipment, not to mention its present tiny size.

Crime and its present pathetic deterrants, lets see, a criminal murders

someone, gets told he will do twelve years but could get out on seven with a

guilty plea and good behaviour, wheres the justice for the victim and his/her

family?

Fifties style, murderer was hung, end of story.

Crime then, low, crime now, particularly violent, high and rising, so you tell

me which period of time was safer to live and raise a family in.


I like a lot of Australia today, we are a hard working people, who pay more

tax than any other country in the world.

Never the less for a nation of little over twenty million people, with one of

the hugest land masses to look after, we are going pretty good. But alot of

the old fifties ethics of commonsense and fortitude would be well welcome

now by alot of people here anyway.

there's nothing at all wrong with gay marriages

Wrong.

Nope. Afraid not.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say "All of the Bible does come from god".

Bad start, friend... hard to see how you can go on to support anything from there...


Um. How does what the bible might say compare to opinions?

Wrong.

Why? Answer this without using the word "culture" or "tradition," as well as any synonyms.

I'm totally pro homo marriages. Whoot whoot. :fluffle:

It's not like sexual preferences should really effect society, (although they do).

there's nothing at all wrong with gay marriages

Wrong.

Good evening, folks, and welcome to 135 pages ago!

People, really, go back to anywhere in this thread and think very, very hard about whether or not you want to beat your head against this wall.

Let it die already.

Why? Answer this without using the word "culture" or "tradition," as well as any synonyms.

Are you saying cuture and tradition are irrelevant to the present modern

world?

If so why.

In answer to why I dont believe gay marriage should be recognised, the

answer is simply I believe its an institution only for men and women, and vital

for a society to continue on as.

Good evening, folks, and welcome to 135 pages ago!

People, really, go back to anywhere in this thread and think very, very hard about whether or not you want to beat your head against this wall.

Let it die already.

Good evening, Anbar, welcome to the resistance.

i believe in civil unions but not marraiges....i think marraie should be reserved for man and woman....but i'm ok with civil unions.....i don't dislike gay peopl in the least (my boss is a lesbian, and she is really nice, blah blah blah) I thin that marraige as it stands in the US it to promote family growth. There is no biological possibility that homosexuals can produce a child...that is my ONLY arguement...(i know someone has probably said this already, and someone probably said "well, we should keep non-reproducing people from getting married..) that's crap....you can be completely infertile for years and finally have a baby......two men together cannot have a child...neither can 2 women...

i believe in civil unions but not marraiges....i think marraie should be reserved for man and woman....but i'm ok with civil unions.....i don't dislike gay peopl in the least (my boss is a lesbian, and she is really nice, blah blah blah) I thin that marraige as it stands in the US it to promote family growth. There is no biological possibility that homosexuals can produce a child...that is my ONLY arguement...(i know someone has probably said this already, and someone probably said "well, we should keep non-reproducing people from getting married..) that's crap....you can be completely infertile for years and finally have a baby......two men together cannot have a child...neither can 2 women...
you cannot be completely infertile and then suddenly have a baby...you weren't infertile, if that happens. and what about women who are past menopause? they can't conceive, so should they be denied the right to wed? and, most importantly, what about people like myself, or like my aunt, who CHOOSE never to have children? should i be forbidden to marry? should my aunt's marriage of 17 years be nullified?

Are you saying cuture and tradition are irrelevant to the present modern

world?

If so why.

In answer to why I dont believe gay marriage should be recognised, the

answer is simply I believe its an institution only for men and women, and vital

for a society to continue on as.

Which begs the question again. . . why?

Why is marriage only for men and women and why is it staying that way vital for the continuation of society?

As for culture and tradition, they are all well and fine when they don't hurt people. However, they should never be used as the sole reason for doing something. If they were, we'd still be burning women at the stake, not allowed to charge interest on a loan, etc.

Good evening, Anbar, welcome to the resistance.

Term, if you agree with Anbar that you are just beating your head against a wall, why are you bothering to continue posting and arguing?

you cannot be completely infertile and then suddenly have a baby...you weren't infertile, if that happens. and what about women who are past menopause? they can't conceive, so should they be denied the right to wed? and, most importantly, what about people like myself, or like my aunt, who CHOOSE never to have children? should i be forbidden to marry? should my aunt's marriage of 17 years be nullified?

And to continue Bottle's POV, if marriage is just for procreation, why do many (most) of the rights associated with it have nothing to do with children? You could have children without the right to joint ownership of property, inheritance law, next of kin status, etc.

And she is right. . .should people in their eighties be banned from marriage? what about a woman who had polycystic ovaries and had to have them removed when she was fifteen? Or my cousin who had uterine cancer and had to have a complete hysderectomy at twenty? Should she go out and have her marriage annulled because she will NEVER be able to have a child?

While I do see the beginning of logic in your thought processes, it seems to me that you haven't carried them out any farther than generalizations that don't hold up to any scrutiny.

Um. How does what the bible might say compare to opinions?

Relevence?

I pointed out that the bible does not 'say' it is all god inspired, in contradiction of the previous post (by Akka-Akka, I think) who said "All of the Bible does comes from God - it says so in the Bible"...

What was your point?

Are you saying cuture and tradition are irrelevant to the present modern
world?
If so why.


Good question... WHY should culture and tradition be considered relevent?

Culture and Tradition are two forces that perpetuate a status-quo... that stop change... on ehas only to look at displaced cultures to see this emphasised - the way, for example, a religious group becomes much MORE fundamentalist when dislocated - as a reaction to it's surroundings.

So - Culture and Tradition are the things that stop the 'water' flowing... and water that doesn't flow stagnates, and stagnation is death.

=Pracus]Which begs the question again. . . why?
Why is marriage only for men and women and why is it staying that way vital for the continuation of society?


The whole point of marriage is to create familys, gays do not create familys.

The family is the vital and basic building block on which a society stands on,

since gay mariages was legalised in Sweden in 95, there are alarming reports

of hetero marriages on the decline, meaning not failing, just not even starting.

As for culture and tradition, they are all well and fine when they don't hurt people.

Sorry, but sad as it is, people getting hurt and dying are just as much a part

of it, as people having fun.


However, they should never be used as the sole reason for doing something. If they were, we'd still be burning women at the stake, not allowed to charge interest on a loan, etc.

Why limit all your hoohar about people getting burnt at stakes etc to just

women, men were burnt, crucified, drowned, tortured in far greater numbers.

The whole point of marriage is to create familys, gays do not create familys.
The family is the vital and basic building block on which a society stands on,
since gay mariages was legalised in Sweden in 95, there are alarming reports
of hetero marriages on the decline, meaning not failing, just not even starting.

Sorry, but sad as it is, people getting hurt and dying are just as much a part
of it, as people having fun.

Why limit all your hoohar about people getting burnt at stakes etc to just
women, men were burnt, crucified, drowned, tortured in far greater numbers.

I don't know where you get your information from, Terminalia.

I think you must just make it up, whatever suits your mood.

The whole point of marriage, if we are looking at it from the legal institution that marriage currently IS, is the continuation of property-ownership - be that property material (land), semi-material (money), or intangible (family name).

You are also wrong about gays not having families (don't you EVER get bored with being wrong?)

I happen to have two very good lesbian friends with a 12 year old son... how are they not a family?

The family is the vital and basic building block on which a society stands on, since gay mariages was legalised in Sweden in 95, there are alarming reports of hetero marriages on the decline, meaning not failing, just not even starting.

BS. Pure and utter BS.

/A Swede.

Banning gay marriage is not going to clear out the gay people. It's not going to stop PDA between two males or females. The only thing it's going to do is give two members of the same sex lower insurance premiums.

The problem with gay marriage, as I see it, is I don't know how once you cross this line, how you say no to other groups of people who think marriage should be defined to fit their own beliefs? If you legally allow gay marriage, based on equal rights, how do you then legally deny it to an age consenting daughter and father who want to get married, or the polygamist who wants to get married. These are people who have are loving different and want to be in a committed relationship, are their rights not as important?

The problem with gay marriage, as I see it, is I don't know how once you cross this line, how you say no to other groups of people who think marriage should be defined to fit their own beliefs? If you legally allow gay marriage, based on equal rights, how do you then legally deny it to an age consenting daughter and father who want to get married, or the polygamist who wants to get married. These are people who have are loving different and want to be in a committed relationship, are their rights not as important?
I think anyone of consenting age and ability should be allowed married ... if the fauther dauther want to (irregardless of how I feel about it personaly) so be it.

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.

I chose no. I am not opposed to homosexual couples having the same legal rights as heterosexual ones, but the Gov. should have nothing to do with marriage to begin with. Marriage is by definition hetero.

Why do we care what other people do? Is it any of our busniess?

Uh, that would be a NO. I don't see how letting two guys (or two girls, whatever) have the same last name and sharing a checking account will erode the fabric of society. Society is not a constant, it changes and evolves. This would be just one minor change out of thousands of events that take place every year that cause culture and values to shift, ever so slightly.

Please, let it go, there are bigger issues to fix.

Thanks.

I think anyone of consenting age and ability should be allowed married ... if the fauther dauther want to (irregardless of how I feel about it personaly) so be it.

I think that might be a minority view, even in Europe....

I chose no. I am not opposed to homosexual couples having the same legal rights as heterosexual ones, but the Gov. should have nothing to do with marriage to begin with. Marriage is by definition hetero.

Which definition?

I don't define marriage as male-female..

I think that might be a minority view, even in Europe....
Maybe but when ya beleive in something you have to suck it up and hold to your principals even when you dont agree with an instance of when it dosent compleatly jive with your outlook in life

This would be just one minor change out of thousands of events that take place every year that cause culture and values to shift, ever so slightly.

Please, let it go, there are bigger issues to fix.

Thanks.[/QUOTE]

I don't think this can be considered a "minor" change, you're talking about changing something that has been a social norm for thousands of years. At the very least, I think you could understand people's concern/hesitancy to change it.

This would be just one minor change out of thousands of events that take place every year that cause culture and values to shift, ever so slightly.

Please, let it go, there are bigger issues to fix.

Thanks.

I don't think this can be considered a "minor" change, you're talking about changing something that has been a social norm for thousands of years. At the very least, I think you could understand people's concern/hesitancy to change it.[/QUOTE]

Social norm? I would REALLY like to see you provide some evidence for that...

Which definition?

I don't define marriage as male-female..

History's. Even in the Greek's hayday, they didn't consider homosexual relationships to fit into the catagory of marriage. Ultimately, for me at least, marriage was by God in Eden, every other variation is lacking divine ordination. However the Gov. has no business making judgments on religious issues that should have no baring on the rights of individuals and should have no legal opinion. Which also means there should be no breaks given "married" couples and no penalties either.

Social norm? I would REALLY like to see you provide some evidence for that...[/QUOTE]

So by that statement, I assume you're telling me I'm wrong that a VAST VAST MAJORITY of societies in the world have always had strictly male/female marriages?

The whole point of marriage is to create familys, gays do not create familys. The family is the vital and basic building block on which a society stands on, since gay mariages was legalised in Sweden in 95, there are alarming reports of hetero marriages on the decline, meaning not failing, just not even starting.


I think you are confusing marriage with sex and confusing creating families with making children. Families do not require children. My infertile cousin who will never have children and her husband are just as much a family, even with their lack of children, as a family with ten kids. Families are about love and mutual support for their members and marriage is about choosing and proclaiming who you are giving love and support to. So yes, marriage is about family--about choosing who you spend your life with and make your next of kin, etc. etc.

Sex on the other hand is about making children. You can do that in or out of marriage and you know what, the kids can turn out fine either way.

As far as Sweden goes, would you care to share a source on that? The last I read, in Scandanavia, marriage was on its way out long before gay marriages were legalized and since then the rates have gone back up. I will grant this is probably a semi-biased source, but at least it is written by an academic and the facts are confirmable.


http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/Articles_52004.html


Sorry, but sad as it is, people getting hurt and dying are just as much a part
of it, as people having fun.

That doesn't mean that we don't try to fight pain, suffering, ignorance, unfairness, and just plain evil. We don't have to accept them as okay because they are part of our "tradition".


Why limit all your hoohar about people getting burnt at stakes etc to just
women, men were burnt, crucified, drowned, tortured in far greater numbers.

I'm sure that the many who were killed in witch trials, inquisitions, crusades etc. would love to hear that what they went through is just hoohar. You are right, men and children as well as women were often tortured and killed in the name of tradition. All you did here was strengthen my arguement by giving even more reasons who "it's tradition" should not be used as a reason for anything. Cultures and societies cannot exist in a vacuum. They must continue to grow and fight to be better than they are--or they will cease to exist.

=The Gamilon Empire]Social norm? I would REALLY like to see you provide some evidence for that...

So by that statement, I assume you're telling me I'm wrong that a VAST VAST MAJORITY of societies in the world have always had strictly male/female marriages?[/QUOTE]
No he was asking you to support your claim

Banning gay marriage is not going to clear out the gay people. It's not going to stop PDA between two males or females. The only thing it's going to do is give two members of the same sex lower insurance premiums.

And the right to inheritance.
And the right to joint ownership of property.
And next of kin status.
And the right to hospital visitation.
And the right to make end-of-life decisions for one another.

Shall I go on?

So by that statement, I assume you're telling me I'm wrong that a VAST VAST MAJORITY of societies in the world have always had strictly male/female marriages?
No he was asking you to support your claim[/QUOTE]

By asking the question, I think my assumption of what he is saying is correct. Therefore, I want to make sure I understand why is he asking the question.

But, in the end, I don't think that claims needs to be supported, I think most people would know that to be the case. If you don't think it is the case, then show me something that would tell me that a vast majority of societies int eh world have always had strictly male/female marriages.

I chose no. I am not opposed to homosexual couples having the same legal rights as heterosexual ones, but the Gov. should have nothing to do with marriage to begin with. Marriage is by definition hetero.

Marriage is by definition whatever the people in the era define it as.

Marriage was once an ownership agreement where husbands owned wives. Marriage was once a politcal tool for uniting families in power. Marriage was once restricted to people of the same race. Marriage was once, in the church, allowed between members of the same gender.

What's your point?

I don't think this can be considered a "minor" change, you're talking about changing something that has been a social norm for thousands of years. At the very least, I think you could understand people's concern/hesitancy to change it.

This would, in the grand scheme of things, be a minor change. Church records show gay marriages have been sanctioned before. Marriage has already changed tons in the last "thousands of years". Read my previous post for some of them.

Tradition and "it's always been that way" is not a reason to deny people equality.

But, in the end, I don't think that claims needs to be supported, I think most people would know that to be the case. If you don't think it is the case, then show me something that would tell me that a vast majority of societies int eh world have always had strictly male/female marriages.

First, could you folks please get your quotes to work correctly? Thanks so much.

Secondly, the vast majority of societies in the world have had slave as some point. Is that okay? The vast majority of societies in the world have treated wives as property and said it was okay to beat them, is that okay? The vast majority of socitieis in the world have committed wholesale slaughter. Is that okay?

History's. Even in the Greek's hayday, they didn't consider homosexual relationships to fit into the catagory of marriage. Ultimately, for me at least, marriage was by God in Eden, every other variation is lacking divine ordination. However the Gov. has no business making judgments on religious issues that should have no baring on the rights of individuals and should have no legal opinion. Which also means there should be no breaks given "married" couples and no penalties either.

The problem is, you are confusing what YOU want, with having any relevence to the rest of the world.

You would obviously argue against the evidence, but, I am afraid that people were marrying long before the Christians or Hebrews started using the same institution... in fact, people were marrying long before there WERE any Hebrews or Christians.

Christianity doesn't get a monopoly on marriage.

Once again, towards the end of your post - you are confused over marriage.

Marriage is a legal term - for the union of individuals (sometimes limited to one of each 'flavour') - and carries all the legalities of inheritance, etc.

Churches can perform marriage 'ceremonies' - but that is just religious icing on a secular cake.

You have it the wrong way round, friend - the church needs to keep it's nose out of the LEGAL institution of marriage.

By asking the question, I think my assumption of what he is saying is correct. Therefore, I want to make sure I understand why is he asking the question.

But, in the end, I don't think that claims needs to be supported, I think most people would know that to be the case. If you don't think it is the case, then show me something that would tell me that a vast majority of societies int eh world have always had strictly male/female marriages.

Sorry, friend - Rules of Engagement: You made a claim which I believe to be bogus - I have asked you for proof that your claim is true - that ALL cultures have ALWAYS had exclusively HETEROSEXUAL, monogamous marriage laws.

When you have defended your 'facts', then you get to question me on any assertions I might have made. (Note: I haven't yet made an assertion - but, once you attempt to defend your 'evidence', I will.)

By asking the question, I think my assumption of what he is saying is correct. Therefore, I want to make sure I understand why is he asking the question.

But, in the end, I don't think that claims needs to be supported, I think most people would know that to be the case. If you don't think it is the case, then show me something that would tell me that a vast majority of societies int eh world have always had strictly male/female marriages.

Sorry, friend - Rules of Engagement: You made a claim which I believe to be bogus - I have asked you for proof that your claim is true - that ALL cultures have ALWAYS had exclusively HETEROSEXUAL, monogamous marriage laws.

When you have defended your 'facts', then you get to question me on any assertions I might have made. (Note: I haven't yet made an assertion - but, once you attempt to defend your 'evidence', I will.)[/QUOTE]

First, friend, I didn't make the statement that ALL cultures have ALWAYS had exclusively heterosexual, monogamous marriage laws, you made that statement.

My statement was that a VAST MAJORITY of societies throughout the world have had strictly male/female marriages. To be honest, I'd have to find out where to even look up like something like that, but it seems like that is such an obvious fact, like the earth revolves around the sun, or something like that.

If you know of a substantial number of societies in the world that have permitted homosexual marriages, then by all means, share it with us.

I don't think this can be considered a "minor" change, you're talking about changing something that has been a social norm for thousands of years. At the very least, I think you could understand people's concern/hesitancy to change it.

In the grand scheme of things, it's pretty minor. And not all cultures and religions place the same weight on marriage that western cultures do. Even parts of Europe aren't as serious as other parts of Europe. I think it would be very hard to say 'social norm' when it's taken in very different contexts even within the same region of the world.

In the grand scheme of things, it's pretty minor. And not all cultures and religions place the same weight on marriage that western cultures do. Even parts of Europe aren't as serious as other parts of Europe. I think it would be very hard to say 'social norm' when it's taken in very different contexts even within the same region of the world.

Well, we might have to do one of those agree to disagree things. I certainly understand the point you're making. I just hope you understand why it is considered such a big deal by other people.... :D

I dont understand why anyone would allow gay marriage or even want it for that matter. Gay marriage is moralley wrong and goes against the natural system, and our system as a Christian nation. If we allow this issue to fly then just imagine what else could slip through. Multiple Marriages? I can see the majority of members are democrats or liberal minded. :headbang:

Back in the day(if I remember correctly), Marriage was a religious institution, uniting a man and a woman under God. But then the big bad government got involved and screwed that up.

I dont understand why anyone would allow gay marriage or even want it for that matter. Gay marriage is moralley wrong and goes against the natural system, and our system as a Christian nation. If we allow this issue to fly then just imagine what else could slip through. Multiple Marriages? I can see the majority of members are democrats or liberal minded. :headbang:

So sayeth big religion and religious demagogues because what is really threatened by the concept of gay marriage is peace within organised religions which are already splitting over the matter.

I dont understand why anyone would allow gay marriage or even want it for that matter. Gay marriage is moralley wrong and goes against the natural system, and our system as a Christian nation. If we allow this issue to fly then just imagine what else could slip through. Multiple Marriages? I can see the majority of members are democrats or liberal minded. :headbang:

I'm not a big fan of gay marriage, however, this is not a "christian" nation, it is a nation of christians, meaning chrisitans are the majority of the population. That does not mean that we are a theocracy and that government can not do something because it goes against a religious order. I think churches should have a right not to marry people in a religious sense. However, the state needs a non-religious reason for not marrying gay people.

Back in the day(if I remember correctly), Marriage was a religious institution, uniting a man and a woman under God. But then the big bad government got involved and screwed that up.

Which day would that be?

See, I think you are making stuff up, with no citable evidence... but I could be wrong.

I must say that it is very pleasing to see that the polls shows favor to gay marriages. I support gay marriage whole-heartedly.

gay marriage should not be allowed because marriage is between a man and a woman because a man and a woman can concieve a child naturally. Marriage is basically so two people can have a child. If you have two people from the same sex they cannot create a child.

I'm not a big fan of gay marriage, however, this is not a "christian" nation, it is a nation of christians, meaning chrisitans are the majority of the population. That does not mean that we are a theocracy and that government can not do something because it goes against a religious order. I think churches should have a right not to marry people in a religious sense. However, the state needs a non-religious reason for not marrying gay people.

Excellent post.

Spot on - since the USA is NOT a theocracy, the church should NOT make decisions (any church)... although they SHOULD be allowed to express their opinions and be heard.

gay marriage should not be allowed because marriage is between a man and a woman because a man and a woman can concieve a child naturally. Marriage is basically so two people can have a child. If you have two people from the same sex they cannot create a child.

Sure they can - just not with each other.

Go find yourself a dictionary, friend - and look up the owrd 'marriage'.

Or, alternatively - read the whole thread... your argument has already had it's wheels thoroughly shot off.

gay marriage should not be allowed because marriage is between a man and a woman because a man and a woman can concieve a child naturally. Marriage is basically so two people can have a child. If you have two people from the same sex they cannot create a child.

Marriage is only so that people can reproduce? Then what about cultures that don't marry? Or the issue of "bastard-children"?

I've always been under the impression it was a religious commitment, and not a business deal like so many people make it out to be.
The government has no right to say whom you can or can't marry.
If gays can find a church and priest that will marry them, it's legal. Marriage is defined by the church.
Personally, I am against gays being married, because that's my belief. But what I don't understand is what people expect the government to do about it. Gays should pressure their church, not politicians. What happened to separation of church and state?

Bastard children are children that were concieved by accident. Otherwise they wouldve been married when it happened. Also name one other purpose for getting married other then having children with the one.

hey if thats wut makes you happy, byjesus u go ahead and do it! Oh and Andrew, my thick headed friend, if your out there , y do u hate gays so much?
gays + Andrew = wtf?
:eek: :mp5: :(

Church and state being seperated. Then how come our first presidents were catholics

I've always been under the impression it was a religious commitment, and not a business deal like so many people make it out to be.
The government has no right to say whom you can or can't marry.
If gays can find a church and priest that will marry them, it's legal. Marriage is defined by the church.
Personally, I am against gays being married, because that's my belief. But what I don't understand is what people expect the government to do about it. Gays should pressure their church, not politicians. What happened to separation of church and state?

Wow, could you be more wrong?

You know why you need a marriage license?

Because marriage is a LEGAL institution.

Sure, churches can perform a wedding 'ceremony', but, if you don't sign that paper, you're not married... and if you DO sign that paper, and make the legal vow - you are married... church or no church.

You are confused as to the seperation of church and state. But, that is because you are confused over the religious/legal nature of marriage.

CHURCHES should not have ANY say over the legality of marriage - that would be a seperation of church and state. Unfortunately, the current elected-chimp takes it upon himself to dictate theology for a nation - thereby totally undermining the seperation of church and state.

As it is... the STATE should decide who can be married (without basing the decision on religion, since this is not a theocracy (yet)), and churches should NOT be forced to carry out weddings they consider against their religion.

Church and state being seperated. Then how come our first presidents were catholics

Who cares what your presidents were? The nation was FOUNDED by Deists on Deist principles... but they didn't PRECLUDE other religious options.

The religion of one president IS (and SHOULD REMAIN) irrelevent, to the nation.

boy you are dumb you need a marriage license for it to be recognized by the us goverment not for the church to recognize it. Marriage is a church commitment.

What are you retarded are founding fathers were catholic so our constitution is leaning toward the catholic ideals

What are you retarded are founding fathers were catholic so our constitution is leaning toward the catholic ideals

Where did you learn history?

Seriously, the *only* Catholic president we have *ever* had in this country was Kennedy.

None of the famous founding fathers were Catholics, and there was (and still is, in many places) a deep-seated distrust for Catholocism throughout this country (except in Maryland and a few other colonies).

boy you are dumb you need a marriage license for it to be recognized by the us goverment not for the church to recognize it. Marriage is a church commitment.

I find it amusing that you called ME 'dumb', and then posted this... is it worth showing you the error of your ways?

The Marriage 'ceremony' MAY be church-related... but doesn't have to be... people can obtain CIVIL weddings.

I really think you should immediately revoke your 'flame'.

I am far from dumb... and, if you took the time (since you are online anyway) to do a little research, you'd see pretty quickly the error of your ways.

I'm not trying to be insulting here, but, how old are you? If you are actually old enough to marry, you really SHOULD look into this matter.

If not... have you tried asking someone (parents, maybe) that IS married, about it?

No sorry read the declaration of independence the constitution you moron it seems to me like catholic ideals to me

What are you retarded are founding fathers were catholic so our constitution is leaning toward the catholic ideals

Well, you ARE quite the fruity little fellow, aren't you?

I would advise that you decide to moderate your tone, somewhat.

At the moment, you are coming across as somewhere between 'troll' and 'flame'... either of which leads to the darkside.

Well, we might have to do one of those agree to disagree things. I certainly understand the point you're making. I just hope you understand why it is considered such a big deal by other people.... :D

Only kinda. I, personally don't think we're talking about enough people to make a huge difference. Let's say that gay people make up 10% of the population (I'm just using that number for easy math, so please cut me some slack), and let's say that only half ever decide to marry, that's 5% of the population. 5%? That's it? That's really kind of a small number, don't you think? Also, many gay couples, at least in the parts of the country that I've been to, live in areas of town (the nice, historic parts) that have a predominantly gay population. They live together already, how would we notice?

Back in the day(if I remember correctly), Marriage was a religious institution, uniting a man and a woman under God. But then the big bad government got involved and screwed that up.

Not everywhere. Marriage is a civil institution in many cultures, not religious, so there's no reason that same sex couples can't marry by that standard. Marriage is a civil institution in this country as well, as it doesn't matter what church or religion you get married in, you still register that marriage with the state.

My original point still stands, this isn't that big a deal, and doesn't effect wnough people to get this excited over.

I've always been under the impression it was a religious commitment, and not a business deal like so many people make it out to be.

There is religious marriage (condoned by some church or other) and there is legal marriage (a legal document which combines the two into a single legal entity and entitles them to certain protections that go along with it.

The government has no right to say whom you can or can't marry.

The government has every say in *legal* marriage, but not in religious marriage. Of course, without a good reason, the government cannot discriminate in this on the basis of sexual orientation.

If gays can find a church and priest that will marry them, it's legal. Marriage is defined by the church.

Wrong again. *MANY* homosexuals have been married in a church. However, the government refuses to recognize these marriages and provide marriage protections.

Personally, I am against gays being married, because that's my belief. But what I don't understand is what people expect the government to do about it. Gays should pressure their church, not politicians. What happened to separation of church and state?

Most homosexuals (and those of us who help them fight for equal protection) are not trying to force churches to change their beliefs. There are churches that will marry them, and there are those that will not. It doesn't really matter, as it is equal protection under the law that we are arguing about. If a church only wants to marry blue-eyed people who were born on a Saturday, the church is allowed to do so without providing any more reason that "We think God wants it this way." The government, however, must provide a much more obvious interest.

No sorry read the declaration of independence the constitution you moron it seems to me like catholic ideals to me

There are several options here, please let us know which is correct:

1) You are about 5 years old.
2) You were raised on the moon.
3) You failed history.
4) You have never taken a history or theology class.
5) You are a troll.

There are several options here, please let us know which is correct:

1) You are about 5 years old.
2) You were raised on the moon.
3) You failed history.
4) You have never taken a history or theology class.
5) You are a troll.

I'm going with the 'troll' option.

At the moment, he is about this far (..........) from being reported...

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

There are gay people who oppose gay marriage...

can someone explain (lay off i'm only 13 ) why gay people can't just live together and spend their lives together. if they can't get married it's not like it will stop them from having a relationship...why do they have to get married?


confused...help

can someone explain (lay off i'm only 13 ) why gay people can't just live together and spend their lives together. if they can't get married it's not like it will stop them from having a relationship...why do they have to get married?


confused...help

There are certain legal protections that go along with being married in a civil sense. These include hundreds of protections, some of which are very necessary (ie. next of kin status, power of attorney, sharing of assets and debts, spousal immunity, abolishment of inheritance tax, extension of insurance benefits, child custody etc.) and some are just convenient (sharing fishing licenses, filing taxes together, etc.)

The point is that these legal protections are offered, but are currently offered in a discriminatory (which is against the 14th Amendment) manner. Thus, if the government is to offer marriage protections at all, it should do so equally to all couples which need said protections.

crap. Screwed up, nevermind.

i love gay people :fluffle:

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.

I don't think you needed anothr poll. Many States spoke out on this issue last month. :)

Church and state being seperated. Then how come our first presidents were catholics

Damn, I knew there was a reason for teaching history in school. Our "first presidents" were not Catholic. John F. Kennedy was the first American President that was a Catholic. :headbang:

i love gay people :fluffle:


Yeah, me too.

But you know, the only thing that bothers me about Nationstates's collective view on this subject is that someone on the first page stated that you guys go after the anti's very strongly.

Leave some for me, please!

Who cares what your presidents were? The nation was FOUNDED by Deists on Deist principles... but they didn't PRECLUDE other religious options.

The religion of one president IS (and SHOULD REMAIN) irrelevent, to the
nation.

WRONG. Only some of the founders were Deists. A majority were Christian and the country was founded on Christian principles. :headbang:
Damn, I'm getting a head ache!

WRONG. Only some of the founders were Deists. A majority were Christian and the country was founded on Christian principles. :headbang:
Damn, I'm getting a headhe!

I would say putting a thing like seperation of church and state in your constitution and being founded on christian principles would be kind of mutually exclusive.

My statement was that a VAST MAJORITY of societies throughout the world have had strictly male/female marriages. To be honest, I'd have to find out where to even look up like something like that, but it seems like that is such an obvious fact, like the earth revolves around the sun, or something like that.

The earth revolving around the sun is not necessarily an obvious fact. In fact they killed people for suggesting the earth wasn't the center of the solar system and indeed the universe.


If you know of a substantial number of societies in the world that have permitted homosexual marriages, then by all means, share it with us.

Native American societies for one. And there is evidence in the Catholic and Orthodoxes churches' records indicating that they once blessed such unions.

And again, could you please try to get the quote boxes correct? I have a hard time deciphering said posts.

Well, we might have to do one of those agree to disagree things. I certainly understand the point you're making. I just hope you understand why it is considered such a big deal by other people.... :D

Strangely its a big deal to people that is DOES NOT AFFECT. How does gay marriage in any way change a heterosexual marriage? I have heard no one give me a way in which it does. I really want to hear it.

I dont understand why anyone would allow gay marriage or even want it for that matter. Gay marriage is moralley wrong and goes against the natural system, and our system as a Christian nation. If we allow this issue to fly then just imagine what else could slip through. Multiple Marriages? I can see the majority of members are democrats or liberal minded. :headbang:

Morally wrong? By whose morals? Morals are relative things and our laws are not based upon them. They are based upon rights and freedoms. Not morals. Some morals happen to go well with rights based laws (do not kill and laws against murder) and others don't mix so well (the government doesn't punish people for being envious of their neighbor).

As for the natural system. Which system is that? You mean the one where every mammal species we've studied shows examples of homosexual behavior? Including penguins who mate for life? Let me guess, you aren't a biologist.

And a Christian nation? Where did you get that idea? (assuming you are from the states). Our consitution does not mention God or Jesus or Christianity in any way. In fact it expressely provides for freedom OF religion. It doesn't say only christians. Or only your version of Christianity. In fact, since there are religious groups who support gay marriages, one could argue that THEIR rights are being trampled on by saying that gay marriages aren't legal.

And the slippery slope is not a reason to deny rights to anyone. Gay marriage does not automatically equal polygame, pediastry, bestial unions or anything else.

As a side note, all of these arguements have been made previously in this thread, much better than I can do. So, I reccomend you use the search feature (because I certainly wouldn't want to read 150 pages) and type in things like beastiality, pedistry, pedophila, etc. and get a good long look at those arguements.

The earth revolving around the sun is not necessarily an obvious fact. In fact they killed people for suggesting the earth wasn't the center of the solar system and indeed the universe.

Actually it is an obvious fact, proven by empirical reasoning.
Likewise, the fact that homosexuality is natural and prevalent on all levels of life is an obvious fact.

But really, are we having fun?

Back in the day(if I remember correctly), Marriage was a religious institution, uniting a man and a woman under God. But then the big bad government got involved and screwed that up.

The big bad government made sure that spouses could vist one another in the hospital and that they could inherit the others property. Gee, how evil of them!

Beyond that, marriage likely originally evolved as a means of uniting families for power. The church only got involved later. Hell, when marriage actually evolved there was NO christian church.

I'm not a big fan of gay marriage, however, this is not a "christian" nation, it is a nation of christians, meaning chrisitans are the majority of the population. That does not mean that we are a theocracy and that government can not do something because it goes against a religious order. I think churches should have a right not to marry people in a religious sense. However, the state needs a non-religious reason for not marrying gay people.

Much applause and many props to you.

gay marriage should not be allowed because marriage is between a man and a woman because a man and a woman can concieve a child naturally. Marriage is basically so two people can have a child. If you have two people from the same sex they cannot create a child.

See recent previous posts as to why you are so incredibly wrong.

I've always been under the impression it was a religious commitment, and not a business deal like so many people make it out to be.
The government has no right to say whom you can or can't marry.
If gays can find a church and priest that will marry them, it's legal. Marriage is defined by the church.
Personally, I am against gays being married, because that's my belief. But what I don't understand is what people expect the government to do about it. Gays should pressure their church, not politicians. What happened to separation of church and state?

What happened to it? It still exists. You can legally get married outside of a church. A judge or a justice-of-the-peace or, in some communities, the mayor, can marry you. The government isn't interferring in church matters, instead they are allowing churches to assist them by granting rights to church marriages--its a matter of convenience and not one that has to be allowed.

I do agree with you, that churches should not have to recognize ANY marriage that they do not want to believe in. Of course, there already are churches (and other religious organizations) that will marry gays. By not recognizing those unions, the government is indeed trampling on freedom of religion by favoring one religion over another.

Bastard children are children that were concieved by accident. Otherwise they wouldve been married when it happened. Also name one other purpose for getting married other then having children with the one.


Love.

I believe all the government should recognize and sponsor are civil unions for both gays and straights. Marriage should be reserved for churches so that we can prevent the government from dictating what a church can or can not do. For this reason, I voted NO in this poll. I am not at all religious or affiliated with any religion however I do believe that freedom means equal freedom for all. We are just as wrong to force churches to marry gays when their beliefs run contrary to this as we are to refuse to recognize the union between two life partners.

No sorry read the declaration of independence the constitution you moron it seems to me like catholic ideals to me

The DoI is not the basis of our government.

i am a republican and support bush

however i believe that gays should have the same rights as any other married couple. However, it should not be classified as a marriage, but should be given a different classification, because it is a different type of relationship.

"Bastard children are children that were concieved by accident. Otherwise they wouldve been married when it happened. Also name one other purpose for getting married other then having children with the one."
wow get a clue, everything you said was wrong, i would recommend you do at least a little research on this topic before you say something stupid like that

can someone explain (lay off i'm only 13 ) why gay people can't just live together and spend their lives together. if they can't get married it's not like it will stop them from having a relationship...why do they have to get married?


confused...help

Because there are over 800 rights associated with marriage ranging from owning a house together to being able to visit one another in the hospital to legal protection for inheritance.

Imagine living with your "wife" but are not legally married (I'm assuming you are male and straight) for 20 years. You spend your lives together, every moment, and are deeply in love. However, your wife's family hates you and hasn't been around since you began your life together.

One day your wife is diagnosed with cancer and put in the hospital. Her family decides to show up. They have legal next of kin status and decide that they do not want you to visit her in the hospital. They decide to turn her life support off. She dies without you being allowed to say goodbye.

Then they decide not to allow you to attend her funeral.

And then, when her will is read she left the house (which happened to be in her name only because you weren't married) and car and all her money to you. Her family doesn't like you remember? They decide to go to court and contest the will. Since you were not legally her spouse, you are cut off from everything she left you--you don't even get to keep your pictures of her and the quilt she made you for your last birthday.

This story is fiction of course--but similiar things happena ll the time to gay couples. Because they can't get married, they aren't guaranteed the rights that straigh couples take for granted.

Gay people deserve to be able to spend their lives together, to celebrate their love, and to be ensured of the government recognizing the commitment that they made to one another. THAT is why gay marriage is so important. Gay people aren't asking that the Baptist church be forced to marry them--or any church. They are just asking for the legal protections that the government already gives to married couples who have chosen to publicly declare their love and commitment to one another.

I don't think you needed anothr poll. Many States spoke out on this issue last month. :)

And it just shows that there is a reason that civil rights issues should not be put up to a popular vote.

Actually it is an obvious fact, proven by empirical reasoning.
Likewise, the fact that homosexuality is natural and prevalent on all levels of life is an obvious fact.

But really, are we having fun?

Oh I'm having a blast. I think I'm a sadist. I get my jollies by watching the fundies wiggle and squirm.

I believe all the government should recognize and sponsor are civil unions for both gays and straights. Marriage should be reserved for churches so that we can prevent the government from dictating what a church can or can not do. For this reason, I voted NO in this poll. I am not at all religious or affiliated with any religion however I do believe that freedom means equal freedom for all. We are just as wrong to force churches to marry gays when their beliefs run contrary to this as we are to refuse to recognize the union between two life partners.

No one has ever proposed that churches be forced to marry gays. While I have no problem compromising the term marriage and instead having civil unions for gays and straights, I think that the fact that people cannot separate the concept of civil and religious marriage is rather hilarious.

Churches already have the right not to perform unions they do not believe in. They can refuse to marry people of different religions, interracial couples, or even people with mixed eye colors. No gay person has asked that any church be forced to marry them.

Rather, we ask that the government recognize our unions in teh same way they recognize straight unions (whether the wedding is performed in a church or not) and to give us equal rights.

i am a republican and support bush

however i believe that gays should have the same rights as any other married couple. However, it should not be classified as a marriage, but should be given a different classification, because it is a different type of relationship.

Separate is not equal.

However, that is as close as I've ever found to a decent arguement for it.

No one has ever proposed that churches be forced to marry gays. While I have no problem compromising the term marriage and instead having civil unions for gays and straights, I think that the fact that people cannot separate the concept of civil and religious marriage is rather hilarious.


Its true that there is nothing to force a church to marry couples they do not approve of however, in the eyes of many people, a marriage carries with it religious connotations which does not sit well with their beliefs. If we call all state sanctioned unions civil unions, the end result will be the same. Equal rights and protection for all people while perhaps helping alleviate the rancor of a more conservative populace. I suggest this because I think it might help gays gain the rights they're fighting for faster by allowing the uber-religious/conservative crowd a way to save face while lessening their fervent opposition.

Oh I'm having a blast. I think I'm a sadist. I get my jollies by watching the fundies wiggle and squirm.


Oh, i absolutely love that. Remind me to get you in with a civil union with me when we get the chance!

Like Pracus just said, people who are typically against homosexual unions fail to differenciate between civil and religious. We can go off and argue about the Biblical references to homosexuality, but the main point is that were being denied basic rights that should be given to any couple. Nobody is requesting churchs religious marry homosexuals, just that we can be seen as couples in the legal sense, and be given access to the same basic rights as other couples in union.

But yeah, im more or less echoing many people, which is encouraging, at least.

Oh, i absolutely love that. Remind me to get you in with a civil union with me when we get the chance!

Like Pracus just said, people who are typically against homosexual unions fail to differenciate between civil and religious. We can go off and argue about the Biblical references to homosexuality, but the main point is that were being denied basic rights that should be given to any couple. Nobody is requesting churchs religious marry homosexuals, just that we can be seen as couples in the legal sense, and be given access to the same basic rights as other couples in union.

But yeah, im more or less echoing many people, which is encouraging, at least.


no real comment, I just find your name amusing ^_^ oh, and I kind of agree with you. civil unions should be equal to marriages under the law.

Its true that there is nothing to force a church to marry couples they do not approve of however, in the eyes of many people, a marriage carries with it religious connotations which does not sit well with their beliefs. If we call all state sanctioned unions civil unions, the end result will be the same. Equal rights and protection for all people while perhaps helping alleviate the rancor of a more conservative populace. I suggest this because I think it might help gays gain the rights they're fighting for faster by allowing the uber-religious/conservative crowd a way to save face while lessening their fervent opposition.

I agree with you that it would expedite matters--that's why its a compromise I'm willing to make. It's one I shouldn't have to make, but I guess I am giving people too much credit for intelligence in expecting them to understand the difference between religion and governmental rights.

Oh, i absolutely love that. Remind me to get you in with a civil union with me when we get the chance!


If you can meet my requirements for my future spouse and don't mind that I am high maintenance, we might have made a match ;)

Provided you can do much wooing.

no real comment, I just find your name amusing ^_^ oh, and I kind of agree with you. civil unions should be equal to marriages under the law.

He's not saying that civil unions should be equal to marriages in the law. He's saying that EVERYONE should get civil unions and the government should do away with its use of the word marriage. People who want the rights get a civil union, people who want to be "married" go to a religious organization. Going to a religious organization and getting married does not automatically equate to rights--you still have to get the license.

Awwww, i heart my name too!

And Pracus, send me a CV, like everyone else! But dont worry, youve already ticked off the "not a blithering lump of saliva" box! ;)

I don't remember which one but recently in the news there was a story that homosexual marriages were screwing up the heterosexual marriages due to strange tax systems or something that was causing heterosexuals strange problems.

Anyway no. I'm not pro gay-marriage. The reason marriages are dealt with how they are is because it becomes a man and woman who are at least trying to create the next generation of Americans to provide a workforce to support programs like social security, etc.

Now don't jump to conclusions. I have some homosexual friends, coworkers, and even a family member. I just don't believe in creating special rights for homosexuals (Yes it is a special right. Any homsexual can marry somebody of the opposite sex).

I don't remember which one but recently in the news there was a story that homosexual marriages were screwing up the heterosexual marriages due to strange tax systems or something that was causing heterosexuals strange problems.

Gee, you mean the IRS screwing up paperwork is a reason to screw over ten percent of the population? Why don't we just get rid of marriage all together--afterall it probably makes things harder on the single population!

Actually, what I suspect you are getting to is the fact that the federal government has DOMA and refuses to recognize gay marriages (I'm assuming you are talking about MA). If they would just treat all Americans fairly there wouldn't be any confusion..


Anyway no. I'm not pro gay-marriage. The reason marriages are dealt with how they are is because it becomes a man and woman who are at least trying to create the next generation of Americans to provide a workforce to support programs like social security, etc.

What about the men and women who marry and AREN'T trying to creat the next generation of Americans? There are infertile couples, menopausal couples, and those who just don't want kids. Are they to be banned from marriage as well? And beyond that--gay people could adopt. Studies show they are just as successful at raising children as straight people. That would help to improve the future American workforce (though when we were proclaimed a fascist state in which we only exist to service the state, I'll never know).


Now don't jump to conclusions. I have some homosexual friends, coworkers, and even a family member. I just don't believe in creating special rights for homosexuals (Yes it is a special right. Any homsexual can marry somebody of the opposite sex).

Since when was marrying the person you love a special right? And by your own arguement, there wouldn't be special rights for gays--any heterosexual person could marry somebody of the same sex. It would still be equal, except that everyone would be able to marry the person they love and want to spend their life with.

Gee, that's so evil.

AGH! I GIVE IN!

O.K.! You're right! I surrender! Gay marriages are good! They should be allowed and gay people should have equal rights!

Now stop bothering me! There are too many of ye! I surrendered i tell ye! SURRENDERED!

*runs away and rocks in a corner...*

[QUOTE]

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?



Ah, I love your use of that phrase "PC thuggery". Those who have sought change in law to benefit homosexuals have not, to my knowledge, resorted to harmful means.

Maybe that's why we haven't succeeded. Consider the drastic and terrible riots that occured over the issue of racial equality. There were murders then committed for the sake of change. And you call us thugs. Shall we take up arms simply to show that we are serious in our pursuit of being recognized with equal humanity? Shall we hire "security" escorts of unlawful tradesmen to deal with those who oppose us? Maybe our worth will finally be acknowledged if we thin out the contenders.

We who seek this change have rejected such methods for the evil that they are.

We are lonely. We feel this because we are seen with cold eyes whenever we make known our existence. Our goal is not to do harm, not to damage the social web, but to be recognized. We will not let go of the belief that we have worth because we are human. And we want this change to protect our worth. We are a part of this society and want the benefits of our contributions as everyone else receives.

I don't remember which one but recently in the news there was a story that homosexual marriages were screwing up the heterosexual marriages due to strange tax systems or something that was causing heterosexuals strange problems.

Ah, yes, that's wonderful irony there. I heard this in a number of cities that issued gay marriage licenses without authorization. Now any couple united during that time in one of those places is not recognized as married! OF course, there's major noise over this, because while it's right to deny gays certain rights, it's an outrage to deny them to others. Of course, this is because the government once again screwed up in their overreaction to the gay marriage issue, but hey, let's blame the gays for that too. See, we were right, they are screwing up heterosexual marriage!

What a stupid argument...

Anyway no. I'm not pro gay-marriage. The reason marriages are dealt with how they are is because it becomes a man and woman who are at least trying to create the next generation of Americans to provide a workforce to support programs like social security, etc.

Oh yeah, because this country is grossly underpopulated.

Gay can raise a family, so next argument, please.

Now don't jump to conclusions. I have some homosexual friends, coworkers, and even a family member. I just don't believe in creating special rights for homosexuals (Yes it is a special right. Any homsexual can marry somebody of the opposite sex).

Yet another ridiculous argument. People of different colors were previously free to marry a person of their own color, too. Gee, let's think about how right that was.

I'm sure it's somehow different this time though. :rolleyes:

Good evening, Anbar, welcome to the resistance.

Why do I picture a bunch of folks with bike helmets (strangely, no bikes) hoisting a flag drawn in crayon?

I will make this brief and only to clear up a common myth among marriage (and interestingly enough, common with both religious and secular groups.)

Marriage, ladies and gentlemen, was never created to be a religious institution. Whats more, it was never created to be a Christian institution. It predates Christianity, for one; and while it doesn't predate religion, religion was never a part of it's complace, in the beginning. Marriage was founded as a means for two people (and thus two families) to establish lines of wealth. That's all. There was no Male / Female, there was no Sanctity of Marriage (in fact, it was common for both the man and the wife to have lovers on the side) and it held no religious significance. It was there to create ties.

I could get into how the founding fathers were NOT Christian, as is the myth, but were in fact deists, and both Thomas Jefferson and Benjamen Franklin both spoke out AGAINST Christianity many times ... but I won't.

:sniper:

Want your cake and eat it too maybe?

Yeah, otherwise what's the point of cake?

WRONG. Only some of the founders were Deists. A majority were Christian and the country was founded on Christian principles. :headbang:
Damn, I'm getting a head ache!

Care to provide some evidence for your claim?

Care to provide some evidence for your claim?
Probably not

I don't remember which one but recently in the news there was a story that homosexual marriages were screwing up the heterosexual marriages due to strange tax systems or something that was causing heterosexuals strange problems.

Anyway no. I'm not pro gay-marriage. The reason marriages are dealt with how they are is because it becomes a man and woman who are at least trying to create the next generation of Americans to provide a workforce to support programs like social security, etc.

Now don't jump to conclusions. I have some homosexual friends, coworkers, and even a family member. I just don't believe in creating special rights for homosexuals (Yes it is a special right. Any homsexual can marry somebody of the opposite sex).

And, of course... if your argument isn't just ridiculous bias.... any heterosexual can marry a member of their OWN sex, right?

Oh, no... that's it... heterosexuals get a 'special right' to marry the gender they like, don't they?

Why do I picture a bunch of folks with bike helmets (strangely, no bikes) hoisting a flag drawn in crayon?

Strangely my mental image always involved pith helmets. . . am I giving you rebellious guys too much credit?

And while we're sitting discussing whether or not the founding fathers were actually Christian....

Over $150,000,000,000(and counting) was spent behind our backs on Iraq.

(I work for a group called the National Priorities Project. The information I used to make this statement can be found at our Cost of the Iraq War website. (http://costofwar.com/)).

I still have problems with the fact that there have been 2,400 posts on this topic. Why does any one care?

I can't figure out to save myself why this is such a big deal. Who cares? Why not just let people live in peace and if two guys want to call themselves married, who does that really hurt?

If a gay couple wants to adopt an orphan, isn't two parents better than an orphanage? Even if it is two of the same gender?

Holy Crap!! My brain....hurting from the pointlessness of this thread....help...please....its....sooo....STUPID!!!

And while we're sitting discussing whether or not the founding fathers were actually Christian....

Over $150,000,000,000(and counting) was spent behind our backs on Iraq.

(I work for a group called the National Priorities Project. The information I used to make this statement can be found at our Cost of the Iraq War website. (http://costofwar.com/)).
look can u guys plzzz stick to gay marrages, i dnt know wot has been goin on but gay maariges has notin to do with politics,bush,racsim,money,and religion so plz stick to the topic ppl

on another note im against gay marrage, i just dnt like it, i dnt h8 gay ppl i just h8 the fact they aaarrreee gay. to me its inmoral,un-natural and i mean rly we the humans must be a pretty stupid species to be goin out wit da same sex u dnt see ducks or cats goin out wit the same sex, we humans are also not meant for homosexuality, come to think of it... nothing is made to be that way, but i guess not everyone feels that way

I still have problems with the fact that there have been 2,400 posts on this topic. Why does any one care?

I can't figure out to save myself why this is such a big deal. Who cares? Why not just let people live in peace and if two guys want to call themselves married, who does that really hurt?

If a gay couple wants to adopt an orphan, isn't two parents better than an orphanage? Even if it is two of the same gender?

Holy Crap!! My brain....hurting from the pointlessness of this thread....help...please....its....sooo....STUPID!!!


I agree with you that the peopel fighting against us are pretty much being stupid. However, would you also say that those of us who are fighting for equality from our govnernment are also being stupid?

And while we're sitting discussing whether or not the founding fathers were actually Christian....

Over $150,000,000,000(and counting) was spent behind our backs on Iraq.

(I work for a group called the National Priorities Project. The information I used to make this statement can be found at our Cost of the Iraq War website. (http://costofwar.com/)).


This is so relevant. Want to talk about wasting time and misplaced priorities? WHY ARE YOU POSTING THIS HERE? If we cared, we'd be on a thread about the Iraq war. Yeesh.

i voted yes 'cause i have always supported the gay/lesbian/bisexual marriage thingy......my mom once told me.....true love is so very difficult to find, that it's pointless to stick to only one race if you think the one you want is from another (i am american and my husband is from india).......and that is exactly how i feel about this situation......i am hetrosexual, but not everyone is and i accept that.......and if somene from any of the other sexual preferences can find someone who wants to be with them for the rest of their lives, then who am i to say they cannot be?.....who is anyone to say they cannot be?.....everyone on this planet has the right to be happy in love and not be told by outsiders that they cannot be together just cause THEY do not agree with their preferences.......if it offends you, then ignore them......if it doesn't, then support them :p

look can u guys plzzz stick to gay marrages, i dnt know wot has been goin on but gay maariges has notin to do with politics,bush,racsim,money,and religion so plz stick to the topic ppl

on another note im against gay marrage, i just dnt like it, i dnt h8 gay ppl i just h8 the fact they aaarrreee gay. to me its inmoral,un-natural and i mean rly we the humans must be a pretty stupid species to be goin out wit da same sex u dnt see ducks or cats goin out wit the same sex, we humans are also not meant for homosexuality, come to think of it... nothing is made to be that way, but i guess not everyone feels that way

Actually, you do see ducks and cats "going at it" with the same sex. Homosexuality occurs in every mammalian species. However your hating "the fact they aaarrreee gay" and to you "its inmoral, un-natural" is the best arguement I've heard against it. :rolleyes:

Try to learn the English language and critical thought and then just maybe you might make a point worth listening to. That's the only way you are goign to be able to change anyone's mind.

I still have problems with the fact that there have been 2,400 posts on this topic. Why does any one care?

I can't figure out to save myself why this is such a big deal. Who cares? Why not just let people live in peace and if two guys want to call themselves married, who does that really hurt?

If a gay couple wants to adopt an orphan, isn't two parents better than an orphanage? Even if it is two of the same gender?

Holy Crap!! My brain....hurting from the pointlessness of this thread....help...please....its....sooo....STUPID!!!

if its sooooooo stupid y dnt u explain to me the stupidity of ur thread, if 2 gay men adopt a boy they will raise that boy in their image (gay) later they boy grows up hooks up with another boy then they marry lets say...later they adopt another boy and this all happens all over again, if this continues the human race might be at risk, now im prob sounding a bit dramatic here but if gay marriage dioes pass this could get out of hand

if its sooooooo stupid y dnt u explain to me the stupidity of ur thread, if 2 gay men adopt a boy they will raise that boy in their image (gay) later they boy grows up hooks up with another boy then they marry lets say...later they adopt another boy and this all happens all over again, if this continues the human race might be at risk, now im prob sounding a bit dramatic here but if gay marriage dioes pass this could get out of hand

You've obviously not researched this at all and are basing it totally on your own biases. Children raised by gay couples are no more or less likely to be gay than anyone else in the general population. They funtion just as well emotionally, intellectually, psychologically, and socially. If your assumption was true, then straight parents would only have straight children. Since I was raised by straight parents, I guess I'm just deluding myself :rolleyes:

I could also address the ludicracy the assinine idea that somehow gays raising children would lead to the apocalypse of the human race, but I think is laughable enough in itself.

Honestly people, do you ever research ANYTHING before you speak?

Actually, you do see ducks and cats "going at it" with the same sex. Homosexuality occurs in every mammalian species. However your hating "the fact they aaarrreee gay" and to you "its inmoral, un-natural" is the best arguement I've heard against it. :rolleyes:

Try to learn the English language and critical thought and then just maybe you might make a point worth listening to. That's the only way you are goign to be able to change anyone's mind.

lol Sorry I will try to watch my spelling and grammar, I'm just glad you didn't get angry. Usually people get angry at me when I make my argument. At least I'm not throwin in some random issue like Bush or Christianity.

lol Sorry I will try to watch my spelling and grammar, I'm just glad you didn't get angry. Usually people get angry at me when I make my argument. At least I'm not throwin in some random issue like Bush or Christianity.

Actually, I did get angry. I've just learned that its not worth it to show my anger (though I still haven't mastered that skill). Your arguements are poorly thought out and are certainly not logical or researched. Further, I was being facetious when I said it was one of the most convincing ones I've heard.

if its sooooooo stupid y dnt u explain to me the stupidity of ur thread, if 2 gay men adopt a boy they will raise that boy in their image (gay) later they boy grows up hooks up with another boy then they marry lets say...later they adopt another boy and this all happens all over again, if this continues the human race might be at risk, now im prob sounding a bit dramatic here but if gay marriage dioes pass this could get out of hand



whatever....apparently you do not have your facts straight.....gay men and lesbian women are not MADE that way silly nilly....they are BORN that way.....2 gay men raising a boy child is NOT gonna make that boy gay unless he ALREADY was.....i have known gay men and lesbian who lived together and raised perfectly healthy HETROSEXUAL boys and girls......it has nothing to do with how someone is raised...its all in the brain....how the makeup of it is......you are hetrosexual 'cause of something in your brain that makes you THINK and FEEL that way.......it is not their fault they feel things the way they do or think things the way they do....so why do people like you perscute them for it?.....it's be like going after you 'cause you sleep or breathe.....get over it....it's not a CHOICE for them....it's just how they ARE

You've obviously not researched this at all and are basing it totally on your own biases. Children raised by gay couples are no more or less likely to be gay than anyone else in the general population. They funtion just as well emotionally, intellectually, psychologically, and socially. If your assumption was true, then straight parents would only have straight children. Since I was raised by straight parents, I guess I'm just deluding myself :rolleyes:

I could also address the ludicracy the assinine idea that somehow gays raising children would lead to the apocalypse of the human race, but I think is laughable enough in itself.

Honestly people, do you ever research ANYTHING before you speak?

Ok look I see you have a point and I exagerrated a bit when I said that. I guess you could also say like when parents divorce. You could be raised by divorced parents but, you will probably have a happier marriage when you grow up. :)
But I'm still totally agaisnt gay marriage. No argument in the world could convince me, although when I say that it sounds like I'm a child.

I agree with you that the peopel fighting against us are pretty much being stupid. However, would you also say that those of us who are fighting for equality from our govnernment are also being stupid?

I think its stupid because I don't think it should be a Federal issue, it's a state and local issue, and a minor one at that.

look can u guys plzzz stick to gay marrages, i dnt know wot has been goin on but gay maariges has notin to do with politics,bush,racsim,money,and religion so plz stick to the topic ppl

on another note im against gay marrage, i just dnt like it, i dnt h8 gay ppl i just h8 the fact they aaarrreee gay. to me its inmoral,un-natural and i mean rly we the humans must be a pretty stupid species to be goin out wit da same sex u dnt see ducks or cats goin out wit the same sex, we humans are also not meant for homosexuality, come to think of it... nothing is made to be that way, but i guess not everyone feels that way

First point: The issue of gay marriage was a cleverly implemented distraction issue to keep people from thinking about how horribly everything else has gotten. How anyone could've voted that Bush is doing a great job in Iraq without having some seemingly greater 'demon' to worry about is beyond common logic...the failings of Clinton's work in Bosnia pale in comparison to the impact the war on Iraq is having on the world.

Second: Other species are 'guilty' of some cases of homosexuality. A couple years ago, for example, two male penguins in Central Park Zoo in New York City were sighted attempting fornication, not to mention how many same-sex dogs I've seen in my time getting it on. This should be evidence enough that homosexuality is, to some extent, natural, if not necessarily a 'normal' thing, as subjective as that term is.

I think its stupid because I don't think it should be a Federal issue, it's a state and local issue, and a minor one at that.

Who chose to make it a federal issue? The people who passed DOMA. I agree that matters of family law should be handled on the state level--of course since the federal consitution supercedes state law and because several amendments together basically show that gay marriage should be legal because of their contents of freedom of religion, equal protection, and due process, its really already a matter that is solved. The problem is getting people to recognize our rights.

whatever....apparently you do not have your facts straight.....gay men and lesbian women are not MADE that way silly nilly....they are BORN that way.....2 gay men raising a boy child is NOT gonna make that boy gay unless he ALREADY was.....i have known gay men and lesbian who lived together and raised perfectly healthy HETROSEXUAL boys and girls......it has nothing to do with how someone is raised...its all in the brain....how the makeup of it is......you are hetrosexual 'cause of something in your brain that makes you THINK and FEEL that way.......it is not their fault they feel things the way they do or think things the way they do....so why do people like you perscute them for it?.....it's be like going after you 'cause you sleep or breathe.....get over it....it's not a CHOICE for them....it's just how they ARE

Look you got me all wrong. I am not trying to "persecute" them. I was a bit mistaken but still stand strong against homosexuality and gay marriage. I'm sorry for gays who think, well, gay. But if we were to come to a consensus the human race isn't a species meant for homosexuality, alhtough it happens a lot I'll admit. Please nobody think I'm a strange person who loathes gay people and would shoot them all. I just don't like it for it's inmorality and un-naturality.

Look you got me all wrong. I am not trying to "persecute" them. I was a bit mistaken but still stand strong against homosexuality and gay marriage. I'm sorry for gays who think, well, gay. But if we were to come to a consensus the human race isn't a species meant for homosexuality, alhtough it happens a lot I'll admit. Please nobody think I'm a strange person who loathes gay people and would shoot them all. I just don't like it for it's inmorality and un-naturality.

Guess what? Denying us equal rights is persecution. And who are you to decide that we as a species shouldn't have homosexuals? Homosexuality has been shown to confer several selective advantages on a species. Gay couples provide resources for others children and care for them while not adding any additional mouths themselves. They are a mechanism of population control.

And why do you think its immoral (really, you need to work on spelling) and unnatural? How is it immoral for two people to love one another and want to spend their lives together? How is it unnatural if it occurs in nature?

Who chose to make it a federal issue? The people who passed DOMA. I agree that matters of family law should be handled on the state level--of course since the federal consitution supercedes state law and because several amendments together basically show that gay marriage should be legal because of their contents of freedom of religion, equal protection, and due process, its really already a matter that is solved. The problem is getting people to recognize our rights.

Eh, re-read your Constitution there, Scooter.

Federal law does not supercede state law, that's a misnomer that they need to stop teaching in public schools. Just how would Congress regulate marriage through the interstate commerce clause?

But I agree, and I think it's one of the last places that institutionalized racism can be applied by the Moral Majority in this country. I find they are not moral, nor are they a majority, but they are vocal. This may be bad of me to say, but I don't especially support gay marriage per se, I frankly don't care. I would advise that there be a ban on gay marriage because divorce sucks, and I wouldn't want them to have to go through it either. ;)

If straight people can get married then why can't gays?

~~LOL~~...i need to work on my spelling too...but i am tired, just pulled a grave shift...there is my excuse.... :P


but Pracus is right....deciding someone is wrong 'cause to you it is immoral and unnatural is a form of persecution, even if you really do not see it that way.....it's telling someone they cannot be what they are 'cause you say so or you think so

Guess what? Denying us equal rights is persecution. And who are you to decide that we as a species shouldn't have homosexuals? Homosexuality has been shown to confer several selective advantages on a species. Gay couples provide resources for others children and care for them while not adding any additional mouths themselves. They are a mechanism of population control.

And why do you think its immoral (really, you need to work on spelling) and unnatural? How is it immoral for two people to love one another and want to spend their lives together? How is it unnatural if it occurs in nature?

Wow I have noticed how good arguers you gay people are, really no offense, but please I make one spelling mistake and you guys are making me look stupid, lets stick to the topic. You have an excellent point but,... AGH forget it. I give up the human race got itslef into this mess and it doesn't look like it can get out. I am very sorry for all you gay people but it looks like now the majority of people on Earth are or are for homosexuality. Please don't think of me as evil or something it's just, the way me and my friends view things and my family, to me being gay is like the death penalty for littering, it makes no sense. But I respect the way you think and I admire your strength in this issue. But it looks like no argument I have can even convince one person. :(

~~LOL~~...i need to work on my spelling too...but i am tired, just pulled a grave shift...there is my excuse.... :P


but Pracus is right....deciding someone is wrong 'cause to you it is immoral and unnatural is a form of persecution, even if you really do not see it that way.....it's telling someone they cannot be what they are 'cause you say so or you think so
Look these are just my feelings and opinions. I never said I'm going to the U.N. and banning all homosexuality. Sheesh people calm down.

Wow I have noticed how good arguers you gay people are, really no offense, but please I make one spelling mistake and you guys are making me look stupid, lets stick to the topic. You have an excellent point but,... AGH forget it. I give up the human race got itslef into this mess and it doesn't look like it can get out. I am very sorry for all you gay people but it looks like now the majority of people on Earth are or are for homosexuality. Please don't think of me as evil or something it's just, the way me and my friends view things and my family, to me being gay is like the death penalty for littering, it makes no sense. But I respect the way you think and I admire your strength in this issue. But it looks like no argument I have can even convince one person. :(



~~LOL~~...not all of us here today arguing are gay/lesbian, but since some of the best peeps i know ARE thatta way, i'll take that as a compliment.......there are peeps who bash peeps who are christian, and i have a feeling you are christian, so imagine how it feels to you to know there are christian bashers out there who think people who worship in that fashion are wrong and should not be allowed...notta very good feelin huh?....then think how it feels to the gay n lesbian community when the same thing is done to them day after day.......

I give up the human race got itslef into this mess and it doesn't look like it can get out. I am very sorry for all you gay people but it looks like now the majority of people on Earth are or are for homosexuality.

Don't worry, they probably feel sorry for you and think you don't know what you're missing...

There are certain legal protections that go along with being married in a civil sense. These include hundreds of protections, some of which are very necessary (ie. next of kin status, power of attorney, sharing of assets and debts, spousal immunity, abolishment of inheritance tax, extension of insurance benefits, child custody etc.) and some are just convenient (sharing fishing licenses, filing taxes together, etc.)

The point is that these legal protections are offered, but are currently offered in a discriminatory (which is against the 14th Amendment) manner. Thus, if the government is to offer marriage protections at all, it should do so equally to all couples which need said protections.


thanks for sharing your huge amount of info...it is greatly needed in my young mind. :) fishing licenses...:)

There's nothing wrong with a little more freedom.

"Society" makes rules to govern behavior. Theorietically, these rules are based on some generally accepted standards of behavior, whether arising from religious beliefs, moral principles, or safety/welfare factors. Society is intolerant of many bad things, and homosexual behavior should be one of those.

It is my opinion that homosexual behavior is aberrant and degrading behavior that subverts the core relationship of society: the physical and emotional bond between men and women. I believe that the homosexual behavior is a matter of choice, and I have not seen or heard of a single, positive affect that homosexual behavior has on society.

While people very well may "think" as they choose, it is society's responsibility to protect itself from behaviors that denigrate the sanctity of each human life. Although some societies has tolerated and/or condoned homosexual behavior, basic human culture over thousands of years has not accepted it. Unfortunately, and despite thousands of years of it being considered deviant, homosexuality now seems to be in vogue.

It is fashionable now-a-days to ridicule people who believe that homosexual behavior is deviant. For the many who disagree with me, I welcome a respectful discussion of this very serious topic.

"Society" makes rules to govern behavior. Theorietically, these rules are based on some generally accepted standards of behavior, whether arising from religious beliefs, moral principles, or safety/welfare factors. Society is intolerant of many bad things, and homosexual behavior should be one of those.

It is my opinion that homosexual behavior is aberrant and degrading behavior that subverts the core relationship of society: the physical and emotional bond between men and women. I believe that the homosexual behavior is a matter of choice, and I have not seen or heard of a single, positive affect that homosexual behavior has on society.

While people very well may "think" as they choose, it is society's responsibility to protect itself from behaviors that denigrate the sanctity of each human life. Although some societies has tolerated and/or condoned homosexual behavior, basic human culture over thousands of years has not accepted it. Unfortunately, and despite thousands of years of it being considered deviant, homosexuality now seems to be in vogue.

It is fashionable now-a-days to ridicule people who believe that homosexual behavior is deviant. For the many who disagree with me, I welcome a respectful discussion of this very serious topic.

With such disdainful, grandiose and erroneous claims, a respectful serious discussion probably won't happen.

There's nothing wrong with a little more freedom.

"Freedom" from what? "Freedom" in what?. "Freedom" for what?

It's ok to have an emotional attachment to your dog, but shouldn't there be some limit for where society draws the line on affectionate behavior?

If you equate extending marital rights to homosexuals with just moving the line a teensy bit for the sake of "a little more freedom", just where would you decide to draw the line?

Some people think bestiality is ok. or even pedophilia. If you think it's wrong, then are you intolerant? Are you persecuting those people?

It seems to me that people either have a set standard upon which they base their beliefs/opinions or they don't. If you don't have a set standard from which you base your beliefs of what is right and what is wrong, how do you draw that line?

"Freedom" from what? "Freedom" in what?. "Freedom" for what?

It's ok to have an emotional attachment to your dog, but shouldn't there be some limit for where society draws the line on affectionate behavior?

If you equate extending marital rights to homosexuals with just moving the line a teensy bit for the sake of "a little more freedom", just where would you decide to draw the line?

Some people think bestiality is ok. or even pedophilia. If you think it's wrong, then are you intolerant? Are you persecuting those people?

It seems to me that people either have a set standard upon which they base their beliefs/opinions or they don't. If you don't have a set standard from which you base your beliefs of what is right and what is wrong, how do you draw that line?


Firstly, by getting it straight homosexuality is not bestiality nor pedophilia.

It seems to me that people either have a set standard upon which they base their beliefs/opinions or they don't. If you don't have a set standard from which you base your beliefs of what is right and what is wrong, how do you draw that line?

Why can't one have a set standard of beliefs that draws the line after gay marriage, but before bestiality? After all, there is a fundamental difference between people, whatever gender they are, and cows.

A recycked bumper sticker for you...

"Gay marriage will lead to bestiality marriage just like women voting lead to hamsters voting."

If straight people can get married then why can't gays?

Gays can get married to a person of the opposite gender, just like straights. There is no difference in rights at all between gays and straights in relation to marriage.

But that being said, it's tyranny that the government can control who gets married or not. This whole debate is just a perpetuation of the government's tyranny. Both sides are wrong and this poll is a perpetuation of government tyranny adn helping the government in restricting our freedoms.

Gays can get married to a person of the opposite gender, just like straights. There is no difference in rights at all between gays and straights in relation to marriage.

Straights can marry someone they love and are attracted to. Gays cannot.

Thus, different rights.

if its sooooooo stupid y dnt u explain to me the stupidity of ur thread, if 2 gay men adopt a boy they will raise that boy in their image (gay) later they boy grows up hooks up with another boy then they marry lets say...later they adopt another boy and this all happens all over again, if this continues the human race might be at risk, now im prob sounding a bit dramatic here but if gay marriage dioes pass this could get out of hand

That's what they called in debate class a slippery slope. You have no evidence what so ever that a boy raised by two gay men will be gay. Furthermore, if you don't like homosexuality, support gaymarriage, because then by your reasoning, if gay marriages are allowed, then gays won't feel forced societally to be in heterosexual marriages that they'll eventually quit. Since no children can be produced from a homosexual relationship, then eventually the homosexual population will die off, because there will be no one to replace them.

See? That's clearly bullshit. Why not let two people who want to be together be together in whatever fashion they choose, because, frankly, whether you like what they do or not, it's still none of your business.

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

I know there are extremely conservative gays who strongly support Bush, and I'd think if they were strongly FOR gay marriage, they wouldn't support him so much. But I dunno.

if its sooooooo stupid y dnt u explain to me the stupidity of ur thread, if 2 gay men adopt a boy they will raise that boy in their image (gay) later they boy grows up hooks up with another boy then they marry lets say...later they adopt another boy and this all happens all over again, if this continues the human race might be at risk, now im prob sounding a bit dramatic here but if gay marriage dioes pass this could get out of hand

That...do you know ANYTHING? People raised by gay people do NOT necessarily grow up gay. Homosexuality isn't CONTAGIOUS, for god's sake. There are PLENTLY of people who've been raised by gay people and have grown up to marry fellow heterosexuals. There's no way the human population is at risk from that kind of thing. And, even if it were, to be quite honest, the world could use a bit of population control right now. A lot of countries, such as China, are incredibly overpopulated. So, really, what you said there was completely ridiculous and didn't resemble anything even close to a rational argument.

Eh, re-read your Constitution there, Scooter.

Federal law does not supercede state law, that's a misnomer that they need to stop teaching in public schools. Just how would Congress regulate marriage through the interstate commerce clause?

But I agree, and I think it's one of the last places that institutionalized racism can be applied by the Moral Majority in this country. I find they are not moral, nor are they a majority, but they are vocal. This may be bad of me to say, but I don't especially support gay marriage per se, I frankly don't care. I would advise that there be a ban on gay marriage because divorce sucks, and I wouldn't want them to have to go through it either. ;)


Then why can states not deprive their peoples of freedom of speech? of religion? of women's suffrage? Rights guaranteed by the federal consitution cannot be denied by the states. This isn't a difficult concept.

Gay people have as much right to equality, freedom to worship in the way they see fit (if marriage irs purely religious then to deny marriage to anyone is to violate their religion), and the right to due process.

However, thank you for being opposed to institutionalized racism.

Wow I have noticed how good arguers you gay people are, really no offense, but please I make one spelling mistake and you guys are making me look stupid, lets stick to the topic. You have an excellent point but,... AGH forget it. I give up the human race got itslef into this mess and it doesn't look like it can get out. I am very sorry for all you gay people but it looks like now the majority of people on Earth are or are for homosexuality. Please don't think of me as evil or something it's just, the way me and my friends view things and my family, to me being gay is like the death penalty for littering, it makes no sense. But I respect the way you think and I admire your strength in this issue. But it looks like no argument I have can even convince one person. :(

You're right--and I hate to be rude--but it is because you are just wrong. And your viewpoints ARE evil. I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you. You and your friends are free to view the world any way you want--but that doesn't exist in a vacuum. Homosexuality can only be wrong and unnatural and something "the human race got itself" into if people choose or can be made gay. It is not a choice nor can it be forced upon anyone. Nor it is a punishment--it simply is. Its like blonde hair or blue eyes, we are what we are--but most importantly we are human and we deserve equal and fair treatment. We have committed no crime, we hurt no one, our existance does not threaten anyone else. We deserve equality.

Forgive my flippant use of dashes.

:fluffle: Yes. If people, doesn't matter what the combo is, woman & woman, man & man, man, man, man & woman, people should be allowed to marry.

Religion should have no play in it, because "God" has nothing to do with how we love.

And the right wingers... they just go out of their way to make people's lives a living hell. :sniper:

"Society" makes rules to govern behavior. Theorietically, these rules are based on some generally accepted standards of behavior, whether arising from religious beliefs, moral principles, or safety/welfare factors. Society is intolerant of many bad things, and homosexual behavior should be one of those.


Care to share why homosexuality is wrong? Or why society should be tolerant of people who wish to deny others rights even when they don't harm anyone? How is homosexuality a bad thing? Since we are a secular nation, leave religion out of it.


It is my opinion that homosexual behavior is aberrant and degrading behavior that subverts the core relationship of society: the physical and emotional bond between men and women. I believe that the homosexual behavior is a matter of choice, and I have not seen or heard of a single, positive affect that homosexual behavior has on society.


Support the statement that the core relationship of society is between men and women. Support that homosexuality is a choice. As for positive effects--having green eyes has no positive effect, why do we stand for them to live? If you will also do a search on evolutionary theories, you will find several that offer reasons why homosexuals actually benefit a species.


While people very well may "think" as they choose, it is society's responsibility to protect itself from behaviors that denigrate the sanctity of each human life. Although some societies has tolerated and/or condoned homosexual behavior, basic human culture over thousands of years has not accepted it. Unfortunately, and despite thousands of years of it being considered deviant, homosexuality now seems to be in vogue.

How does homosexuality denigrate the sanctity of each human life? What does it take away from straight people? Basic human culture has also treated women as inferiors and owned slaves--is that still acceptable?


It is fashionable now-a-days to ridicule people who believe that homosexual behavior is deviant. For the many who disagree with me, I welcome a respectful discussion of this very serious topic.

Let me assure you, I don't do this because I am fashionable. I do it because I am a human and deserve equality.

It's ok to have an emotional attachment to your dog, but shouldn't there be some limit for where society draws the line on affectionate behavior?

If you equate extending marital rights to homosexuals with just moving the line a teensy bit for the sake of "a little more freedom", just where would you decide to draw the line?

Some people think bestiality is ok. or even pedophilia. If you think it's wrong, then are you intolerant? Are you persecuting those people?


There is a difference between bestiality (which by the way is far more common in the world than you are probably willing to accept) and pedophilia and in homosexuality.

Homosexual relationships involve consenting adults. Those others do not. Where consent cannot be given, a marriage cannot be formed. It's that simple.


It seems to me that people either have a set standard upon which they base their beliefs/opinions or they don't. If you don't have a set standard from which you base your beliefs of what is right and what is wrong, how do you draw that line?

I just gave you a set standard, but here it is again. When two adults are consenting and profess love for one another and their union does not threaten others (gay unions do not) then they should be allowed.

Show me one way that gay unions threaten society and I'll discuss it with you. Simply saying "it threatens the santity of straight marriage" or that's the way its always been done will not suffice. If you cannot provide this evidence, then you are just a bigot like all the others, despite your big words and grandiose manner.

I know there are extremely conservative gays who strongly support Bush, and I'd think if they were strongly FOR gay marriage, they wouldn't support him so much. But I dunno.

Most conservative GLBQs I know (and I go to a women's college in Virginia, so I know plenty) don't think that Bush can actually pass the Defense of Marriage act, so it's nothing to be concerned about.

I Fucking Hate Fags!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! Flame ! !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If that is the case, might I direct you to www.godhatesfigs.com?

Oh mr. Wolfenstein Castle, I can TOTALLY see where youre coming from. I mean, there was this one time i smoked a couple of Superkings cigarettes, eugh. Hated it. Ill never have another.

if its sooooooo stupid y dnt u explain to me the stupidity of ur thread, if 2 gay men adopt a boy they will raise that boy in their image (gay) later they boy grows up hooks up with another boy then they marry lets say...later they adopt another boy and this all happens all over again, if this continues the human race might be at risk, now im prob sounding a bit dramatic here but if gay marriage dioes pass this could get out of hand

Ridiculous, I'm afraid.

If you could 'raise' someone as 'gay' just by beign a gay parent... there would never have been any gay children, would there?

Because, surely, since only heterosexual intercourse can produce children, children could only be born to heterosexuals... and so they would be raised as 'heterosexuals'... right?

"Freedom" from what? "Freedom" in what?. "Freedom" for what?

It's ok to have an emotional attachment to your dog, but shouldn't there be some limit for where society draws the line on affectionate behavior?

If you equate extending marital rights to homosexuals with just moving the line a teensy bit for the sake of "a little more freedom", just where would you decide to draw the line?

Some people think bestiality is ok. or even pedophilia. If you think it's wrong, then are you intolerant? Are you persecuting those people?

It seems to me that people either have a set standard upon which they base their beliefs/opinions or they don't. If you don't have a set standard from which you base your beliefs of what is right and what is wrong, how do you draw that line?


Two Words:


"CONSENTING ADULTS".

Now, go think about that for a minute, and see why paedophilia and bestiality are not the same sport, let alone the same ballpark.

That's what they called in debate class a slippery slope. You have no evidence what so ever that a boy raised by two gay men will be gay. Furthermore, if you don't like homosexuality, support gaymarriage, because then by your reasoning, if gay marriages are allowed, then gays won't feel forced societally to be in heterosexual marriages that they'll eventually quit. Since no children can be produced from a homosexual relationship, then eventually the homosexual population will die off, because there will be no one to replace them.

See? That's clearly bullshit. Why not let two people who want to be together be together in whatever fashion they choose, because, frankly, whether you like what they do or not, it's still none of your business.

Hey, wait... there might be some logic here... my two lesbian friends have a twelve year old son... and he has a girlfriend...

MY GOD... they've raised their SON as a LESBIAN!!!!

This thread (among many others) makes my head hurt. I had this argument not long ago, but to cut to the chase, if gay marriage is such an abomination, then why are gay couples allowed to adopt children? Why in the world, if its such a damning horrible thing-would they put little innocent children in the care of a gay couple? If they are granted the rights and freedom to love and cherish something as precious as a child, then why cant they have the rights and freedoms to marry each other ...and have it legal and recognized, say just as adoptions have to be.

LET ME IN THE WHITEHOUSE DAMNIT!

This thread (among many others) makes my head hurt. I had this argument not long ago, but to cut to the chase, if gay marriage is such an abomination, then why are gay couples allowed to adopt children? Why in the world, if its such a damning horrible thing-would they put little innocent children in the care of a gay couple? If they are granted the rights and freedom to love and cherish something as precious as a child, then why cant they have the rights and freedoms to marry each other ...and have it legal and recognized, say just as adoptions have to be.

LET ME IN THE WHITEHOUSE DAMNIT!

Hell, I'd vote for you. :)

I believe in gay marriage but only in the sense of tax affiliations, the things a marriage has in a government sense. In a church or sacramental sense I am against it. I beleive that a church as a private instituition should be aloud to define there sacramental rights however they choose as long as it does not cause some sort of phsical harm.

Hey, wait... there might be some logic here... my two lesbian friends have a twelve year old son... and he has a girlfriend...

MY GOD... they've raised their SON as a LESBIAN!!!!

HOLY SHIT!! Quick!! Get that kid out of there!! He might buy a Harley, listen to Tracy Chapman and wear flannel!! If he makes an ice sculpture with a chainsaw, it's too late. :D

I believe in gay marriage but only in the sense of tax affiliations, the things a marriage has in a government sense. In a church or sacramental sense I am against it. I beleive that a church as a private instituition should be aloud to define there sacramental rights however they choose as long as it does not cause some sort of phsical harm.


Guess what dude--religious organization already get to define their sacraments!! No one has ever proposed changing that.

Since when has a consenting relationship between two adults been a legitimate excuse for allowing behaviors that society abhors?

If you want homosexuality to be recognized as a behavior that deserves "legitimacy", just say so. Then, politely and maturely discuss the reasons.

But, we don't allow one consenting adult to kill another just because it's a "mercy" killing. We don't allow two thugs to beat their brains out in a street fight just because they're consenting (of course, for some reason society thinks it's ok if it's a civilized brain-beating in the ring). So, please use some other reason besides the fact that it's consensual.

I understand that it's consensual, but it's my opinion that certain things, even if consensual, should not be allowed.

Since when has a consenting relationship between two adults been a legitimate excuse for allowing behaviors that society abhors?

If you want homosexuality to be recognized as a behavior that deserves "legitimacy", just say so. Then, politely and maturely discuss the reasons.

But, we don't allow one consenting adult to kill another just because it's a "mercy" killing. We don't allow two thugs to beat their brains out in a street fight just because they're consenting (of course, for some reason society thinks it's ok if it's a civilized brain-beating in the ring). So, please use some other reason besides the fact that it's consensual.

I understand that it's consensual, but it's my opinion that certain things, even if consensual, should not be allowed.

Y helo thar strawman.

Since when has a consenting relationship between two adults been a legitimate excuse for allowing behaviors that society abhors?

If you want homosexuality to be recognized as a behavior that deserves "legitimacy", just say so. Then, politely and maturely discuss the reasons.

But, we don't allow one consenting adult to kill another just because it's a "mercy" killing. We don't allow two thugs to beat their brains out in a street fight just because they're consenting (of course, for some reason society thinks it's ok if it's a civilized brain-beating in the ring). So, please use some other reason besides the fact that it's consensual.

I understand that it's consensual, but it's my opinion that certain things, even if consensual, should not be allowed.

That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it.

As far as I can see, society doesn't abhor homosexuality... sure, not evertone practices it, but most people are willing to tolerate it in their communities.

Exit polls after the 2004 US elections said that 70% of Americans were in favour of somekind of legal recognition of gay union (maybe not a 'marriage') - which means the vast MAJORITY are in favour of, at least, allowing homosexual couples the SAME rights as heterosexual ones.

The important thing about the "CONSENSUAL ADULTS" comment, is that it refers to that sad old excuse that it is a "slippery slope", and that homosexuality somehow leads to paedophilia or bestiality, etc.

Hence, Consenting Adults... since neither animals, not children, qualify.

Oh, and actually - we DO allow one adult to kill another with consent - sometimes we call it euthanasia... sometimes we just call it "turning off the machines".

Just kidding!!!!!! :D

I really don't have a problem with gays/ lesbians

Since when has a consenting relationship between two adults been a legitimate excuse for allowing behaviors that society abhors?

If you want homosexuality to be recognized as a behavior that deserves "legitimacy", just say so. Then, politely and maturely discuss the reasons.

But, we don't allow one consenting adult to kill another just because it's a "mercy" killing. We don't allow two thugs to beat their brains out in a street fight just because they're consenting (of course, for some reason society thinks it's ok if it's a civilized brain-beating in the ring). So, please use some other reason besides the fact that it's consensual.

I understand that it's consensual, but it's my opinion that certain things, even if consensual, should not be allowed.

Those examples are apples and oranges. If I consent to have sex with someone and they in turn give me their consent, then its acceptable. Theres really no other way to look at that scenario. But consenting to kill another or a mercy killing if you will, isnt legal. Brain bashing from one thug to another isnt legal either. Having sex -by two consenting adults is. You cant use your argument as a template for every situation. The facts of each situation are different.

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

Its not just an american thing, i canada we've been moving in the opposite direction, right now the canadian government is moving a bill to make gay marriage legal across the country.

Just one more example of how much more sensible we are up here

I believe gay marraiges should be aloud. Just not in 'the house of god.' It's against his 'rules.'

I believe gay marraiges should be aloud. Just not in 'the house of god.' It's against his 'rules.'
Which God?

Since when has a consenting relationship between two adults been a legitimate excuse for allowing behaviors that society abhors?

Since at least 1967. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia



If you want homosexuality to be recognized as a behavior that deserves "legitimacy", just say so. Then, politely and maturely discuss the reasons.

Somebody hasn't read the thread.


But, we don't allow one consenting adult to kill another just because it's a "mercy" killing.
Sexual activity between consenting adults = murder. Got that, everybody?


We don't allow two thugs to beat their brains out in a street fight just because they're consenting (of course, for some reason society thinks it's ok if it's a civilized brain-beating in the ring).

Gosh, yes! Look at that! We don't allow thugs to disturb the peace and endanger people by brawling in the streets, but we do allow them to engage in recreational activities in the propper forums! Sort of like how people aren't allowed to have sex in the middle of Main Street, but they are allowed to have sex in their homes. Funny how that works out.


So, please use some other reason besides the fact that it's consensual.

The reason for homosexual marriage is not "because consentual sexual relations between adults are okay." The reason is that banning homosexual marriage is a violation of legal equality under the law. It is nothing more or less than sex discrimination, which is (nominally) illegal in the United States.


I understand that it's consensual, but it's my opinion that certain things, even if consensual, should not be allowed.
Your opinion is not an argument. Give us some reasons.

i can understand why people would argue against gay marriage but why not just get rid og marriage all together and have some legal term obviously i dont believe gays should marry under the church as the church would obviously be aginst this but if they wanted a union of some sort that would be great so that gays could have the same rights as a married couple but not have the title of married you know? wouldnt that be alittle simpler and hell if this manages to piss gay people off cuz they cant have the word then they are egomaniacal defects and i guess we could take the term away from str8 aswell yea thats it if you want to be married go do it under relegion and apply for unionship lol yes! unionship <thats the term we must all use now lol gays should be abble to "unionize" there problem solved any arguements? i dont see why there should be one o by the way does anyone want to endorse me? im knew lol enjoy my post good day fellow nations of the world...

I support gay marriage mainly because I believe that they have as much right to form couples as anyone else. Why should we discriminate against them for wanting to form a lasting bond together? Being gay is legal, so why is it that some people look down on gay marriage?

I believe gay marraiges should be aloud.
Why? Are they generally done more quietly where you live? [/grammar nazi-ness]

I support the idea of homosexual marriages in the interests of equality. If you're going to ban gay marriage, you may as well ban straight marriage as well. Not allowing it is discrimination, plain and simple.

Also, why was the need felt to revive this thread after a 1 1/2 year hiatus?

Why not? They don't hurt anyone else.

Getting rid of the term marriage for straight couples wouldn't work either, civil union sounds like some kind of business meeting and would just be another step towards a 'politically correct' nightmare.

i can understand why people would argue against gay marriage but why not just get rid og marriage all together and have some legal term obviously i dont believe gays should marry under the church as the church would obviously be aginst this but if they wanted a union of some sort that would be great so that gays could have the same rights as a married couple but not have the title of married you know? wouldnt that be alittle simpler and hell if this manages to piss gay people off cuz they cant have the word then they are egomaniacal defects and i guess we could take the term away from str8 aswell yea thats it if you want to be married go do it under relegion and apply for unionship lol yes! unionship <thats the term we must all use now lol gays should be abble to "unionize" there problem solved any arguements? i dont see why there should be one o by the way does anyone want to endorse me? im knew lol enjoy my post good day fellow nations of the world...

So you allow them to form unions, then change the word that describes it? Egomanical or not, that is sending a very clear message.

"We don't think you are worth this ancient term for your union, so we'll only give you this new one."

That's like allowing a whole new sector of people to join a religion, then changing the name of the religion. And anyway, why change the title? The only possible reason I can think of to give a couple a different title is to earmark them as "different". How is that fair in an egalitarian society?

I support gay marriage mainly because I believe that they have as much right to form couples as anyone else.

Yay! :)


Why should we discriminate against them for wanting to form a lasting bond together?

Homophobes typically hate gay couples because gay couples shake up the entrenched traditionalist gender roles.

If two men can nurture a child and keep a house and cook gourmet meals, then what will be the excuse of all the uber-manly fellows who insist they can't possibly change a diaper or clean up after themselves because they are MEN? If two women can support their family, balance their own checkbooks, and open their own jars, then what will be the excuse for all the wimpy women who insist that they can't possibly get by without a big strong man to take care of them?

Traditionalism states that a relationship must have a master (male) and a servant (female), but if two males or two female can form an egalitarian relationship based on love then the system starts to fall apart. The next thing you know, even HETEROSEXUALS are forming relationships of equals, in which the man changes the diapers while the woman mows the lawn! It will be chaos! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

Being gay is legal, so why is it that some people look down on gay marriage?
Most people who look down on gay marriage wouldn't mind it if homosexuality were made illegal.

I cant believe so many people voted no. Its fucking appalling.

I cant believe so many people voted no. Its fucking appalling.

I suspect there were probably a number of 'puppet' votes...

Holy gravedigging, Batman! :eek:

I believe gay marraiges should be aloud. Just not in 'the house of god.' It's against his 'rules.'

Was it really nessicary to bump up a two year old thread for that?

Was it really nessicary to bump up a two year old thread for that?

As opposed to making a new thread about it and having everyone complain for several pages that there's *another* thread on the subject?
I do wonder how he found this one though.

Considering there's about a dozen gay threads each week here that's a valid complaint. All you have to do is wait an hour or two and catch the next one. I'll be giddy when we're no longer the minority to attack du'jour.

*Looks down and shrieks in horror*
Who put that ball and chain there?!?!?

Considering there's about a dozen gay threads each week here that's a valid complaint. All you have to do is wait an hour or two and catch the next one. I'll be giddy when we're no longer the minority to attack du'jour.
Never fear, the tide is already swinging back to that old staple: woman-hating!

See, there are these brief surges in hatred for particular minority groups (Jews, blacks, gays, hispanics, whatever), but woman-hating never dies. Pretty soon the homophobes and the racists will notice that while they've been hating on imigrants and fags, the womenfolk have started getting uppity again. We can't be having that.

Never fear, the tide is already swinging back to that old staple: woman-hating!

See, there are these brief surges in hatred for particular minority groups (Jews, blacks, gays, hispanics, whatever), but woman-hating never dies. Pretty soon the homophobes and the racists will notice that while they've been hating on imigrants and fags, the womenfolk have started getting uppity again. We can't be having that.
Though as long as you keep each other informed you are actually the majority … I am not saying it is easy but once we work at removing all the social baggage it will be a lot harder to repress such a large group.

Get in the kitchen and make me some pie woman!

Get in the kitchen and make me some pie woman!
No way, you male oppresser! I'm going to go out and make fetus s'mores around the Beltane fires with my lesbian coven!!!

I think that gays should be allowed to marry. We are all human, and hetros are allowed to marry, so why not homos?

I think that gays should be allowed to marry. We are all human, and hetros are allowed to marry, so why not homos?

Well said.

That's a nice one-year gravedig you got there. Especially with this bloody long thread.

Epic Gravedig

That's a nice one-year gravedig you got there. Especially with this bloody long thread.
No, it took him/her one year to read the entire thread, so it's only now that s/he replied.

3 years...

No, it took him/her one year to read the entire thread, so it's only now that s/he replied.

Ah, fair enough then, carry on.

Ah, fair enough then, carry on.

Whoops, wrong login, that was me.

Gotta admit, it makes me smile to see that one of my posts was the original thread-killer for this epic monster. And it involved references to fetus-smores, too...good times.

Gotta admit, it makes me smile to see that one of my posts was the original thread-killer for this epic monster. And it involved references to fetus-smores, too...good times.

Who let you out of the kitchen?!

*sorry, I had to

Gotta admit, it makes me smile to see that one of my posts was the original thread-killer for this epic monster. And it involved references to fetus-smores, too...good times.

Now I'm hungry.

Back to the grave ye foul undead beast! What rites of unholy necromancy were practiced that allowed this thread to arise once more from it's grave??

:sniper: There, hopefully the head shot will put this zombie thread down.

Jolly good shot, sir!