NationStates Jolt Archive

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

I dont think we did.

And if we did, how come theres apes around today, why didnt they evolve as

well?

Divine intervention?

2001?

I dont think we did.

And if we did, how come theres apes around today, why didnt they evolve as

well?

Divine intervention?

2001?

They did evolve, just like every other amimal. We didn't directly evolve from the apes we see today we were a different type of ape to them. We were the ones that evolved to become civilised.

Believe it or not, apes were different thousands of years ago.

Bio 101-2 should be prerequisites for threads like this...

This entire thread has been just one big textual gratification to homosexuals. It started off with: "I think gays should marry. Who wants to challenge me, huh?"

Then it went to: "People are voting no, but it seems nobody has any real arguments against gay marriage"

Then some people have the balls to actually answer to this flametrap thread, and get repeatedly hounded for having beliefs.

Here's the deal. Homosexual marriages should not be legal if the only reason is "because we want them to". It is legally defined as a union between man and a woman. The point is that the reason gay marriages is not legal for the single reason that society doesn't want there to be. The arguments "I'm gay", or "Gays are useful to society" don't really address the issue. Marriage is a religious process, and many aspects of government are modeled on religion. Nothing short of an armed gay revolution will stop that.

Therefore there are two choices. The first choice is that church and state and further seperated, creating the equal states of "civil union" for atheists, homosexuals and the like, and the state of "marriage" for religious people. This would create an ideal environment for both types of people, at which point the term "marriage" becomes solely religious, and that no gay people can ever become "married", ever, with absolutely no exceptions.

The other choice is that marriage remains a civil term as well as a religious term, in which case no gay people can ever become married ever. There really is no way you should be gay and "married". If you want to have a legally recognised union, that seems perfectly fair and acceptable. But claiming that forcing a religious term to encompass things which are not accepted by religion, using only "becuase I think they should" as a reason is not going to work. Also, scaring people with opposing viewpoints by branding them a homophobe is also not acceptable.

I voted against gay marriage in this poll, just as George W. Bush AND JOHN KERRY would have. However, I do support gay unions. I just think "marriage" is more of a religious thing and it should be up to religions to decide whether there should be man/man or woman/woman marriages. But the state governments should recognize gay/lesbian unions.

Then it went to: "People are voting no, but it seems nobody has any real arguments against gay marriage"


Hehehe...I did say that a few times, didn't I?

This entire thread has been just one big textual gratification to homosexuals. It started off with: "I think gays should marry. Who wants to challenge me, huh?"

Then it went to: "People are voting no, but it seems nobody has any real arguments against gay marriage"

Then some people have the balls to actually answer to this flametrap thread, and get repeatedly hounded for having beliefs.

Here's the deal. Homosexual marriages should not be legal if the only reason is "because we want them to". It is legally defined as a union between man and a woman. The point is that the reason gay marriages is not legal for the single reason that society doesn't want there to be. The arguments "I'm gay", or "Gays are useful to society" don't really address the issue. Marriage is a religious process, and many aspects of government are modeled on religion. Nothing short of an armed gay revolution will stop that.

Therefore there are two choices. The first choice is that church and state and further seperated, creating the equal states of "civil union" for atheists, homosexuals and the like, and the state of "marriage" for religious people. This would create an ideal environment for both types of people, at which point the term "marriage" becomes solely religious, and that no gay people can ever become "married", ever, with absolutely no exceptions.

The other choice is that marriage remains a civil term as well as a religious term, in which case no gay people can ever become married ever. There really is no way you should be gay and "married". If you want to have a legally recognised union, that seems perfectly fair and acceptable. But claiming that forcing a religious term to encompass things which are not accepted by religion, using only "becuase I think they should" as a reason is not going to work. Also, scaring people with opposing viewpoints by branding them a homophobe is also not acceptable.

Though not every thing can be controld by religion. If it were up to religion women won't have much power in the world today, but things got changed and now there are even some female reverends.
Also, some gay people are religious and they deserve to be joined with their partner the way they want it.

Though not every thing can be controld by religion. If it were up to religion women won't have much power in the world today, but things got changed and now there are even some female reverends.
Also, some gay people are religious and they deserve to be joined with their partner the way they want it.

That's a good point. I think Vatican II showed us that religion can be directed even by the hands of the church itself to suit contemporary society. However. Allowing homosexuals to be religiously married simply because "they want it" isn't the greatest reason. Seperating church and state to such a degree to such an extent would cause quite a shock in the system, which means that people can't always get what they want. I'm not going to condone someone breaking into my car simply because "they want to". I also know that it's not the best analogy, but it still involves something that is wanted by some people but forbidden by the government, and not likely to stop being so.

I think that it should be legalized and whatever church wants to do it can do it. If they must, they can come up with a new faction of the church, although I'd rather have some normal churches allowing gay marriages. All the churches opposed to gay marriages can keep their ways.

Interestingly, a gay person was allowed to become a priest not so long ago, there's evidence that churches can change their ways slightly. It's mainly a political issue about gay marriages being legal. As I said before, legalizing gay marriages would not mean that every church must allow it, it just means that any church willing to allow gay marriages can do so.

Heck they let pedophiles be priests for a long time... strange that.

Heck they let pedophiles be priests for a long time... strange that.
Another good point. Many churches knew about the pedophiles in their church, yet they did nothing. Isn't pedophilia worse than homosexuality?

Another good point. Many churches knew about the pedophiles in their church, yet they did nothing. Isn't pedophilia worse than homosexuality?

And yet nobody is petitioning the government to allow marriage between children and adults.

Didn't see this before. Voted yes. Main reason: I'm gay. Second reason: I'm gay. Oh and yeah, I'm gay!

Sorry. I'm glad a lot of this thread has been sort of pro homosexuality - well, not against it any way. A lot of people are against it but I know if they were gay then they wouldn't be if you see what I mean!

Another good point. Many churches knew about the pedophiles in their church, yet they did nothing. Isn't pedophilia worse than homosexuality?

Not if you're a heterosexual homophobic pedophile. :D

And yet nobody is petitioning the government to allow marriage between children and adults.

nor between the living and the dead or human and animal

your point being?

also i beleive in some places at 16 you can be married under certain conditions? yet not 2 consenting adults who happen to be the same sex.

.

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

up that hasnt happenned to 'all' gays.




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

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

happen of course, meaning the government allowing the general population

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

running for your lives.




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

man and a womans.





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

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

In that case you dont believe in Democracy.

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

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

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

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

then this proceedure shouldnt bother you, right?





lol I hope you can handle loosing well then.

I'm sure that SOMEONE has already responded to you on this utter bile of boving scatalogy that does nothing but prove that you have no concept of our nations history or psychological threats.

The very real murder of Matthew Shephard was not just a punishment to him, it led to fear among homosexuals everywhere. My own mother was scared for me to go out of the house out of fear of what so called "loving Christians" would do to me. Note, she is a Christian too, but she realizes that some of you are grossly misled.

As to the burning of crosses, etc. I was referring to the civil rights movement when that was very common and was relating you to the KKK. The issue of gay marriage is a civil rights issue, note the word *civil* That means the *civil* government. Not the religious one. Religious views have no place in American government. If they did, this would probably be a Catholic nation and my suspicion is that you wouldn't like that.

And do I believe in Democracy? No, check your history and government courses. America is not a true Democracy, we are a Republic (or representational democracy). And I do believe in the will of the majority--but not when that becomes a tyranny of majority. If tyranny by majority were okay, African Americans would still be second class citizens (if not slaves).

All human beings deserve equal rights and treatment under the law. That's the ideal of American. "All . . . are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." So don't give me shome bullshit about the majority trying to stop me from pursuing my own happiness.

I will find it one day. And no, I won't be the one to lose this war.

[QUOTE]

Not agreeing with homosexuality as a normal behaviour for one.

This is too much fun . . . do me a favor and define normal. And do so without telling me what its NOT but by what it is.

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

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

Dood, we *ARE* animals. Hate to be the one to break that news to you . . .

I dont think its genetic.

Is there a gay chromosone?

No, but there are gay genes. They haven't been fully isolated, but the linkages are there.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/10/13/homosexuality.study.reut/index.html

However, just like with all traits, homosexuality is probably influenced by genetics, environment, and experiences.


I wonder why it is that people who know nothing about Genetics try to use it in their arguements?

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

What sanctity? Half the marriages between a man and woman will end in divorce. If anything is reducing the santity of marriage it is that.

And let's not assume this would be the first time that marriage has changed. Marriages are no longer arranged when you are a baby, the wife is no longer the property of the husband, you can marry outside of your social status, you can marry members of different denominations/religions, AND you can marry someone of a different race.

Don't talk to me about sanctity. It's not a valid arguement.

That aside, I appreciate your tolerance and non-prejudice. I just get angry with this whole sanctity thing.

eh...come on...we all have prejudice, it's nothing to be ashamed of. it's just the way it is. growing up in our culture i don't think anyone can truthfully say that they are not biased in any way. ... no offence :)

He was talking about prejudice against homosexuals. If I didn't know better but your spelling and concrete operational viewpoint of the world, I would guess that you are about ten years old.

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

So is wearing clothes of two different fabrics and eating animals from the sea that dont have fins. Every wear a cotton/poly blend or eat shellfish?

And let's talk about some of the things that ARE legal:

1. Stoning to death accused adulterers without a trial.
2. Selling your daughter into slavery.
3. Purchasing Canadians and Mexicans as slaves (assuming you are from the USA).

Want me to go on?

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

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

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

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



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

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

I probably owe you an apology. I'm sure I either made a rather angry response or pondered one for your "intolerance". However, this post seems like I would agree with you on a big point. The idea of whether or not Christianity HAS to condemn homosexuality is a totally separate one that I'll be happy to take up sometime in the future (a few weeks from now, we're about to start a week long period of exams affectionately known as "hell week") but at least you realize that we are a secular nation and therefore Christian ideals cannot be the sole basis of our government without something else to back them up.

Kudos.

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

Hmmm how are they laws then?

And how should I know what situations require what laws

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

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

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


Department of stupidity management indeed

If you think that God doesn't have a good reason for you to do things, then you are sorely misguided and obviously dont' think highly of him or yourself. Things are ordered because they make sense in a particular period of time. When they no longer make sense, I personally feel that God has enough brain to no longer require them.

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

I won't give you anything about single mothers. I will instead point you to the American Psychological Association which says that children of gay parents function just as well as those of hetersexual parents. Further, the American Pediatric Association (a group whose ONLY purpose is to care for children) supports gay adoptions. Why? Because they say its more important for a child to be loved by as many people as possible than to be thrown around in the foster system.

Now, I will get a little bit bitter. You know why the vast majority of kids are in foster care? Because of hetersexual couples who abused them.

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

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

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

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

No shooting from me. You at least tried to be respectful and discuss the issue. That counts for a lot.

I would like to poset he question based on what you said:

If having chidlren is normal and only those who are normal should raise children, does that mean that infertile couples shouldn't adopt?

For! :fluffle:

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

You DO realize that adoped children of gay parents are no more or less likely to be gay than any member of the general population? Of course genetic children might be more likely considering the scientific pointings to a "gay gene(s)". The onyl thing likely to happen for children raised by gay parents is that they will be more tolerant. And tolerance isn't a bad thing.

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

I do understand where you are coming from. And I agree with it, to a point.

If homosexuals are to have only civil unions legally, then that is what heterosexuals should have. I've said it before and goodness knows I will say it again, Separate it NOT Equal. I'd have no problem if everyone had civil unions and if marriage was saved for religiuous blessings.

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


It wouldn't have to take place in a church. No one's gonna sue a church to force it to marry them. Right now ministers have the right to refuse to perform marriages their religion does not sanction.

And thank you being willing to becoming informed before making a decision.

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

So you think biology helps to define normal. How would you feel if there were a set of gay genes isolated? Would that perhaps sway you?

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

Actually no, gay couples living together cannot file taxes together because they are not recognized by the legal definition of marriage. Further civil unions do NOT grant the same number of rights to gay couples as marriage. There are over 800 (correct me here lawyers if my number is off) rights associated with the legal definition of marriage. Most civil unions only grant a few dozen.

Not legally allowing gay marriages is a form of sexual and social apartheid.

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

Except that the state regulates them and makes certain requirements of them. Otherwise, there would be no way for the Gulf States to threaten certain companies with sanctions if they don't hold up their ends of the bargain after hurricanes.

Then some people have the balls to actually answer to this flametrap thread, and get repeatedly hounded for having beliefs.

Usually because their "beliefs" are based in disproven biological statements.

Here's the deal. Homosexual marriages should not be legal if the only reason is "because we want them to". It is legally defined as a union between man and a woman. The point is that the reason gay marriages is not legal for the single reason that society doesn't want there to be. The arguments "I'm gay", or "Gays are useful to society" don't really address the issue. Marriage is a religious process, and many aspects of government are modeled on religion. Nothing short of an armed gay revolution will stop that.

Modeled on religion? I think not. If they were, divorce would be illegal and atheists couldn't obtain a marriage license. Don't be silly.

Therefore there are two choices. The first choice is that church and state and further seperated, creating the equal states of "civil union" for atheists, homosexuals and the like, and the state of "marriage" for religious people. This would create an ideal environment for both types of people, at which point the term "marriage" becomes solely religious, and that no gay people can ever become "married", ever, with absolutely no exceptions.

Your first option is unconstitutional. The only way that civil unions could be instituted is if civil unions were *all* that the government gave - and these would be given to religous, non-religious, straight, homosexual alike.

Your second option is just plain stupid. Homosexuals already have been married in their churches, and that is not going to stop just because you don't agree with it. This entire discussion is about the *legal* institution of marriage, not the religious one.

The other choice is that marriage remains a civil term as well as a religious term, in which case no gay people can ever become married ever.

Many terms have different definitions. There are already two separate institutions of marriage. One is governmental and one is religious. If you have a problem with the same term being used, lobby your government to stop using the term marriage and call it something else.

There really is no way you should be gay and "married".

Unsubstantiated opinion.

If you want to have a legally recognised union, that seems perfectly fair and acceptable. But claiming that forcing a religious term to encompass things which are not accepted by religion, using only "becuase I think they should" as a reason is not going to work.

It has nothing to do with "because I think it should." It has to do with the fact that the current *legal* term is marriage. If you don't like it, get the term changed. But either way, as long as the government recognizes unions between two people, it has to recognize them equally.

Also, scaring people with opposing viewpoints by branding them a homophobe is also not acceptable.

If you have an extreme dislike for homosexuals, you are a homophobe. How is it not acceptable to use a term to describe those who apply to the definition?

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

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

I can understand your point of view, of course children have thousands of role-models: not only parents, but their teachers or their friends, etc.. I mean, even older people need role-models, everybody, young and old has role-models. But I was talking about role-models within the closest family, where the child gives his/her "first steps". I think that the situation of two mother figures or two father figures is a perversion of the natural situation of a family. That is, of course, my point of view. You are going to tell me "there is no natural situation". I understand it is forbidden to say normal or natural nowadays, but I think that is a bit hypocritical: as if everybody really felt that everything is okay provided people can do whatever they like.
I think I didn't quite get to the point here, I'm feeling a little bit vague (been feeling like this since I woke up - had the strangest dream about our PM being a newsreader), I'll try to do better next time.

I can understand your point of view, of course children have thousands of role-models: not only parents, but their teachers or their friends, etc.. I mean, even older people need role-models, everybody, young and old has role-models. But I was talking about role-models within the closest family, where the child gives his/her "first steps". I think that the situation of two mother figures or two father figures is a perversion of the natural situation of a family. That is, of course, my point of view. You are going to tell me "there is no natural situation". I understand it is forbidden to say normal or natural nowadays, but I think that is a bit hypocritical: as if everybody really felt that everything is okay provided people can do whatever they like.
I think I didn't quite get to the point here, I'm feeling a little bit vague (been feeling like this since I woke up - had the strangest dream about our PM being a newsreader), I'll try to do better next time.

So your issue is not that there aren't both male and female figures, but that there are two of one or the other? I suppose that's a valid problem in your view, but psychologically, it really isn't. *shrug* You may think it is a perversion, but it certainly doesn't harm any other species in which same-sex pair bonds occur, there is no reason to think it causes harm in ours.

Here is an interesting tidbit:
In the '50s, people started moving towards what we now refer to as the "nuclear family". Before that, most people stayed with their extended family. you might have grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles, kids, and cousins all living in the same household, or at least on the same land. Nobody was raised by just a mother and a father, they were raised by their entire family (including older siblings). When couples started moving out of that structure and striking out on their own away from the extended family, there was the same kind of outcry that we hear about homosexual couples. Basically, that the children needed more than just those two figures in their lives and that the children were going to be harmed by being raised by just a mother and a father. Now, we are hearing that the children will be harmed by having two mother or father figures in their lives. Truth be told, the fears of the traditionalists in the '50s make a whole lot more sense than the fears of the "traditionalists" today.

I won't give you anything about single mothers. I will instead point you to the American Psychological Association which says that children of gay parents function just as well as those of hetersexual parents. Further, the American Pediatric Association (a group whose ONLY purpose is to care for children) supports gay adoptions. Why? Because they say its more important for a child to be loved by as many people as possible than to be thrown around in the foster system.

Now, I will get a little bit bitter. You know why the vast majority of kids are in foster care? Because of hetersexual couples who abused them.

Hmm.. So, you are saying that gay couples are a more loving type of parents? (surely straight couples also want to adopt children? I mean, here in Portugal they do...I think the adoption process should be less bureaucratic, but that's other subject) And that heterosexual parents tend to abuse their children? I don't quite see your point here... At first I thought that you were trying to show that gay parents could be equally good parents, but it seems that you are trying to say they are better parents than straight couples. It seems that you have turned the prejudice, or whatever you like to call it, upside down. Maybe we should think about making a poll with this question "Should straight marriages be abolished?"...
And don't always follow psychological association's point of view... For example, nowadays people tend to spoil children just because everyone is very worried about child traumas and such. I mean, if your child is behaving really bad and you slap him, people are going to look at you as if you've comitted a crime...

And if we did, how come theres apes around today, why didnt they evolve as

well?



Again, people talking about things they don't understand. Apes didn't all evolve because they are still fit to survive. Evolution favors survival of the fit. Normally this would be classified as "of the fittest" but I'm not sure some of our non-scientific friends would be able to see this, so I'll use survival of the fit.

When that one ape (or other common ancestory, or linke) evolved to a human, s/he left the niche that apes occupy and occupied a new one. Apes are still fit to survive in their environmental niche and, therefore, are still around.

My poor, poor misguided friend:



Then some people have the balls to actually answer to this flametrap thread, and get repeatedly hounded for having beliefs.

Disagreeing and hounding is not the same thing. I will not deny that some people here have flamed against people like you, but then some have flamed against us. Some of us do try to give good arguements (though I will admit that I have been angry a few times). Disagreeing with you is not hounding or flaming



Here's the deal. Homosexual marriages should not be legal if the only reason is "because we want them to". It is legally defined as a union between man and a woman. The point is that the reason gay marriages is not legal for the single reason that society doesn't want there to be. The arguments "I'm gay", or "Gays are useful to society" don't really address the issue. Marriage is a religious process, and many aspects of government are modeled on religion. Nothing short of an armed gay revolution will stop that.

Popular support has not been present in many decisions that were made. If popular support were the only basis for making change, African Americans would still be slaves or second class citizens in the south. Jews would be persecuted, Germans would be wiped out, and let's not even talk about what would've happened to the Japanese by now.


The other choice is that marriage remains a civil term as well as a religious term, in which case no gay people can ever become married ever.

Sounds like good logic, minus the reality that there are some religious groups that sanction gay marriage. I suppose that you think the government should step in and prevent this though . . .so much for freedom of religion.

So your issue is not that there aren't both male and female figures, but that there are two of one or the other? I suppose that's a valid problem in your view, but psychologically, it really isn't. *shrug* You may think it is a perversion, but it certainly doesn't harm any other species in which same-sex pair bonds occur, there is no reason to think it causes harm in ours.

Here is an interesting tidbit:
In the '50s, people started moving towards what we now refer to as the "nuclear family". Before that, most people stayed with their extended family. you might have grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles, kids, and cousins all living in the same household, or at least on the same land. Nobody was raised by just a mother and a father, they were raised by their entire family (including older siblings). When couples started moving out of that structure and striking out on their own away from the extended family, there was the same kind of outcry that we hear about homosexual couples. Basically, that the children needed more than just those two figures in their lives and that the children were going to be harmed by being raised by just a mother and a father. Now, we are hearing that the children will be harmed by having two mother or father figures in their lives. Truth be told, the fears of the traditionalists in the '50s make a whole lot more sense than the fears of the "traditionalists" today.

I would just like to say that many people (at least here in Portugal) still live close to that extended family concept. Well, most of the families are father, mother and children, but the grandparents are still an important part of children's life, and children spend a lot of time with them (maybe even more than with their parents which work from 9 till 8 in the night... But that's another issue). I think maybe having a big family was better, but having just father and mother on the day-to-day life isn't bad. It's not the same thing: in one case you've shortened the family you contact with everyday (although you see the other membres frequently) and in the other case (gay couples) you've altered the composition of the family. I think it's not quite the same thing. I appreciate you reminding me that 50's movement, though.

That's a good point. I think Vatican II showed us that religion can be directed even by the hands of the church itself to suit contemporary society. However. Allowing homosexuals to be religiously married simply because "they want it" isn't the greatest reason. Seperating church and state to such a degree to such an extent would cause quite a shock in the system, which means that people can't always get what they want. I'm not going to condone someone breaking into my car simply because "they want to". I also know that it's not the best analogy, but it still involves something that is wanted by some people but forbidden by the government, and not likely to stop being so.

See, but people should be able to do what they want--as long as it does not inflict damage upon others. I can shoot my gun if I want, as long as it doesn't put someone at risk for being shot. I can shout fire in a movie theater if I want, as long as it doesn't endanger the public.

Letting gays get married "because they want" is a good enough reason. The countries that have found it have actually seen that it BENEFITS society. There is no arguement that it causes damages to anyone--at least no argument founded in fact.

Hmm.. So, you are saying that gay couples are a more loving type of parents? (surely straight couples also want to adopt children? I mean, here in Portugal they do...I think the adoption process should be less bureaucratic, but that's other subject) And that heterosexual parents tend to abuse their children? I don't quite see your point here... At first I thought that you were trying to show that gay parents could be equally good parents, but it seems that you are trying to say they are better parents than straight couples. It seems that you have turned the prejudice, or whatever you like to call it, upside down. Maybe we should think about making a poll with this question "Should straight marriages be abolished?"...
And don't always follow psychological association's point of view... For example, nowadays people tend to spoil children just because everyone is very worried about child traumas and such. I mean, if your child is behaving really bad and you slap him, people are going to look at you as if you've comitted a crime...

I assume the original poster pointed out the heterosexual abuse thing, NOT to attack heterosexuality, but to discredit one of the main arguments that people level against the idea of gay people adopting.

It is a common attack for those who oppose gays adopting, to say that it is a 'slippery slope' and that the gay parents will abuse their children.

Statistics argue against this (but hey, since when did a fundamentalist let something as trivial as 'facts' or 'truth' come into the path of a good rant)... and point out that YES most child abuse is same sex... BUT... it is carried out by heterosexual parents.

Which leaves us in an interesting position... either A) Heterosexual parents are, collectively, less good as parents, because more children are abused by heterosexuals.... or B) Far, far more people are homosexual than actually let on... and yet still marry the opposite gender and live apparently 'straight' lives... OR C) child abuse has nothing to do with gender orientation really... and the arguments about gay adoption leading to child abuse are nonsense.

I would just like to say that many people (at least here in Portugal) still live close to that extended family concept. Well, most of the families are father, mother and children, but the grandparents are still an important part of children's life, and children spend a lot of time with them (maybe even more than with their parents which work from 9 till 8 in the night... But that's another issue). I think maybe having a big family was better, but having just father and mother on the day-to-day life isn't bad. It's not the same thing: in one case you've shortened the family you contact with everyday (although you see the other membres frequently) and in the other case (gay couples) you've altered the composition of the family. I think it's not quite the same thing. I appreciate you reminding me that 50's movement, though.

In the end though, the basic argument is the same. People are worried about what type of role models children have. In any instance, be it single parent, homosexual couple, or heterosexual couple - a child should have role models of all types: male/female, homosexual/heterosexual, etc.

See, but people should be able to do what they want--as long as it does not inflict damage upon others. I can shoot my gun if I want, as long as it doesn't put someone at risk for being shot. I can shout fire in a movie theater if I want, as long as it doesn't endanger the public.

Letting gays get married "because they want" is a good enough reason. The countries that have found it have actually seen that it BENEFITS society. There is no arguement that it causes damages to anyone--at least no argument founded in fact.

Good point, and well made.

In an age that constantly decries the lack of stability in marriage, that claims not enough people are getting married... people still choose to oppose more marriage.... the logic behind THAT is baffling.

Like you said, if they want to... that's a good enough reason.

First; It's not that I am against gay rights, I just believe that simply having the term marriage doesn't mean a great deal. It should not be granted. The monetary benefits are an incentive for people to have children. This, gay couples cannot do. In my opinion there would be no problem if everything were demoted to the level of civil union, then the monetary benefits were given to fertile male/female relationship couples. Call it what you will. You could upgrade evrything to marriage, but you'd have to remove the monetary benefits for gay couples as they would not be serving their purpose. Don't flame. I'm not some crazy firebrand christian wanker, in fact I'm bisexual. In conclusion: Don't flame me. Please. I welcome constructive criticism, though, but don't just insult me.

Sorry, Im just old fashioned. If this were allowed, it would put a serious hamper on traditonal family values, which are presently at an all time low. I just don't think its a good idea, and should be banned.

No shooting from me. You at least tried to be respectful and discuss the issue. That counts for a lot.

I would like to poset he question based on what you said:

If having chidlren is normal and only those who are normal should raise children, does that mean that infertile couples shouldn't adopt?

Hmm I tried to answer that on the post, but I'll try being more specific (which is a lot to ask from me, since I'm not quite myself today). Infertility is like... an illness, right? I mean, the body of a woman (or of a man) should be able to make children (well, not by his or herself...) but, by some reason or other, it isn't able to. Infertile people can suffer treatments to become fertile, but that doesn't always work. So why penalise people who are "ill" in that sense?
But being gay is not a disease, is it? I don't quite know how we can put it, but it's more like a choice, or something like that. So it's not the same thing. I mean, two men can't have children. It's not a particular pair of men that isn't able to have children, it's all pairs of men. Naturally, two men or two women cannot procreate. It's not about John and Paul, or Julia and Anne. It's about all gay couples.
Ah, and thank you for your kind words.

First; It's not that I am against gay rights, I just believe that simply having the term marriage doesn't mean a great deal. It should not be granted. The monetary benefits are an incentive for people to have children. This, gay couples cannot do. In my opinion there would be no problem if everything were demoted to the level of civil union, then the monetary benefits were given to fertile male/female relationship couples. Call it what you will. You could upgrade evrything to marriage, but you'd have to remove the monetary benefits for gay couples as they would not be serving their purpose. Don't flame. I'm not some crazy firebrand christian wanker, in fact I'm bisexual. In conclusion: Don't flame me. Please. I welcome constructive criticism, though, but don't just insult me.

The only monetary benefits to marriage in the US have absolutely nothing to do with children.

In fact, married couples have to pay *more* federal taxes than their unmarried counterparts. The only tax breaks are for people who already have kids.

Sorry, Im just old fashioned. If this were allowed, it would put a serious hamper on traditonal family values, which are presently at an all time low. I just don't think its a good idea, and should be banned.

Would you have been ok with making blacks sit on the back of the bus since that was a reflection of "traditional" values?

In the end though, the basic argument is the same. People are worried about what type of role models children have. In any instance, be it single parent, homosexual couple, or heterosexual couple - a child should have role models of all types: male/female, homosexual/heterosexual, etc.

Well, not of all types. You wouldn't like your children to have an assassin as a role-model... (this was just an exageration, I can see your point here)

I strongly oppose them, as they are deviant and an abomination to God. The world must be made safe for theocracy.

But being gay is not a disease, is it?

No.

I don't quite know how we can put it, but it's more like a choice, or something like that.

No, it is something innate to the person, like having the right tastebuds to enjoy eating brocolli, or liking the color orange. Homosexuals are just naturally attracted to the same gender, rather than the opposite one. It has nothing whatsoever to do with choice.

Well, not of all types. You wouldn't like your children to have an assassin as a role-model... (this was just an exageration, I can see your point here)

Ok, pretty much all non-harmful types. =)

Personally I believe all marriages should be banned! That should keep it fair ;)

You DO realize that adoped children of gay parents are no more or less likely to be gay than any member of the general population? Of course genetic children might be more likely considering the scientific pointings to a "gay gene(s)". The onyl thing likely to happen for children raised by gay parents is that they will be more tolerant. And tolerance isn't a bad thing.

I don't think that gays are more tolerant than heterosexuals. Well, maybe on this particular point they are (it would be really strange if they weren't!), but about everything else, I think they are as tolerant as any straight person (i.e. there are tolerant and intolerant heterosexuals and there are tolerant and intolerant homosexuals).
For example, can you say that an atheist is more tolerant than a christian? I think it depends on the person in question - there are some really intolerant atheists and there are some really intolerant christians.

Would you have been ok with making blacks sit on the back of the bus since that was a reflection of "traditional" values?
Well, there is a limit to what I consider, "Traditional." As far as racism is concerned, I am strongly against it. In my opinion, I feel that everyone is entitled to some form of hapiness. Within reason. For example, a person may find pleasure in becoming a ruthless criminal. This person should be killed. I do not feel gays should be killed, I merely feel that such a union would be pointless, and would place a great deal of discomfort to the area in which they live. As such, coupled with the fact that there are no real benefits to it, I feel that it should not be allowed.

So you think biology helps to define normal. How would you feel if there were a set of gay genes isolated? Would that perhaps sway you?

Yes, I think biology is one of the factors. Don't quite know how I would feel about it... When they find those genes, let me know.

No.



No, it is something innate to the person, like having the right tastebuds to enjoy eating brocolli, or liking the color orange. Homosexuals are just naturally attracted to the same gender, rather than the opposite one. It has nothing whatsoever to do with choice.

Okay, broccolli. I didn't like broccolli when I was younger. I like broccoli now. I eat them quite a lot, actually. My tastebuds changed or something like that? I don't really know, I didn't take any biology course.
Colours are also a nice subject. Since I was little my favourite colour was blue. Now I don't know anymore because I still love blue...but I also like red, pink, black, white, etc.. (I used to like purple but now I don't, and I don't really love orange, but maybe someday I will)
If you are comparing homossexuality with our taste for food or our colour favouritism (remember, it is your comparison) then I would tell you that maybe a gay person is just a straight person passing through a "gay period".

Sorry... I didn't have time to read the whole thread, but here's my two cents. Remember separation of church and state? There is no "right" to marriage, since marriage is a religious institution. The government can choose to recognize it and give benefits accordingly, but it's up to the churches not the government to allow gay marriage. If gays want to sign up for similar "benefits" from the government then all they need is a different name for it. Like "civil unions" in Vermont. Just don't call it "marriage", because it's not.

I don't think that gays are more tolerant than heterosexuals. Well, maybe on this particular point they are (it would be really strange if they weren't!), but about everything else, I think they are as tolerant as any straight person (i.e. there are tolerant and intolerant heterosexuals and there are tolerant and intolerant homosexuals).
For example, can you say that an atheist is more tolerant than a christian? I think it depends on the person in question - there are some really intolerant atheists and there are some really intolerant christians.

I think you misunderstood the point. The quote did not say that homosexuals were more tolerant, but that their children are. This has actually been shown in several studies. The idea is that the children were exposed to more points of view as children, and thus developed more tolerance.

Okay, people, I'm leaving now (whichs means I'm not answering anymore questions... But I'll try answering them later). See you tomorrow or the day after that.

Okay, broccolli. I didn't like broccolli when I was younger. I like broccoli now. I eat them quite a lot, actually. My tastebuds changed or something like that? I don't really know, I didn't take any biology course.
Colours are also a nice subject. Since I was little my favourite colour was blue. Now I don't know anymore because I still love blue...but I also like red, pink, black, white, etc.. (I used to like purple but now I don't, and I don't really love orange, but maybe someday I will)
If you are comparing homossexuality with our taste for food or our colour favouritism (remember, it is your comparison) then I would tell you that maybe a gay person is just a straight person passing through a "gay period".

No, you are taking the analogy too far and perhaps I picked poor examples. The point is that we don't *choose* what we like/dislike. It just comes to us naturally. You may now like brocolli although you did before, but was it because you sat down and thought about and decided to like it? Same with colors. In fact, did you sit down and choose to be attracted to those you are attracted to? Or did you just realize that you found them attractive?

In all honesty, the biological natural state for humans is probably bisexual. However, there is a spectrum of bisexuality and many are on the 99 to 1 % range.

Sorry... I didn't have time to read the whole thread, but here's my two cents. Remember separation of church and state? There is no "right" to marriage, since marriage is a religious institution. The government can choose to recognize it and give benefits accordingly, but it's up to the churches not the government to allow gay marriage. If gays want to sign up for similar "benefits" from the government then all they need is a different name for it. Like "civil unions" in Vermont. Just don't call it "marriage", because it's not.

If there is separation of church and state (and there is), then the *civil* institution of marriage is not a religious institution. Therefore the churches have nothing whatsoever to do with civil marriage.

If homosexual unions are not "marriage", then neither are *any* civil marriages, and the government should call it something else.

Hmmmmm. This is all very interesting, and nice to see a mainly pro gay argument going on. The thing is, all arguments have some (and some arguments really do only have some) merit. Marriage is one of those things that has always been done. It's a tradition, people like it, it makes them feel safe and they're perhaps not so worried they're going to die alone.
If you are a particularly religious person, and think it's wrong, then fine. You're entitled to your opinion. BUT:
When was the last time a gay man/woman knocked on your door and asked if you'd thought about the benefits of living a good gay life? When did they put up posters near your house saying that you will only go to heaven if you believe in the gay way? They didn't, did they? It's all about tolerance. If I can tolerate the kind of S*** that I have to put up with from the constant banging on my door from various religious types, then why can't people put up with what two consenting adults do in their own time, on their own dollar, that really doesn't involve anyone but themselves? Eh?
AND it seems that the arguments about how "unnatural" gay sex is, only relate to men. Nobody's complaining that much about gay female sex, are they? Nooooo. It would mean you'd have to throw out half your DVD collection...
Oh, and Heterosexual couples do it too, by the way.
DEAL WITH IT.

If there is separation of church and state (and there is), then the *civil* institution of marriage is not a religious institution. Therefore the churches have nothing whatsoever to do with civil marriage.

If homosexual unions are not "marriage", then neither are *any* civil marriages, and the government should call it something else.That's exactly it. There civil institution of marriage was never defined, and that's the problem. The right way to reach the middle ground would be to give marriage benefits to those married by the church, and the same benefits to those in civil unions. This would cause many non-religious male-female couples to be put into that category as well, but properly gives benefits to committed couples without infringing on the duties of the church, or the rights of the individual. Like I said, there is no right to marriage, but there is a right to equal taxation and representation under the law.

Hmm.. So, you are saying that gay couples are a more loving type of parents? (surely straight couples also want to adopt children? I mean, here in Portugal they do...I think the adoption process should be less bureaucratic, but that's other subject) And that heterosexual parents tend to abuse their children? I don't quite see your point here... At first I thought that you were trying to show that gay parents could be equally good parents, but it seems that you are trying to say they are better parents than straight couples. It seems that you have turned the prejudice, or whatever you like to call it, upside down. Maybe we should think about making a poll with this question "Should straight marriages be abolished?"...
And don't always follow psychological association's point of view... For example, nowadays people tend to spoil children just because everyone is very worried about child traumas and such. I mean, if your child is behaving really bad and you slap him, people are going to look at you as if you've comitted a crime...

I'm not quite sure how to respond to this, but I am going to make a stab.

You have misunderstood me. Perhaps its crappy presentation on my part or maybe its the difference in primary language. Perhaps its both.

I do believe heterosexuals can be loving parents. I had two wonderful heterosexual parents. No one is denying that. What I was saying was that homosexuals can be equally good and loving parents. I was also pointing out that not ALL heterosexuals are good and loving parents. Some abuse their children--most children in foster care are there for that reason.

So basically, I'm trying to refute the arguement that heterosexuals are necessarily better parents.

I realize that I'm probably not saying this just right and I do apologize. I do my best.

First; It's not that I am against gay rights, I just believe that simply having the term marriage doesn't mean a great deal. It should not be granted. The monetary benefits are an incentive for people to have children. This, gay couples cannot do. In my opinion there would be no problem if everything were demoted to the level of civil union, then the monetary benefits were given to fertile male/female relationship couples. Call it what you will. You could upgrade evrything to marriage, but you'd have to remove the monetary benefits for gay couples as they would not be serving their purpose. Don't flame. I'm not some crazy firebrand christian wanker, in fact I'm bisexual. In conclusion: Don't flame me. Please. I welcome constructive criticism, though, but don't just insult me.

No flames here.

I see where you are coming from. . .but the term marriage has a lot more to do than just monetary benefits. There are hundreds of things--visitation rights, next of kin, equitable distribution of the assets during a divorce (god forbid), and joint custody of children.

Just something to throw in to show its not all about money. Really, for me, its about a basic level of respect.

Sorry, Im just old fashioned. If this were allowed, it would put a serious hamper on traditonal family values, which are presently at an all time low. I just don't think its a good idea, and should be banned.

The beginnings of a real viewpoint might here lie. Explain. how does it affect traditional family values?

For that matter, what are traditional family values. Please elborate.

Hmm I tried to answer that on the post, but I'll try being more specific (which is a lot to ask from me, since I'm not quite myself today). Infertility is like... an illness, right? I mean, the body of a woman (or of a man) should be able to make children (well, not by his or herself...) but, by some reason or other, it isn't able to. Infertile people can suffer treatments to become fertile, but that doesn't always work. So why penalise people who are "ill" in that sense?
But being gay is not a disease, is it? I don't quite know how we can put it, but it's more like a choice, or something like that. So it's not the same thing. I mean, two men can't have children. It's not a particular pair of men that isn't able to have children, it's all pairs of men. Naturally, two men or two women cannot procreate. It's not about John and Paul, or Julia and Anne. It's about all gay couples.
Ah, and thank you for your kind words.

Thank you for saying homosexuality isn't a disease. However, it isn't a choice either. Believe me, I wouldn't have chosen it. It's life, it's genetic, it's inborn. Just like some causes of infertility. So why punish people for something that is not a choice?

And just an interesting side note: Men can carry children. All you need is a fertilized egg and it will implant on the portal vein. They've carried chimps almost to term with this. Further, with current technology and the ability o replace nucleii in cells, it is theoretically possible to produce a child that is the offspring of two men or two women. It would require a lot of intervention and chances to amke it work. I'm not promoting it. Just sharing a theory that it IS possible.

I beg, please please no flames on this one.

I don't think that gays are more tolerant than heterosexuals. Well, maybe on this particular point they are (it would be really strange if they weren't!), but about everything else, I think they are as tolerant as any straight person (i.e. there are tolerant and intolerant heterosexuals and there are tolerant and intolerant homosexuals).
For example, can you say that an atheist is more tolerant than a christian? I think it depends on the person in question - there are some really intolerant atheists and there are some really intolerant christians.

I'm not saying that gays are necessarily more tolerant. Let me assure you though, the majority of us are more tolerant (not accepting necessarily) of heterosexual marriage than the reverse.

So yes, children of gays would likely be more tolerant.

Yes, I think biology is one of the factors. Don't quite know how I would feel about it... When they find those genes, let me know.

They're well on the way. There are strong linkage analyses that connect homosexuality to the X chromosome--so for men its transmitted by the mother. However, there are most likely other genes than this one. It hasn't been specifically identified--but a lot of genes haven't. I worked in a lab where we were working ona cell cycle gene. It hasn't been isolated yet--but it definitely exists.

I've been trying to find the article from CNN that I cited earlier to put the link to here again, but I can't seem to find it. Look back through my previous posts and the link will be there.

Okay, actually one of my friends managed to find it:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/10/13/homosexuality.study.reut/index.html

Hello,

I for one am against Gay Marriages and civil unions. Although I am a Christian and it IS a sin to practise Homosexuality, I became a Christian ealier this year and have always believed that homosexuality is not normal.

I have never come accross a Homosexual person who doesnt have some sort mental illness, hasnt been abused sexually as a child or mistreated badly by a member of the opposite sex. The only other type of person who engages in homosexuality is someone who is sexually promiscuous and is probably helping the cause of spreading sexually transmitted disease.

Please dont call me a homophobe as this is just my opinion and most other people although they dont have the courage to say the true opinion because they are worried they will be called a 'Fascist' or something else ridiculous.
Also I dont hate Gay people I actually feel sory for them as I think society has let them down especially their own parents and caused them suffering and to behave abnormally.

Hello,

I for one am against Gay Marriages and civil unions. Although I am a Christian and it IS a sin to practise Homosexuality, I became a Christian ealier this year and have always believed that homosexuality is not normal.

I have never come accross a Homosexual person who doesnt have some sort mental illness, hasnt been abused sexually as a child or mistreated badly by a member of the opposite sex. The only other type of person who engages in homosexuality is someone who is sexually promiscuous and is probably helping the cause of spreading sexually transmitted disease.

Please dont call me a homophobe as this is just my opinion and most other people although they dont have the courage to say the true opinion because they are worried they will be called a 'Fascist' or something else ridiculous.
Also I dont hate Gay people I actually feel sory for them as I think society has let them down especially their own parents and caused them suffering and to behave abnormally.

At least your honest in your opinions. Factually wrong, but honest.

I for one, was not mistreated as a child--sexually, psychologically or physically. I had two of the most wonderful and loving parents. I was not spoiled, butI wasn't neglected either. They taught me the value of right and wrong, of work, and how hard it is to coem by money. They also taught me how important it is to love and be loved and to show that love to others.

Also, I don't have a mental illness, minus perhaps a littleb it of OCD (not clinical though, it doesn't affect my daily living-- I made it all the way to medical school afterall). Neither is homosexuality a disease of any form. Check the AMA, APA, and all those other good groups who make it their business to consider what is a disease.

Now that being said, is it possible that a great number of homosexuals have problems with depression, etc? You bet ya. Its not something inherant in our sexualities, but instead is the result of a culture that calls us evil, abominations and other such derogatory terms. I recall Jerry Falwell once saying that obviously homosexuality was wrong because gay teens were more likely to commit suicide. Gee, I wonder why that is? Could it be the bigotted intolerance of people like him?

Now mind you, I'm not attacking you for your views, you are entitled to them. However, they are not based in simple, verfiable fact. Are you likely to change them? Probably not. Changing views is very hard--I know, I used to be a self-loathing fundamentalist and it wasn't easy for me to change.

However, I encourage you to at least challenge them with yourself. You might find that you are really wrong.

Continue searching for the truth.

That's exactly it. There civil institution of marriage was never defined, and that's the problem.

It is defined. Civil marriage is what you get when you get a marriage license. Plain and simple. You are confused here I think because preachers have been given the power to give a civil marriage, but this is simply a convenience so that those who want a religious marriage don't have to go through two different procedures to get them. Civil marriage is already separate from religious marriage. It is defined by the set of laws that govern it, providing civilly married couples with the right to be viewed as a single legal entity and to have all of the privileges and responsibilities that come from that distinction.

The right way to reach the middle ground would be to give marriage benefits to those married by the church, and the same benefits to those in civil unions.

Separate but equal does not work and places a subset of the population in a second-class citizen status. There are two ways this could go and still follow the Constitution:
(a) The government gives absolutely no benefits or responsibilities for unions to any couples whatsoever. People can get married in their church, but this means no more to the government than someone taking Communion does.
(b) The government gives benefits (and responsibilities) to all couples equally. They can call this marriage (as they already do) or civil unions, but it must be the same institution for any couple who wishes to receive it. The government cannot give special consideration to certain religions.

Like I said, there is no right to marriage, but there is a right to equal taxation and representation under the law.

Having two different civil institutions would not be equal representation.

I for one am against Gay Marriages and civil unions. Although I am a Christian and it IS a sin to practise Homosexuality, I became a Christian ealier this year and have always believed that homosexuality is not normal.

Being a Christian has nothing to do with thinking that homosexuality is a sin. It is a personal decision to think that, plain and simple. Some of us Christians have actually figured out that logic often still applies, even in areas of faith.

I have never come accross a Homosexual person who doesnt have some sort mental illness, hasnt been abused sexually as a child or mistreated badly by a member of the opposite sex. The only other type of person who engages in homosexuality is someone who is sexually promiscuous and is probably helping the cause of spreading sexually transmitted disease.

This is patently untrue. You have most likely met plenty of homosexuals that you never even knew were homosexual, because they acted just like you would expect a heterosexual to act. And there are no more homosexuals that are promiscuous than there are heterosexuals.

Please dont call me a homophobe as this is just my opinion and most other people although they dont have the courage to say the true opinion because they are worried they will be called a 'Fascist' or something else ridiculous.

You are severely uninformed. If you actually took time to look into the science of the matter, you would know that most of your opinions are based in lies, exagerations, and complete distortions.

Also I dont hate Gay people I actually feel sory for them as I think society has let them down especially their own parents and caused them suffering and to behave abnormally.

Do you think that homsexual/bisexual/transsexual animals are suffering and were let down by their parents as well?

Homosexuality is not a choice. Period. (unless you think you choose those parts of you that are innate)

Hello,

I for one am against Gay Marriages and civil unions. Although I am a Christian and it IS a sin to practise Homosexuality, I became a Christian ealier this year and have always believed that homosexuality is not normal.

I have never come accross a Homosexual person who doesnt have some sort mental illness, hasnt been abused sexually as a child or mistreated badly by a member of the opposite sex. The only other type of person who engages in homosexuality is someone who is sexually promiscuous and is probably helping the cause of spreading sexually transmitted disease.

Please dont call me a homophobe as this is just my opinion and most other people although they dont have the courage to say the true opinion because they are worried they will be called a 'Fascist' or something else ridiculous.
Also I dont hate Gay people I actually feel sory for them as I think society has let them down especially their own parents and caused them suffering and to behave abnormally.


Hello,

I for one am against the legal recognition Christian marriages and civil unions. Although I am an atheist and it is a "sin'" to practice ignorance and have always believed religious orientation is not normal and such persons must not be permitted to procreate.

I have never come across a religious person who wasn't severely mentally disturbed, hasn't been psychologically abused as a child or mistreated badly by his or her parents. The only other type of person who engages in religion is someone who is evangelical and is probably helping the cause of spreading Acquired Schizophrenia Syndrome (ASS).

Please don't call me a Christophobe and this is just my opinion and most other people although they don't have the courage to say the true opinion because they are worried they will be called a fascist or something else ridiculous. Also I don't hate religious people I actually feel sorry for them as I think society scorns them especially their own parents and caused them suffering and to behave abnormally.

I am pro gay marraige and a Roman Catholic, just a note. The thing that I hate about all these people saying "Jesus said it shouldn't happen" or "It is a sin". That is total BS.

First of all, Jesus never said that.

Second of all, it isn't a sin. You know why. If you are truly as religious as you say you are then you should know the two Golden Rules that Christ himself said should always be followed. The first is Love God above all else, and the second is Treat others as though you would like to be treated. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I guess then they're saying that we (I am straight) aren't allowed to marry also. I'd think at least one person would think about the most important rules of Christianity.

In my opinion, if two people love each other and want to call themselves a married couple, it is no one's business but their own; not mine, not yours and certainly not the government's.

I am pro gay marraige and a Roman Catholic, just a note. The thing that I hate about all these people saying "Jesus said it shouldn't happen" or "It is a sin". That is total BS.

First of all, Jesus never said that.

Second of all, it isn't a sin. You know why. If you are truly as religious as you say you are then you should know the two Golden Rules that Christ himself said should always be followed. The first is Love God above all else, and the second is Treat others as though you would like to be treated. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I guess then they're saying that we (I am straight) aren't allowed to marry also. I'd think at least one person would think about the most important rules of Christianity.

To be extremely eighties. . .word up!

Very good post with some things I've often wondered about. More power to you and thank you!

basically, first thing i do when i see anti-Christian bigotry so openly spouted like prior post, i know who i may freely and easily dismiss as an unintelligent board spammer. homsexuality and interpretation of a religion aren;t even a witty comparison to make, nor is it an intelligent replacement/response for prior post. oh well. most peoples' attitudes about homosexuality is not from a bible, it is what is used to justify those attitudes as being correct. it frankly creeps most people out, at least two men does. all this fella has done in his post is say what he has seen. there is, in fact, a very widespread instance of depression, etc. in the homsexual community, but the author obviously didn;t make the simple conmnection between those effets and the cause, which is those attitudes.

i say, who cares. let consenting adults do whatever, just call it something else than marriage. grant them the rights. getting the whole marriage tag added will only increase negative attitudes toward homosexuality, then it will be "forcing their gayness down their throats" to quote quite a few people i have heard express opinion on it (such a fascinating comment)....but basically, not being gay myself, i could care less, have fun, just don't ask me to fund or support homosexuality, either. what you do is no more business of mine than what i do is yours. libertarian beliefs...simply superior (lol).

i say, who cares. let consenting adults do whatever, just call it something else than marriage.

As long as *all* civil marriages are called that something else.

basically, first thing i do when i see anti-Christian bigotry so openly spouted like prior post, i know who i may freely and easily dismiss as an unintelligent board spammer. homsexuality and interpretation of a religion aren;t even a witty comparison to make, nor is it an intelligent replacement/response for prior post. oh well. most peoples' attitudes about homosexuality is not from a bible, it is what is used to justify those attitudes as being correct. it frankly creeps most people out, at least two men does. all this fella has done in his post is say what he has seen. there is, in fact, a very widespread instance of depression, etc. in the homsexual community, but the author obviously didn;t make the simple conmnection between those effets and the cause, which is those attitudes.

i say, who cares. let consenting adults do whatever, just call it something else than marriage. grant them the rights. getting the whole marriage tag added will only increase negative attitudes toward homosexuality, then it will be "forcing their gayness down their throats" to quote quite a few people i have heard express opinion on it (such a fascinating comment)....but basically, not being gay myself, i could care less, have fun, just don't ask me to fund or support homosexuality, either. what you do is no more business of mine than what i do is yours. libertarian beliefs...simply superior (lol).

Good point well made. Like I said, we are all entitled to our opinions... And again, the "at least two men does" is coming up as an interesting issue. Does anyone else find female homosexuality less offensive than male homosexuality? Seriously, I'd like to know. It seems to have been more widely accepted as part of the "female condition" (sorry, girls) than male homosexuality in the past if you look at historical references.

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

It seems everyone has the idea that the Christian church has this very weak argument against gay marriage. And I do like the way that people who know sod all about it present it as fact. No offence mate you've probably heard someone present that as a pertinent reason and assumed it was the only reason.

There's my tuppence worth. Some poor threads get pages off me! :D

It seems everyone has the idea that the Christian church has this very weak argument against gay marriage. And I do like the way that people who know sod all about it present it as fact. No offence mate you've probably heard someone present that as a pertinent reason and assumed it was the only reason.

There's my tuppence worth. Some poor threads get pages off me! :D

You know, I've never heard a arguement from a Christian perspective that was anything but weak. I would be more than willing to entertain one if you have it.

In my opinion, if two people love each other and want to call themselves a married couple, it is no one's business but their own; not mine, not yours and certainly not the government's.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the world could work like this? Unfortunately, marriage is a regulated institution. Married couples are given rights, such as visitation rights, next of kin, custody of a child, etc.

And, unfortunately, the government gets to decide who can be given these rights. The government is all pervasive in too many ways.

The best alternative would be an all encompassing "civil union" or "marriage" that all couples, homosexual or heterosexual, could participate in.

Sadly, this is something that will occur far into the future, as our current society is not ready to accept something this "radical" even though it would only be granting basic rights across the board. The key to finding a solution for this problem is to ensure that no "seperate but equal" measures are put into place. Because as we all know, seperate is inherently unequal.

Besides, if we can't keep the government out of the bedroom (e.g. sodomy laws), how will we ever de-regulate the laws governing our relationships?

I am pro gay marraige and a Roman Catholic, just a note. The thing that I hate about all these people saying "Jesus said it shouldn't happen" or "It is a sin". That is total BS.

First of all, Jesus never said that.

Second of all, it isn't a sin. You know why. If you are truly as religious as you say you are then you should know the two Golden Rules that Christ himself said should always be followed. The first is Love God above all else, and the second is Treat others as though you would like to be treated. Hmmm. I guess then they're saying that we (I am straight) aren't allowed to marry also. I'd think at least one person would think about the most important rules of Christianity.

Hi. Brainless. That's just a word. If you take offence to it then you have disagreed with what I am about to say. This is because a Christian who has read a Bible WILL tell you that the Bible, on several occasions, states:
PERFORMING HOMOSEXUAL ACTS IS WRONG

I don't want anyone to get angry at that. They're only the words from a being that Christians believe is infallible. In the NIV Bible Leviticus reads "a man must not lie with another man as a man would a woman. That is detestable". Paul denounces "homosexual offenders" and says that they will not inherit the earth.

Marriage in the Christian sense: one man, one woman.
Adultery in the Christian sense: having sex outside marriage.
Jesus did promote these two. Which makes them Christian belief

Where in that is the room for gay marriage. For the sake of this particular argument, where homosexuality comes from is irrelevant. Please do not misquote Jesus: Love God with all your heart. Love your neighbour as yourself.

I've never been to America. The media over here in the UK largely portrays Americans as not very clever. Not very nice but there it is. Please read what I've written above and don't twist Christian belief any more. Then I shall be able to laugh at the UK media and know that they've got you wrong.

Cheers

P.S. so this thread did get another page off me!
P.P.S. Hi Pracus

You know, I've never heard a argument from a Christian perspective that was anything but weak. I would be more than willing to entertain one if you have it.
Hope you like the above

I don't want anyone to get angry at that. They're only the words from a being that Christians believe is infallible. In the NIV Bible Leviticus reads "a man must not lie with another man as a man would a woman. That is detestable". Paul denounces "homosexual offenders" and says that they will not inherit the earth.

God is infallible. Humans are not. Humans wrote the Bible. What does this tell us?

Any Christian who truly believes that the Bible is absolute and infallible has not read it all the way through, and either believes that God is not an all-good God or that slavery, genocide, torture, and the denigration of women are good.

Marriage in the Christian sense: one man, one woman.
Adultery in the Christian sense: having sex outside marriage.

Marriage in the Christian homosexual sense: two loving people.
Marriage in the legal sense: a legal construct in which two people bind themselves as one legal entity

Marriage in God's sense: only God knows.

Hi. Brainless. That's just a word. If you take offence to it then you have disagreed with what I am about to say. This is because a Christian who has read a Bible WILL tell you that the Bible, on several occasions, states:
PERFORMING HOMOSEXUAL ACTS IS WRONG

I don't want anyone to get angry at that. They're only the words from a being that Christians believe is infallible. In the NIV Bible Leviticus reads "a man must not lie with another man as a man would a woman. That is detestable". Paul denounces "homosexual offenders" and says that they will not inherit the earth.

Marriage in the Christian sense: one man, one woman.
Adultery in the Christian sense: having sex outside marriage.
Jesus did promote these two. Which makes them Christian belief

Where in that is the room for gay marriage. For the sake of this particular argument, where homosexuality comes from is irrelevant. Please do not misquote Jesus: Love God with all your heart. Love your neighbour as yourself.

I've never been to America. The media over here in the UK largely portrays Americans as not very clever. Not very nice but there it is. Please read what I've written above and don't twist Christian belief any more. Then I shall be able to laugh at the UK media and know that they've got you wrong.

Cheers

P.S. so this thread did get another page off me!
P.P.S. Hi Pracus

Hope you like the above

Heard this one many times before. It's weak because of the hypocrisy that goes along with it.

Ever wear clothes made of two different fabrics? Sin according to the Bible.

Ever touch a women during her period? Let's cut off your hand.

Ever eat shellfish? Guess you're going ot hell with the rest of us.

And let's not forget some of those big ones, that Jesus actually quoted:

1. Love your neighbor as yourself.
2. Don't remove the splinter from someone else's eye before removing the log from your own.
3. Let you who have not sinned cast the first stone.

Next!

Being against homosexuality can be seen as an age old tradition. But, if you think about it, if we didn't change traditional thoughts from time to time we would not be were we are today. The world would still be considered flat, people would still strongly believe in human's having the ability to do magic and others would still be trying to flap their arms hoping they may fly.
What I'm trying to say is that the only reason why people are against homosexuality is the fact that people have been against it for so long. Constantly people are trying to find ways to ban it when they could just let gays have their rights just like every other citizen.

P.S. Yay! I managed to get a star rating on my thread!

50 years ago everyone said the same things about interracial marriage.

Immoral, changing the definition of marriage, sinful, unnatural, "everyone is equally free...to marry within their race", stuff like that.

It gets old.

50 years ago everyone said the same things about interracial marriage.

Immoral, changing the definition of marriage, sinful, unnatural, "everyone is equally free...to marry within their race", stuff like that.

It gets old.

Interracial marriage - that's a good point. It also proves that although not everyone is keen with it at the moment it will change in time. (Hopefully not too much time)

Heard this one many times before. It's weak because of the hypocrisy that goes along with it.

Ever wear clothes made of two different fabrics? Sin according to the Bible.

Heard that one before. Can't find it actually. Someone gave me a reference (Deut 22 v5) which says do not cross dress tho!

Ever touch a women during her period? Let's cut off your hand.

That's mainly a health issue. Remember when that type of hygiene rule was followed the Israelites were lost deep in the Desert (400 years! why didn't they just walk in a big straight line?). And wound etc that was uncovered would have got a healthy dose of sand and shit in it. If you don't accept that still regard it as a commandment then remember humans disobeyed it years ago. I was 9 or 10 when we had sex ed. Long before I read most of the Bible.

Ever eat shellfish? Guess you're going to hell with the rest of us.

Another rule set for the Israelites in their desert phase (yes I know desert - sea. Go figure!) but in Eden God decreed that man could partake of any of the animals. In a food sense. NOT... anyway.

And let's not forget some of those big ones, that Jesus actually quoted:

1. Love your neighbor as yourself.

I'm guessing you're not big on respect by the way to scorn Christian belief. Anyway. Love here means just that. Place as high a respect on your neighbours body and mind as your own. If not then the "don't commit adultery" commandment wouldn't stand up would it. Think Jesus was contradicting his own rules? hmm

2. Don't remove the splinter from someone else's eye before removing the log from your own.
3. Let you who have not sinned cast the first stone.

We call this hypocrisy (and 3. is justice related). A good example of this is the image of the pharisees given in the New Testament. They'd go around sneering at anyone they could see. You know, like if someone sneezed on the Sabbath and used a hanky they'd denounce them saying wiping their nose was doing work. If they're religious leaders, wasn't denouncing someone their line of work?

Think of 'The life of Brian' at the stoning. Who was actually carrying out the stoning? Female equality aside, the people throwing stones were breaking the laws of the land by being there, no?

Next!

I second that

Marriage in the Christian homosexual sense: two loving people.
Marriage in the legal sense: a legal construct in which two people bind themselves as one legal entity

Marriage in God's sense: only God knows.

I think your beliefs are different from mine mate. In my Christian beliefs (based on the Bible and teaching I hear in church) marriage is classed as one woman, one man. We're essentially taught that homosexual urges are temptations just like heterosexual urges to have extra-marital sex. If you're confident that God has told you that homosexual marriage is fine then I'm surprised but won't argue.

There should be no 'legal' marriage as has been pointed out on this thread already I think. It's a purely belief based thing, definitely used by Christians and Moslems to sanctify the relationship of a man and a woman. See how many fewer divorces you (should) see among Christians and Moslems compared to other people. Doesn't make them better. They're just trying to please God by obeying him.

Marriage in God's sense can only be known by reading what he's given us to help us work it out and making sense of it in our own lives

Missed a bit!

God is infallible. Humans are not. Humans wrote the Bible. What does this tell us?

The Bible is God-inspired, God-breathed if you will. If it's all just a big pile of human created shite then so be it. I don't believe it is.

Any Christian who truly believes that the Bible is absolute and infallible has not read it all the way through, and either believes that God is not an all-good God or that slavery, genocide, torture, and the denigration of women are good.

Genocide: God creates people, gives them a choice. Follow me or don't. People go 'naah, not today' and do their own thing. Hmm. God is a loving, jealous God. He was angry at the people of the world for not obeying him. He still loved them but decided that for the good of the world a new start was needed in the two cases I can think of, being the Flood and Israel moving in to Canaan. You think God wasn't desperately sorry that he gave orders to wipe people out, his own creations. It's like siamese twins.

Torture's kind of a human thing. Usually, needless causing of pain. Like listening to pop music.

I'm sorry when did God say to denigrate women? He said they should obey their husbands (of course their husbands should be obeying God all the time. That went awry). This and slavery were the laws of the lands that were to be obeyed. Granted the Israelites came out of Eygpt tugging lots of slaves along Another reason Bush was wrong.. the Bible says we should respect the rulers of countries as God has placed them there. Doesn't sound good does it? But it's true.

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

lol I never had a preacher tell me either.


Probably.

No, sorry.



He goes to daycare.

Course he does.



So can homosexual couples.

Which is wrong.



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

Big if... what a load of codswallop, its the main and most important reason.

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

So you place the blame at having children as the main reason for divorce.

You need help.



That is your personal opinion, not a universal fact.

And I can say the same for you as well.

And I feel for your wife, if you have one.

Why, because I dont approve of gay marriage?

'Honey, I dont approve of gays marrying...'

<Shriek> 'You monster! I want a divorce!'


Wake up.

They did evolve, just like every other amimal. We didn't directly evolve from the apes we see today we were a different type of ape to them. We were the ones that evolved to become civilised.

Believe it or not, apes were different thousands of years ago.

Prove it.

=Pracus], All human beings deserve equal rights and treatment under the law. That's the ideal of American. "All . . . are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." So don't give me shome bullshit about the majority trying to stop me from pursuing my own happiness.

But what right have you got to offend those who dont agree with what you

think is now normal.

To be extremely offensive, its the only reason you want church marriages.

If you say I would be happy to be just 'married' by the state, then that

should be enough.

If however certain uncorrupt churches refuse to recognise your 'marriage' as

a normal one, then why would you have such a massive problem with that?

Their opinion shouldnt bother you, as the state has recognised

your 'marriage', so why do you really want the Church to allow it?





And no, I won't be the one to lose this war.

You have lost already.

Prove it.
http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/Paleontology/Wood2002Fig2.jpg

This is too much fun . . . do me a favor and define normal. And do so without telling me what its NOT but by what it is.

Not having your life filled with perversion.

http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/Paleontology/Wood2002Fig2.jpg

Um a lot of 'insufficent evidence' there too.

Why would one group of 'apes' suddenly turn into human beings?

Dood, we *ARE* animals. Hate to be the one to break that news to you . . .

Keep the 'we' out of it please.

Um a lot of 'insufficent evidence' there too.

Why would one group of 'apes' suddenly turn into human beings?

uhh... apes didn't suddenly become anything but something certainly became those other species.

Again, people talking about things they don't understand. Apes didn't all evolve because they are still fit to survive. Evolution favors survival of the fit. Normally this would be classified as "of the fittest" but I'm not sure some of our non-scientific friends would be able to see this, so I'll use survival of the fit.
When that one ape (or other common ancestory, or linke) evolved to a human, s/he left the niche that apes occupy and occupied a new one. Apes are still fit to survive in their environmental niche and, therefore, are still around.

Right, so humans according to you are a fitter kind of ape?

uhh... apes didn't suddenly become anything but something certainly became those other species.

something... you dont sound very sure, of what your talking about.

something... you dont sound very sure, of what your talking about.


*laughs*

Actually I was referring to the pattern on that image when I said 'something'.

Not having your life filled with perversion.

And your undeniable proof that homosexuality is perverted would be where?

Which is wrong.

Why? Why is it so wrong for gay couples to adopt?

I voted no.

For me, it's not an issue of homophobia, but an issue of tradition. Except in Roman times (Where you were pretty much permitted to marry whomever you chose) marriage has ALWAYS been man/woman. Even in polygamous cultures, where a man could have many wives (or vice-versa, yes it does happen still today), marriage has always been about procreation.

Two homosexuals CANNOT procreate and I don't give a darn about the argument of adoption or finding someone else to help make a baby. It takes a mother and a father to make a baby and raise a child. And I don't want to here about the sad state of society today where the divorce rate is 50%, where mothers have 4 kids each from seperate daddys and fathers have 4 kids from seperate mommies because they're sex fiends who can't control their impulses and don't think of the consequences because most of them know, correctly so, that their degeneration becomes the burden of the taxpayers.

I don't care if they join in civil union to receive the benefits, but most of those obligations can be signed over by contract and most will not benefit financially from unions.

Just DON'T call it marriage, that is a sacred union based on millenia of practice.

In closing, it has always taken one man/one woman to create a baby. It takes a unified family to raise a child (mother, father, kids). That's what marriage is about.

Is Holy matrimony ok? :D

I voted no.

For me, it's not an issue of homophobia, but an issue of tradition. Except in Roman times (Where you were pretty much permitted to marry whomever you chose) marriage has ALWAYS been man/woman.
How do you know that people didn't want homosexual marriages? Maybe it was banned then too.

It takes a mother and a father to make a baby and raise a child.
Actually, two females/males are capable of raising a child, whether or not is was biologically theirs.

It takes a unified family to raise a child (mother, father, kids). That's what marriage is about.
Actually, two females/males are capable of raising a child, whether or not is was biologically theirs.

Meh, I'm gonna go to now. Probably be back either later or tomorrow.

Hello,

I for one am against the legal recognition Christian marriages and civil unions. Although I am an atheist and it is a "sin'" to practice ignorance and have always believed religious orientation is not normal and such persons must not be permitted to procreate.

I have never come across a religious person who wasn't severely mentally disturbed, hasn't been psychologically abused as a child or mistreated badly by his or her parents. The only other type of person who engages in religion is someone who is evangelical and is probably helping the cause of spreading Acquired Schizophrenia Syndrome (ASS).

Please don't call me a Christophobe and this is just my opinion and most other people although they don't have the courage to say the true opinion because they are worried they will be called a fascist or something else ridiculous. Also I don't hate religious people I actually feel sorry for them as I think society scorns them especially their own parents and caused them suffering and to behave abnormally.LOLOL! I think I hit your nerve!

As I chuckled reading this pathetic post by you I suddenly realised something about you.
1) Your a Communist or A Socialist
2) Your obviously intolerant of All Religions
3) you cant tolerate other peoples opinoins

I was very clear in my post that I DO NOT hate Gay People but I dont think it normal.

This is obviously too much for you to grasp.

LOLOL! I think I hit your nerve!

As I chuckled reading this pathetic post by you I suddenly realised something about you.
1) Your a Communist or A Socialist
2) Your obviously intolerant of All Religions
3) you cant tolerate other peoples opinoins

I was very clear in my post that I DO NOT hate Gay People but I dont think it normal.

This is obviously too much for you to grasp.
if his post offended you, and made you react this way, then his point is very well made.

you also show your own ignorance through your foolish attempts to stereotype him based on his views. though he intended parody, i literally do believe in most of that post (religious belief is a disorder, people who are religious were indoctrinated as children and such indoctrination is an act of abuse, etc). i am absolutely not a Communist or a Socialist, i am very tolerant of all religions, and my posting around these forums alone is proof that i am quite able to tolerate other people's opinions...i am one of the fiercest defenders of the free speech of those i don't agree with, in fact. you clearly have as little ability to face personal criticism as you do to subject you personal views to thoughful scrutiny.

as fun as it is to watch you flounder, i would advise you not to attempt to attack other people's ideas until you work out your own if you wish to appear anything other than foolish and rude.

I am pro gay marraige and a Roman Catholic, just a note. The thing that I hate about all these people saying "Jesus said it shouldn't happen" or "It is a sin". That is total BS.

First of all, Jesus never said that.

Second of all, it isn't a sin. You know why. If you are truly as religious as you say you are then you should know the two Golden Rules that Christ himself said should always be followed. The first is Love God above all else, and the second is Treat others as though you would like to be treated. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I guess then they're saying that we (I am straight) aren't allowed to marry also. I'd think at least one person would think about the most important rules of Christianity. Jesus never commented on this personally but The Bible is considered to be God's word and therefore the whole book is Jesus message to the world.

You cannot be a Roman Catholic AND pro Gay Marriage. You obviously havent read the Bible at all. Go and get a life application Bible and try reading what it sais about homosexuality.

I was very clear in my post that I DO NOT hate Gay People but I dont think it normal.


So, just because YOU don't think it's "normal" it shouldn't be allowed? And what exactly is "normal"? I don't see how it's any skin off your nose if two gay people are happily married. Oh, so it's against YOUR religion. Who gives? Live and let live.

Jesus, and stop using the Bible as an excuse to say something is "unnatural" or "not normal". You seriously need to get your OWN opinions.

So, just because YOU don't think it's "normal" it shouldn't be allowed? And what exactly is "normal"? I don't see how it's any skin off your nose if two gay people are happily married. Oh, so it's against YOUR religion. Who gives? Live and let live.

Jesus, and stop using the Bible as an excuse to say something is "unnatural" or "not normal". You seriously need to get your OWN opinions.
not to mention that 100 years ago it wasn't normal for a woman to vote. i don't see how anybody thinks that normalcy is relavent in the slightest to this debate.

been reading the new posts that have come up recently.

Seen a few people say things like "I don't hate gay people, but...". Love the sentence! Very magnanamous of people not to hate gay people. Why would you? or anybody for that matter. I've met some gay people i like and some i don't. Remember they are gay PEOPLE. Would be like saying...I don't hate all left handed-people. Actually although that might sound silly, people should not compare the treatment of racial minorities with homosexuality, but instead left-handed people. One the most persecuted non-racial group.

Also as it appears that its mostly Yanks (US citizens) on this site, I like to ask about your vaunted multi-culturism? you've all said christ this, bible that... What about all the other religions that make the US so multi-cultural....

ohh and about this animals question.

an·i·mal ( P )
n.
1. A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.

2. A human considered with respect to his or her physical, as opposed to spiritual, nature.

.

Also as it appears that its mostly Yanks (US citizens) on this site, I like to ask about your vaunted multi-culturism? you've all said christ this, bible that... What about all the other religions that make the US so multi-cultural....



Sometimes I do feel a bit embarassed to be a "Yank" with many people on this site all God infidelly. But, what you failed to notice, is that for most posts like that there are replies given by "Yanks" with vehemently different opinions. I'm not Christian, and I am American. And jeez, there are so many ways of life here I'm not sure if I can list all of them:

All forms of Christianity
Islam
Judaism
Hinduism
Buddhism
Atheism
Agnosticism
Paganism
Anarchism
Hippie-ism
Rap/ghetto-ism
conservatism
punk-ism
straight edgers.....etc.

Being against homosexuality can be seen as an age old tradition. But, if you think about it, if we didn't change traditional thoughts from time to time we would not be were we are today. The world would still be considered flat, people would still strongly believe in human's having the ability to do magic and others would still be trying to flap their arms hoping they may fly.
What I'm trying to say is that the only reason why people are against homosexuality is the fact that people have been against it for so long. Constantly people are trying to find ways to ban it when they could just let gays have their rights just like every other citizen.

P.S. Yay! I managed to get a star rating on my thread!

But you see, that's not exactly right. Homosexuality didn't exist as a word until the 1800s. In the middle ages it was common, in the renaissance it was common, let's not even talk about the Greek and Roman periods. Now, that being said it might not have been a public marriage or anything, but it was hardly persecuted and was considered very normal.

The government should stay out of marriage altogether and stick to recognising and enforcing contracts as in “civil unions”. Once people have entered into a legal civil union then they could become “married’ if they wished in some sort of ceremony.
But I did vote "yes" in the poll for allowing gay marriage.

Heard that one before. Can't find it actually. Someone gave me a reference (Deut 22 v5) which says do not cross dress tho!

It's in Lev. Try somewhere around chapter 19.


That's mainly a health issue. Remember when that type of hygiene rule was followed the Israelites were lost deep in the Desert (400 years! why didn't they just walk in a big straight line?). And wound etc that was uncovered would have got a healthy dose of sand and shit in it. If you don't accept that still regard it as a commandment then remember humans disobeyed it years ago. I was 9 or 10 when we had sex ed. Long before I read most of the Bible.

OH I GET IT! You pick the verses out of the Old Testament that you want to follow and call them trust. Otherwise they were just health commandments.

Come on. Let's think about this. The Old Testament verses concerning homosexuality are mostly in Lev along with most of the others I referenced. They were guidelines for surviving in the dessert where there was little sanitation and many other groups of people. You are right,t he laws given there were to help keep the people safe and to keep a national identity (IE don't marry the other people or act like them or become like them). Just like you say, those laws are no longer needed. So let's throw out Lev. Heck, let's through out the entire OT, since Jesus managed to summarize it in two laws.


I'm guessing you're not big on respect by the way to scorn Christian belief. Anyway. Love here means just that. Place as high a respect on your neighbours body and mind as your own. If not then the "don't commit adultery" commandment wouldn't stand up would it. Think Jesus was contradicting his own rules? hmm


Am I the only one that thinks this is a bit self-righteous? I am very big on enter-personal respect. I respect your right to be an idiot. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to agree with you or that I'm going to sit back and not fight when you try to oppress people with your beliefs. The chief problem I see with many Christians (though cenrtainly not all because I have known some very fine people) is that they have to force themselves and their beliefs off on everyone. Ask the Native Americans about that one.


We call this hypocrisy (and 3. is justice related). A good example of this is the image of the pharisees given in the New Testament. They'd go around sneering at anyone they could see. You know, like if someone sneezed on the Sabbath and used a hanky they'd denounce them saying wiping their nose was doing work. If they're religious leaders, wasn't denouncing someone their line of work?


So this is why today's religious leaders still go around denouncing everyone they can? I guess some things never change much.

Missed a bit!
This and slavery were the laws of the lands that were to be obeyed. Granted the Israelites came out of Eygpt tugging lots of slaves along

I'm not going to impale myself on most of this, but I can't pass this one up. So if something is the law of the land you are supposed to accept and obey it because its okay. So if gay marriage were legal, you would be all for it right?

The chief problem I see with many Christians (though cenrtainly not all because I have known some very fine people) is that they have to force themselves and their beliefs off on everyone. Ask the Native Americans about that one.

Yeah, one time this girl in like 4th grade tried to convert me. It was very embarassing...for them.

Prove it.

People continue to show their complete and utter lack of understanding of any type of scientific fact. Nothing, and I repeat NOTHING can be proven, even things as common as gravity or our own existance.

However, what you can do is say with a particular certainty that an event occured. Let me assure you, there is a world of evidence--genetic, morphological, histological, physiologically--that apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. They took different paths because of the different niches they occupy.

Gay marages newer sholdnt aloved!

But what right have you got to offend those who dont agree with what you

Because offense does not remove your basic rights. It offends me when people smoke around me, but I don't try to stop them if they are in a smoking area.


To be extremely offensive, its the only reason you want church marriages.

Where did you get the badly mistaken idea that I want a church wedding? I want legal recognition of a marriage. If a church is willing to perform it, great. Neither myself nor any other homosexual in the world would ever try to force a church to marry us through legal actions. In fact it couldn't be done because of the separation of church and state. Why would we want a church that doesn't recognize us and hates us to marry us? I hate to insult your intelligence, but I would think this is obvious.


If you say I would be happy to be just 'married' by the state, then that

should be enough.
That is in fact what we are saying.


If however certain uncorrupt churches refuse to recognise your 'marriage' as

a normal one, then why would you have such a massive problem with that?

Somehow you've misguided yourself into thinking that I care. As a gay person in the USA, I want the same rights afforded everyone else. As a Christian, I would like my church to change its opinion and indeed the Methodist church encourages its members to think for themselves and to change things they don't agree with, but I do realize the slim chances of that and in the long run its not going to bother me.


Their opinion shouldnt bother you, as the state has recognised

your 'marriage', so why do you really want the Church to allow it?
Where are you living? The "state" hasn't recognized gay marriages. They should, but lets face it, it isn't going to happen in this administration.


You have lost already.

If this is the quality of the people fighting against us, then no we haven't and our victory is pretty much secure.

Gay marages newer sholdnt aloved!

I think you said something along the lines against gay marriage...I think.

Give me one good reason. That's all I ask...one good reason.

I'm against gay marriage because "gay" and "marriage" are two entirely contrary terms that shouldn't be linked. It's like linking the colors black and white together...the definitions are opposites. Marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman. Not between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or a man and a dog, or a man and a chicken, or a woman and an elephant, or a man and his house (that one has been tried in court...), etc., etc. Gay people have never been banned from marrying...as long as they "marry." Meaning that they are wed to someone of the opposite sex. My girlfriend's roommate is planning on marrying a gay friend of hers because they both want to have kids. No one has ever tried to take that right away.

My ethics on the issue are my religious and personal viewpoints, but I do not try to force those on others. But this issue isn't about ethics. It's about whether the very meaning of marriage is either kept or destroyed.

Homosexuality is not new. It's had its waves of popularity and unpopularity over the past few millenium. Some cultures have been very accepting, while others have been very anti-homosexuality. But marriage has never included two gay people of the same sex marrying. Never.

But, since I know that some of you will start flaming my opinions because I'm a "bigot," let me say that I do not agree with the practice of homosexuality, but I don't want to harm homosexuals because of their actions. I equate homosexuality with lying or stealing or looking at porn. It's entirely inappropriate. But those are my ethics and values. I don't expect you to understand them. And I don't expect people to legislate them. The only things that are legislated are those things that are pertinent to the survival of society. And I feel that keeping the sanctity of institutions intact is something that is very pertinent to the survival of the society. And, please, don't equate slavery with "gay marriage," the two have very, very little in common. With slavery, people owned people. No one is claiming to own the homosexuals.

Not having your life filled with perversion.

Well, perversion is a relative term. It's going to be differnet for Christians, for Hindus, for Muslims, for Atheists. I suppose we should use your definition though because obviously you know better than EVERYONE else.

Why would one group of 'apes' suddenly turn into human beings?

The same reason that all evolution occurs. Random genetic mutations mixed with a selecting force for survival.

Keep the 'we' out of it please.

See, I used 'we' because I'm assuming you are human like me. Therefore you fall under Kingdom Animalia and therefore, in fact, and animal. Of course if you were a plant or protist it would explain a lot.

You're right. I don't agree nor understand you, but I think that your values come out of the idea that homosexuality is a choice.

Homosexuality is determined by the age of six, and it is not a choice for most people. I know many who struggle with it and wish desperately that they were heterosexual. Are you saying that people shouldn't be who they are?

Looking at porn is a choice. Homosexuality isn't.

Right, so humans according to you are a fitter kind of ape?

I never said they were more fit. . .apes are obviously pretty fit, they're still here.

But seriously, humans are no longer apes--we would be able to reproduce with them if we were. However, we are descended from them.

Quote:
Why would one group of 'apes' suddenly turn into human beings?


Why would a rib bone suddenly turn into a woman?

Let me start by saying that this is one of the better arguements I've heard. Still wrong, but much better.

I voted no.

For me, it's not an issue of homophobia, but an issue of tradition.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. If marriage is nothing but a tradition that must be maintained, then its already been destroyed. Divorce is legal, interracial marriage is legal, wives are not property, marriages are no longer arranged.


Two homosexuals CANNOT procreate and I don't give a darn about the argument of adoption or finding someone else to help make a baby. It takes a mother and a father to make a baby and raise a child. And I don't want to here about the sad state of society today where the divorce rate is 50%, where mothers have 4 kids each from seperate daddys and fathers have 4 kids from seperate mommies because they're sex fiends who can't control their impulses and don't think of the consequences because most of them know, correctly so, that their degeneration becomes the burden of the taxpayers.

I won't argue with you that there are too many children and families just floating out there without the necessary means to support themselves. Most homosexuals are fairly well off (several obvious exceptions are some of my cousins, but lets not open that one up) and could take care of a lot of those children. They could acutally help solve this problem that they didn't create but are being punished for.


I don't care if they join in civil union to receive the benefits, but most of those obligations can be signed over by contract and most will not benefit financially from unions.


Most but not all. Giving homosexuals SOME but not all of the rights and calling their unions by a different name is in effect making them second class citizens. That's not something this country should do.


Just DON'T call it marriage, that is a sacred union based on millenia of practice.

Again, I point out that marriage HAS changed. However, it seems like you might be willing for a compromise. What if the ;egal rights and responsibilities of what is currently called marriage for ALL people as far as the GOVERNMENT (not religious bodies) is concerned were called civil unions. Everyone has to go to the courthouse and get the license and they all get eh same rights. The idea of a marriage (a union blessed by God) would then be left up to the churches/mosques/temples/etc. to define as they saw fit. No government body would ever interfere in that.

Sound like a fair balance?

[QUOTE=JoyRide]

In closing, it has always taken one man/one woman to create a baby. It takes a unified family to raise a child (mother, father, kids).
[\QUOTE]

Couldn't quite let this one pass. There have been scientific studies that show that a child raised by two men or two women is emotionally, psychologically, intellectually, and all that other good stuff, fine. What's the problem?

You're right. I don't agree nor understand you, but I think that your values come out of the idea that homosexuality is a choice.

Homosexuality is determined by the age of six, and it is not a choice for most people. I know many who struggle with it and wish desperately that they were heterosexual. Are you saying that people shouldn't be who they are?

Looking at porn is a choice. Homosexuality isn't.

And, you know, the same psychologists that say this also say that some people are born killers, that some people are born thieves, that some people are born with an innate nature to do things that are illegal. Yet, just because people are born with something doesn't mean that they are exempt from following the laws and customs of the society that they belong to. If they were, the world would be a scary place, because people would start killing others because they enjoy it it and no one could punish them because they were "born" with it.

This is all complete BS. I don't even come close to saying that homosexuals shouldn't be who they are. All I say is that homosexuals should not try to ruin the sanctity of marriage just because they want to have something that excludes them. Even if my beliefs don't square with homosexuality, my beliefs have no effect on whether or not someone is a homosexual. People are who they are, but by belonging to a society, they have a implicit agreement to follow the laws and customs of that society. You don't see Hindus trying to celebrate Passover just because the Jews do. It's preposterous.

LOLOL! I think I hit your nerve!

As I chuckled reading this pathetic post by you I suddenly realised something about you.
1) Your a Communist or A Socialist
2) Your obviously intolerant of All Religions
3) you cant tolerate other peoples opinoins

I was very clear in my post that I DO NOT hate Gay People but I dont think it normal.

This is obviously too much for you to grasp.

Actually I think you're the one who missed the point. The post you are talking about it called satire.

And, you know, the same psychologists that say this also say that some people are born killers, that some people are born thieves, that some people are born with an innate nature to do things that are illegal. Yet, just because people are born with something doesn't mean that they are exempt from following the laws and customs of the society that they belong to. If they were, the world would be a scary place, because people would start killing others because they enjoy it it and no one could punish them because they were "born" with it.

This is all complete BS. I don't even come close to saying that homosexuals shouldn't be who they are. All I say is that homosexuals should not try to ruin the sanctity of marriage just because they want to have something that excludes them. Even if my beliefs don't square with homosexuality, my beliefs have no effect on whether or not someone is a homosexual. People are who they are, but by belonging to a society, they have a implicit agreement to follow the laws and customs of that society. You don't see Hindus trying to celebrate Passover just because the Jews do. It's preposterous.


Errr...first of all I think there is a big difference between murder and sodomy. And "sanctity" of marriage? What sanctity? Are you saying that a drunkard mother and an abusive father with a child is better than two reasonable gay parents with a child? If you want marriage to be sacred, you should just outlaw divorce.

And if you're saying that marriage is so special, why is it preposterous that gays should want a part of it? Is it preposterous that gay couples should be able to visit each other in hospitals? Is it preposterous that gay couples should have rights that straight couples have?

<sighs> If people would just read what I've written previously it would save me so much carpal tunnel pain . . .

I'm against gay marriage because "gay" and "marriage" are two entirely contrary terms that shouldn't be linked. It's like linking the colors black and white together...the definitions are opposites. Marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman.

The fact remains that marriage. has. change. ALOT! Just because this tenet hasn't, doesn't mean it shouldn't be. As far as churches are concerned, they don't have to recognize the marriage. But if the USA (and I usa USA cause that is where I am from) is to truly be the land of the free, then it is going to have to do so. I was gonna go off on you here because of some perceived racism and a stupid statement, but rereading what you wrote, I realize I can't :)


My ethics on the issue are my religious and personal viewpoints, but I do not try to force those on others. But this issue isn't about ethics. It's about whether the very meaning of marriage is either kept or destroyed.

I think you'll find that gay marriage is indeed about ethics and people forcing their beliefs off on others. Your Beliefs------>No Gay Marriage----->Forced Rules on my life.


Homosexuality is not new. It's had its waves of popularity and unpopularity over the past few millenium. Some cultures have been very accepting, while others have been very anti-homosexuality. But marriage has never included two gay people of the same sex marrying. Never.


So if we find one cultture that had it, you would support gay marriage now?


But those are my ethics and values. I don't expect you to understand them. And I don't expect people to legislate them. The only things that are legislated are those things that are pertinent to the survival of society. And I feel that keeping the sanctity of institutions intact is something that is very pertinent to the survival of the society.


How is keeping the "sanctity" of marriage intact pertinent to the survival of society? Don't make blanket statements and not back them up.

And, you know, the same psychologists that say this also say that some people are born killers, that some people are born thieves, that some people are born with an innate nature to do things that are illegal. Yet, just because people are born with something doesn't mean that they are exempt from following the laws and customs of the society that they belong to. If they were, the world would be a scary place, because people would start killing others because they enjoy it it and no one could punish them because they were "born" with it.

Easy response to this, murder, pedophilia and all those other things that are inborn HURT people. Homosexuality does not any more than heterosexuality does.


This is all complete BS. I don't even come close to saying that homosexuals shouldn't be who they are. All I say is that homosexuals should not try to ruin the sanctity of marriage just because they want to have something that excludes them. Even if my beliefs don't square with homosexuality, my beliefs have no effect on whether or not someone is a homosexual. People are who they are, .

WHAT SANTICTY OF MARRIAGE? The term sanctity refers to a religious setting. We aren't talking about religion here, we are talking about government and the granting of rights to a group of people.


but by belonging to a society, they have a implicit agreement to follow the laws and customs of that society. You don't see Hindus trying to celebrate Passover just because the Jews do. It's preposterous

So if being born to a society says we should just follow its laws and customs blindly, I guess you want to return to slavery? Or the days of feudal overloads and serfs? After all, people were born to those societies and should just have accepted them without changing anything.

I'm against gay marriage because "gay" and "marriage" are two entirely contrary terms that shouldn't be linked. It's like linking the colors black and white together...the definitions are opposites. Marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman. Not between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or a man and a dog, or a man and a chicken, or a woman and an elephant, or a man and his house (that one has been tried in court...), etc., etc.

The arguments against divorce, a woman's right to file for divorce, a black person's right to marry at all, and interracial marriage were all eerily similar. I swear. Look it up.

Oh, and try avoiding comparing homosexuality to loving a house or a dog. It makes you sound like *gasp* a bigot.

an·i·mal ( P )
n.
1. A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.

2. A human considered with respect to his or her physical, as opposed to spiritual, nature.

You missed one!

3. The little muppet guy with the drums and stuff. You know, the one on the Renault advert. Oh forgot, US doesn't know french cars. Or if they do, are they called freedom cars now?

The Bible is God-inspired, God-breathed if you will. If it's all just a big pile of human created shite then so be it. I don't believe it is.

God-inspired and God-breathed are very different. If you believe that God personally decided every word that would go into the Bible, you believe in a very contradictory God that is not all-powerful or all-knowing.

Genocide: God creates people, gives them a choice. Follow me or don't. People go 'naah, not today' and do their own thing. Hmm. God is a loving, jealous God. He was angry at the people of the world for not obeying him. He still loved them but decided that for the good of the world a new start was needed in the two cases I can think of, being the Flood and Israel moving in to Canaan. You think God wasn't desperately sorry that he gave orders to wipe people out, his own creations. It's like siamese twins.

What? It's like siamese twins? "Kill every man, woman, child, and animal" is like siamese twins, how?

If you believe that God gave the Israelites to go-ahead to murder lots and lots of people, do you also believe that God might have gotten pissed off at the Jews and given the Nazis the go-ahead to do what they did?


I'm sorry when did God say to denigrate women?

I don't believe God did say to denigrate women. But the Bible says it.

According to the laws in the OT, a woman is unclean for twice as long if she has a female child. A male who rapes a young woman has to pay her father and marry her - MARRY HER. In other words, if God wrote the law, he thinks a rape victim should have to spend the rest of her life with her rapist. If a woman is raped within a town and no one saves her, she is to be put to death with her rapist because *obviously* she wanted it. If a woman does not bleed on her wedding day (and believe me, this does not necessarily mean she is not a virgin), she can be put to death. There is no such test for a man. A man can sell his daughter, but not his son, into slavery. If the slavemaster then wants to marry her, she cannot refuse. I could go on, but perhaps this is enough utter bullshit that I hope no one believes that God actually wanted.

He said they should obey their husbands (of course their husbands should be obeying God all the time. That went awry). This and slavery were the laws of the lands that were to be obeyed.

According to you, God wrote all of those laws. Therefore you believe that God agrees with all of those laws. Therefore you believe that God thinks slavery and the belittlement of women is all fine and dandy and is, in fact, the right thing to do.

Which is wrong.

Your personal opinion, which you have no right to enforce upon others.

Big if... what a load of codswallop, its the main and most important reason.

Your personal opinion, which you have no right to enforce upon others.

So you place the blame at having children as the main reason for divorce.

You need help.

No, but I do think that people who get married for no other reason than because they are going to have a child get divorced very often. The fact that you are pregnant is *never* a sufficient reason for a marriage.

And I can say the same for you as well.

I'm not the one trying to force my personal opinion on others.

Why, because I dont approve of gay marriage?

No, because you think she holds no value to you other than to provide you with children. That is pretty sad.

OH I GET IT! You pick the verses out of the Old Testament that you want to follow and call them trust. Otherwise they were just health commandments.

They're not all in the OT. Go find 'em yerself. I'm fairly sure Jesus did not say "and ye in the future there will be science, bombs and napalm. This is the eleventh commandmant: do not drop this science on innocent people", but people don't go round doing that do they? Oh that's right... they do

Sorry, it was just too good to pass up. :D . I remember someone using the sawdust and plank analogy back there somewhere. I say no more.

I am very big on enter-personal respect. I respect your right to be an idiot. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to agree with you or that I'm going to sit back and not fight when you try to oppress people with your beliefs. The chief problem I see with many Christians (though certainly not all because I have known some very fine people) is that they have to force themselves and their beliefs off on everyone. Ask the Native Americans about that one.

Well I'm not an idiot. Not in this area anyway. I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'd say you were being a little unobservant if that's what you garnered from my posts. I'd merely like you to accept some truths about the Christian faith and see why Christians oppose certain things. As for the Native Americans, I think that's in with the science, bombs and napalm (earlier versions of) and is your dept. Touché.

Ok I'm just having a go now. Very unchristian and I'm sorry. Pracus, I shall pray for your soul; you too Dempublicents (heh heh heh, how to irritate a non-christians)

We could go on and on about every issue in the Bible till a Christian shoots down your last argument (I won't be around. I'll have died of boredom. Holy boredom of course. *cough*) and you have to accept that you don't know EVERYTHING. Wouldn't that be an arse. My siamese twins point was that God had to wipe out one of the sections of society so the other would have a better chance of survival. Got it?

I just had an idea which may have been right. Or not. What if all those draconian laws stated in Lev. were meant as a punishment for the Israelites. What you think of that? Likely? I dunno

But what right have you got to offend those who dont agree with what you

think is now normal.

To be extremely offensive, its the only reason you want church marriages.

If you say I would be happy to be just 'married' by the state, then that

should be enough.

If however certain uncorrupt churches refuse to recognise your 'marriage' as

a normal one, then why would you have such a massive problem with that?

Their opinion shouldnt bother you, as the state has recognised

your 'marriage', so why do you really want the Church to allow it?

Term, you did learn to read at some point in your life, right?

No one here is arguing that any church should be forced to perform a marriage ceremony. We are talking about the US government. Capice?

Jesus never commented on this personally but The Bible is considered to be God's word and therefore the whole book is Jesus message to the world.

And do you follow all of the Bible? Do you believe that it is possible for God to not know the outcome of something or to regret something? Do you believe it is possible for God to change God's mind? If you don't, you don't believe the whole Bible. If you do, you don't believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing God.

You cannot be a Roman Catholic AND pro Gay Marriage. You obviously havent read the Bible at all. Go and get a life application Bible and try reading what it sais about homosexuality.

You can't be a Roman Catholic and pro gay marriage *in a Catholic church.* This is much like you can't be a Roman Catholic and approve of two atheists marrying in your church. However, you can be a Roman Catholic and approve of two atheists or two homosexuals getting married in a civil ceremony.

And it is quite obvious that you haven't read the Bible at all either, unless you believe in a flawed deity who occasionally approves of evil acts, hates women, and created the world twice.

Fighting a massive sinus headache, so forgive if I'm not up to my normal standard.

They're not all in the OT. Go find 'em yerself.


The verses we were referring to in that instance were all from the OT, Leviticus for instance. I realize that Paul has had some things to say on the subject, but I'm not as well versed there.


I'm fairly sure Jesus did not say "and ye in the future there will be science, bombs and napalm. This is the eleventh commandmant: do not drop this science on innocent people", but people don't go round doing that do they? Oh that's right... they do


To tell the truth I'm not sure what you are getting it. Maybe its your communication, maybe its my confusion, but I'd appreciate clarification.


Sorry, it was just too good to pass up. :D . I remember someone using the sawdust and plank analogy back there somewhere. I say no more.


What analogy is that?


Well I'm not an idiot. Not in this area anyway. I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'd say you were being a little unobservant if that's what you garnered from my posts. I'd merely like you to accept some truths about the Christian faith and see why Christians oppose certain things. As for the Native Americans, I think that's in with the science, bombs and napalm (earlier versions of) and is your dept. Touché.


See, I accept some truths about what some people see as the Christian faith, but I don't necessarily agree with that. There is a fundamental thought difference here between those who take the Bible as literal and infallible and non-contradictory and those who don't--I would be the latter. You have the right to believe as you will, but not the right to try to force those beliefs on others.


Ok I'm just having a go now. Very unchristian and I'm sorry. Pracus, I shall pray for your soul; you too Dempublicents (heh heh heh, how to irritate a non-christians)


Having a go occasionally is quite alright, it vents frustrations. And thank you for praying for me. Even if I personally don't agree with it, I realize that you would do it because it is what you think is best. We just disagree on what is best.


We could go on and on about every issue in the Bible till a Christian shoots down your last argument (I won't be around. I'll have died of boredom. Holy boredom of course. *cough*) and you have to accept that you don't know EVERYTHING. Wouldn't that be an arse. My siamese twins point was that God had to wipe out one of the sections of society so the other would have a better chance of survival. Got it?


No, I don't know everything. But then you don't have to know everything. You only have to know something your opponent doesn't know. I think it was C.S. Lewis who said in Prince Caspian "the best swordsman in the world can be defeated by a trick that he has not learned."

Also, I'm not sure that you know what Siamese twins are, but then again you might. A better analogy might be to use Sophie's Choice.


I just had an idea which may have been right. Or not. What if all those draconian laws stated in Lev. were meant as a punishment for the Israelites. What you think of that? Likely? I dunno

Interesting question and one that comes from a perspective I have yet to consider. When I get the chance (twelfth of never most likely) I will do so.

Thanks for keeping me on my toes and thinking and being at least somewhat civil.

I voted. I'm all for gay marriages. :)

Do any atheists oppose gay marriage?

Just wondering.

I voted. I'm all for gay marriages. :)

Does that mean you're gay? Just wondering.

Why?

Because I need to get a few of you guys' phone numbers ;)

LOLOL! I think I hit your nerve!

As I chuckled reading this pathetic post by you I suddenly realised something about you.
1) Your a Communist or A Socialist
2) Your obviously intolerant of All Religions
3) you cant tolerate other peoples opinoins

I was very clear in my post that I DO NOT hate Gay People but I dont think it normal.

This is obviously too much for you to grasp.

1) Centrist
2) Only Christianity
3) My tolerance for it ends at the point where it intrudes on my life.

... and regardless of what you think, IT IS normal. Because you find it repulsive or against the grain of your religious ideals matters not. If you want to discuss what is normal (mental disorder or not) you really should consider how 'normal' it is to take a few obscure lines out of a historical religious document and over-inflate it in the manner you and others tend to do, amongst other things... ;)

Let me start by saying that this is one of the better arguements I've heard. Still wrong, but much better.



I've said this before and I'll say it again. If marriage is nothing but a tradition that must be maintained, then its already been destroyed. Divorce is legal, interracial marriage is legal, wives are not property, marriages are no longer arranged.


I won't argue with you that there are too many children and families just floating out there without the necessary means to support themselves. Most homosexuals are fairly well off (several obvious exceptions are some of my cousins, but lets not open that one up) and could take care of a lot of those children. They could acutally help solve this problem that they didn't create but are being punished for.



Most but not all. Giving homosexuals SOME but not all of the rights and calling their unions by a different name is in effect making them second class citizens. That's not something this country should do.


Again, I point out that marriage HAS changed. However, it seems like you might be willing for a compromise. What if the ;egal rights and responsibilities of what is currently called marriage for ALL people as far as the GOVERNMENT (not religious bodies) is concerned were called civil unions. Everyone has to go to the courthouse and get the license and they all get eh same rights. The idea of a marriage (a union blessed by God) would then be left up to the churches/mosques/temples/etc. to define as they saw fit. No government body would ever interfere in that.

Sound like a fair balance?

[QUOTE=JoyRide]

In closing, it has always taken one man/one woman to create a baby. It takes a unified family to raise a child (mother, father, kids).
[\QUOTE]

Couldn't quite let this one pass. There have been scientific studies that show that a child raised by two men or two women is emotionally, psychologically, intellectually, and all that other good stuff, fine. What's the problem?

I'm not arguing for or against gay adoptions. The point of marriage, to me, is to start a family biologically, with both a mommy and a daddy.

I understand that already much of marriage has been destroyed, but that doesn't take away it's value for me. You quoted me when I spoke of what I considered that sad state of society including the divorce rate. I understand and hate alot of what goes on, it makes me angry when I see a sign that has the word divorce written on it in big letters advertising a lawyer. The term "starter marriage," which has become quite popular, makes me sick to my stomach.

I like adoption, and I don't believe that those who can financially and emotionally support a child should be refused because of sexual orientation. I never made that statement, I never intended that to be taken from my remark. But at the same time, I don't consider it an argument for gay marriage, civil union maybe, but not marriage.

The whole point of my post is that I don't support gay MARRIAGE because I believe marriage is a contract between a woman and a man with the intention to start a family biologically.

I am not against civil unions, I stated that before. I am against them calling it marriage, for me, that word has ALOT of history behind it.

The whole point of my post is that I don't support gay MARRIAGE because I believe marriage is a contract between a woman and a man with the intention to start a family biologically.

I am not against civil unions, I stated that before. I am against them calling it marriage, for me, that word has ALOT of history behind it.

We're getting somewhere!

I could argue with you about the history of marriage (and it would be an interesting discussion) by why debate when I think we can reach a common ground?

If homosexuals would be willing to accept the term civil union as a middle ground, then would you be willing to accept that term as well for heterosexual couples are far as, and only as sfar as, the government is concerned? Let marriage be something decided by churches or individuals, or whoever at their will. Governmentally, marriage wouldn't exist. Only civil unions. And any two consenting adults could enter into those unions regardless of gender and have the same rights as all other adults?

Because if you can agree to that, then I think we just figured out we aren't disagreeing at all.

No, we're not really disagreeing. I oppose gay MARRIAGE, I don't oppose civil unions.

No, we're not really disagreeing. I oppose gay MARRIAGE, I don't oppose civil unions.

You still haven't told me if you would be willing to make it equal. Are straight people to only have civil unions as well, at least as far as the government is concerned?

I'm not arguing for or against gay adoptions. The point of marriage, to me, is to start a family biologically, with both a mommy and a daddy.

...

The whole point of my post is that I don't support gay MARRIAGE because I believe marriage is a contract between a woman and a man with the intention to start a family biologically.

therefore i would assume you are campaigning to stop the weddings of all heterosexual who cannot or will not produce children, right? i mean, people like my (hetero) partner and i shouldn't be allowed to marry, since i have no intention of ever producing biological children, right? and women and men who have already produced children in a previous marriage, and who don't intend to ever have more, shouldn't be allowed to wed, right? and women who are past menopause shouldn't be allowed to marry, right?

if you want people to believe your position is anything other than poorly-veiled homophobia, you will need to be consistent in your efforts.

I really can't say I agree to that on the grounds of the slippery slope argument.

If all religiously sanctioned unions are marriages and all government sanctioned unions are civil unions, then no I do not agree with you.

Religions (ones that are officially recognized by the governments) could be started that are willing to wed gay couples, thereby creating a gay merriage, which I oppose.

I'm sorry, no, I can't agree with you. All male/female union would have to be considered marriage. All homosexual unions would have to be considered civil unions.

That's just my viewing on the matter.

I'm sorry, no, I can't agree with you. All male/female union would have to be considered marriage. All homosexual unions would have to be considered civil unions.

what if a heterosexual couple wanted to have a civil union rather than a marriage?

I really can't say I agree to that on the grounds of the slippery slope argument.

If all religiously sanctioned unions are marriages and all government sanctioned unions are civil unions, then no I do not agree with you.

Religions (ones that are officially recognized by the governments) could be started that are willing to wed gay couples, thereby creating a gay merriage, which I oppose.

I'm sorry, no, I can't agree with you. All male/female union would have to be considered marriage. All homosexual unions would have to be considered civil unions.

That's just my viewing on the matter.

But that creates a situation of separate but equal. And I'm not proposing the religiously sanctioned ceremonies automatically equate to civil unions. All people wishing to have that status have to go tot eh courthouse and fill out the paperwork and get the license and be "married" by a justice of the peace. Just having a ceremony in a church would no longer automatically equate to that. In effect, hetersexuals wishing to be married in a church and wishing to have the rights afforded by a civil union would have to go through two separate ceremonies. Same would go for gay couples if they could "get married." They could have their private commitment ceremony and would still have to go to a justice of the peace.

If all religiously sanctioned unions are marriages and all government sanctioned unions are civil unions, then no I do not agree with you.

Then you are anti-Constitution. Have fun getting it amended.

Religions (ones that are officially recognized by the governments) could be started that are willing to wed gay couples, thereby creating a gay merriage, which I oppose.

Too late. There are already religions willing to perform gay marriage ceremonies. There are already many married gay couples. Their unions are simply not recognized by the government. I'm afraid that you have already lost this battle.

I'm sorry, no, I can't agree with you. All male/female union would have to be considered marriage. All homosexual unions would have to be considered civil unions.

Then you agree to get rid of the 14th Amendment and make homosexuals second class citizens.

therefore i would assume you are campaigning to stop the weddings of all heterosexual who cannot or will not produce children, right? i mean, people like my (hetero) partner and i shouldn't be allowed to marry, since i have no intention of ever producing biological children, right? and women and men who have already produced children in a previous marriage, and who don't intend to ever have more, shouldn't be allowed to wed, right? and women who are past menopause shouldn't be allowed to marry, right?

if you want people to believe your position is anything other than poorly-veiled homophobia, you will need to be consistent in your efforts.


Actually yes, I do not approve of your union. Also, I don't approve of divorce. I'm looking at this whole issue through the candy coated goggles of youth. I'm 21 and one day I want to be married, I want to start a family. I can't imagine it ending in divorce, especially if the bond was strong enough to bring on the marriage in the first place.

I am willing to make some concessions, nothing is black and white. I understand where widows and widowers might want to get married again and it would be called marriage. I understand that sometimes divorce happens, and I DO approve of it in cases of abuse and the like (note: I do consider adultery a form of abuse).

Also, though I may have a conservative viewpoint, you do NOT need to accuse me of homophobia. I figured this stance would be taken on my argument, that is why I opened my first post the way I did. I posted elsewhere my belief on the marriage vs civil union argument. You do not have to accept my position, people who voted no were called out on page one, so I brought my beliefs to the public, not to be attacked by liberals. I'm not campaigning, I'm not trying to persuade anyone to my line of thinking, that's just how I view the issue.

Actually yes, I do not approve of your union. Also, I don't approve of divorce. I'm looking at this whole issue through the candy coated goggles of youth. I'm 21 and one day I want to be married, I want to start a family. I can't imagine it ending in divorce, especially if the bond was strong enough to bring on the marriage in the first place.

I am willing to make some concessions, nothing is black and white. I understand where widows and widowers might want to get married again and it would be called marriage. I understand that sometimes divorce happens, and I DO approve of it in cases of abuse and the like (note: I do consider adultery a form of abuse).

Also, though I may have a conservative viewpoint, you do NOT need to accuse me of homophobia. I figured this stance would be taken on my argument, that is why I opened my first post the way I did. I posted elsewhere my belief on the marriage vs civil union argument. You do not have to accept my position, people who voted no were called out on page one, so I brought my beliefs to the public, not to be attacked by liberals. I'm not campaigning, I'm not trying to persuade anyone to my line of thinking, that's just how I view the issue.

All of these things can be extended quite nicely to a religious view of marriage.

However, we are not talking about religious marriage. We are talking about civil marriage, where your opinions of what constitutes the "proper" marriage mean little. So you do not approve of Bottle's possibly marriage because you believe the purpose of marriage is to have children. But do you think that should be a government-sponsored edict. Do you believe that the government should go around taking away people's birth control and forcing them to have children?

You need to separate church and state in your head. Then you will understand the argument.

But that creates a situation of separate but equal. And I'm not proposing the religiously sanctioned ceremonies automatically equate to civil unions. All people wishing to have that status have to go tot eh courthouse and fill out the paperwork and get the license and be "married" by a justice of the peace. Just having a ceremony in a church would no longer automatically equate to that. In effect, hetersexuals wishing to be married in a church and wishing to have the rights afforded by a civil union would have to go through two separate ceremonies. Same would go for gay couples if they could "get married." They could have their private commitment ceremony and would still have to go to a justice of the peace.


I understand it would be seperate but equal, and I had originally put it in the post, but deleted it :-D. True story. Look, alright, I believe personally that marriage happens between a man and a woman to start a biological family, and I've already been attacked by half a couple that don't plan on having children. That is what I believe marriage is. I'm not opposed to gay couples receiving the same benefits that marriage entails.

I just don't want it called marriage, that term means alot to me. That was my original viewpoint.

what if a heterosexual couple wanted to have a civil union rather than a marriage?


That's too bad. Just as if a homosexual couple wanted a marriage.

You need to separate church and state in your head. Then you will understand the argument.

Find my original post, there was not a note of religion in there. I believe the subject was brought to the fore by Pracus.

Actually, your phrase "this could be extended nicely into a religious argument", or something of the like. I have not argued this at all from religious standpoint. Not once have I put down homosexuality or quoted the bible. You're trying to turn me into a raving christian, something I most definately am not.

I just don't want it called marriage, that term means alot to me. That was my original viewpoint. Also, too all reading this post, I'm just going to start responding to Pracus coz at last count three seperate people were dissecting my words and I don't feel like keeping up with three different arguments.

If this is your viewpoint, then you should have no problem with the government dropping the term altogether and using a separate term for their "marriage" construct. However, you still want the government to keep the term for some people and not for others. Thus, you have already allowed the government to change the term.

If this is your viewpoint, then you should have no problem with the government dropping the term altogether and using a separate term for their "marriage" construct. However, you still want the government to keep the term for some people and not for others. Thus, you have already allowed the government to change the term.


In my viewpoint, the term would not be changed at all. It would just be legally defined the way I see it. :-D

Actually yes, I do not approve of your union. Also, I don't approve of divorce. I'm looking at this whole issue through the candy coated goggles of youth. I'm 21 and one day I want to be married, I want to start a family. I can't imagine it ending in divorce, especially if the bond was strong enough to bring on the marriage in the first place.

I am willing to make some concessions, nothing is black and white. I understand where widows and widowers might want to get married again and it would be called marriage. I understand that sometimes divorce happens, and I DO approve of it in cases of abuse and the like (note: I do consider adultery a form of abuse).

Also, though I may have a conservative viewpoint, you do NOT need to accuse me of homophobia. I figured this stance would be taken on my argument, that is why I opened my first post the way I did. I posted elsewhere my belief on the marriage vs civil union argument. You do not have to accept my position, people who voted no were called out on page one, so I brought my beliefs to the public, not to be attacked by liberals. I'm not campaigning, I'm not trying to persuade anyone to my line of thinking, that's just how I view the issue.
fair enough, you're not a homophobe, you're just a very ignorant, bossy, and impractical child. i have hope, in this case, because children grow up :).

I understand it would be seperate but equal, and I had originally put it in the post, but deleted it :-D. True story. Look, alright, I believe personally that marriage happens between a man and a woman to start a biological family, and I've already been attacked by half a couple that don't plan on having children. That is what I believe marriage is. I'm not opposed to gay couples receiving the same benefits that marriage entails.

I just don't want it called marriage, that term means alot to me. That was my original viewpoint. Also, too all reading this post, I'm just going to start
responding to Pracus coz at last count three seperate people were dissecting my words and I don't feel like keeping up with three different arguments.


So because Bob and Joe love each other, the marrige you arn't even in is cheapened?

fair enough, you're not a homophobe, you're just a very ignorant, bossy, and impractical child. i have hope, in this case, because children grow up :).


It's funny, I'm the "ignorant, bossy, impractical child" and you're the one that's making personal attacks.

So because Bob and Joe love each other, the marrige you arn't even in is cheapened?


The idea of the marriage I'm not even in is cheapened, no. The ideal of marriage that I believe in is completely changed.

I understand it would be seperate but equal, and I had originally put it in the post, but deleted it :-D. True story. Look, alright, I believe personally that marriage happens between a man and a woman to start a biological family, and I've already been attacked by half a couple that don't plan on having children. That is what I believe marriage is. I'm not opposed to gay couples receiving the same benefits that marriage entails.

I just don't want it called marriage, that term means alot to me. That was my original viewpoint.

Hah, I dont' blame you. But they are passionate and care. And let's face it, that's rare in our apathetic age.

So you realize that this would create a situation of "separate but equal." I really misspoke when I said this. Because see, separate is not equal. Our country dealt with that a long time ago in the civil rights movement. As far as the government is concerned, all things have to be equal.

So again, I pose the question. As far as the government is concerned, should both heterosexual and homosexual "marriages" (I just can't think of a better word right now, so please understand the quotes) be called civil unions?

Find my original post, there was not a note of religion in there. I believe the subject was brought to the fore by Pracus.

Actually, your phrase "this could be extended nicely into a religious argument", or something of the like. I have not argued this at all from religious standpoint. Not once have I put down homosexuality or quoted the bible. You're trying to turn me into a raving christian, something I most definately am not.

Okay, so you're arguement is not relgious. However it is societal and that sometimes has to be separated from the government. The President and Congress cannot regulate the terms that differnet people use in their heads and day to day conversations. We aren't legislating whether you can call them marriges, unions, or what. Instead we are talking about what relationships the government recognizes and confers specific rights to and what that relationship should be termed as far as the government.

I feel like we are dancing around each other and I are just barely missing a really good head on agreement--so thank you for bearing with me.

In my viewpoint, the term would not be changed at all. It would just be legally defined the way I see it. :-D

So you would annul half of the marriages that have already occurred?

Here's my thought on that.

Having met few homosexuals, I fear that my position may not be accurate. However, I believe that a homosexual couple could in fact be better for a child's mental health than several categories of heterosexual couples, if it can be proven that either side can do the following.

1-Abusive parenting--
Any form of abuse, neglect, mental, physical, and sexual abuse are crimes and those providing the abuse should have their children put up for adoption. This isn't to say that the child will not suffer from the stresses of the adoption, but that the parents will no longer be able to use the child as a tool for their own anger, towards each other, or towards the child.

2-Forcing Idealisms/Beliefs upon the child--
Often, religious and rascist views are imprinted upon the child's psyche starting at a very early age, causing levels of intolerance that are dangerous to modern societies. Sexual orientation should be included in this category, such that Homosexual couples shouldn't force the same-sex couple ideology upon the child. I have no evidence that this will happen, only that the child sees and will at least try it, which is not a bad thing, however, adding to the gene pool is important, and the child needs to be aware of all the possibilities. In addition, that the parents chose to be homosexual because they are more attracted to members of the same sex rather then to members of the opposite sex and that most people choose heterosexuality.

Those are my reasons behind supporting homosexual marriages, being that most often, Gay couples are more supportive of not only each other, but that in some cases could be better for a child's well being.

So again, I pose the question. As far as the government is concerned, should both heterosexual and homosexual "marriages" (I just can't think of a better word right now, so please understand the quotes) be called civil unions?

I recently read an article that proposed that all unions be called "civil unions" and that "marriage" should be reserved for those that choose to be married in a church or equivelant.

The idea of the marriage I'm not even in is cheapened, no. The ideal of marriage that I believe in is completely changed.

I'm not quite sure to phrase this, so bare with me.

Our ideals should be internal to us. My ideal of marriage is what existed between my mother and my father. An equal, loving, caring relationship based on wanting to help one another and being together all through life.

This doesn't mean you won't fight, this doesn't mean that you won't cry, but it does mean you don't give up. Believe me, there were some times when divorce would've been the easy road, but not the best road.

That's my ideal.

But that isn't what marriage is for everyone. Marriage can be a million different things. It can be teh way out of an abusive situation. It can be for religious purposes. It can be for children to have married parents. It can be for financial gain.

I can't force my ideal of marriage onto everyone though. I wish that everyone could share that, but they cannot.

Therefore, our individual ideals have to be tempered by the equality that can only be granted by teh government. Ideals shouldn't be cheapened because of what someone else can or cannot do. It in no way cheapens what you think marriage should be because someone else thinks otherwise.

Keep your ideals close to your heart. Have high ones. You might never attain them--I rarely do. But as Lowell says, not failure but low aim is crime.

So what am I getting at in all my ramblings? Just because a government recognizes a union that you don't agree with, it doesn't cheapen your ideas. It just grants equal rights to other ideas that do not hurt anyone.

Hah, I dont' blame you. But they are passionate and care. And let's face it, that's rare in our apathetic age.

So you realize that this would create a situation of "separate but equal." I really misspoke when I said this. Because see, separate is not equal. Our country dealt with that a long time ago in the civil rights movement. As far as the government is concerned, all things have to be equal.

So again, I pose the question. As far as the government is concerned, should both heterosexual and homosexual "marriages" (I just can't think of a better word right now, so please understand the quotes) be called civil unions?

Alright, this is in reply to both of your recent posts, I can't seem to get both to quote in here, so I'm not quoting your second one.

I too think we're both misrepresenting ourselves, so I'm going to clarify. If the vote had been on:
Should gay civil unions be legalised?, I would've voted yes.
In the eyes of the government, should all "marriages" ( I use your term because I too can't think of another one) be considered civil unions? I would(now that I've been discussing this with you) vote yes.

But on the issue of Gay Marriage being legalized - I vote "No". Because you're united in the eyes of the government, doesn't mean I consider you married. When I see a father, mother, and child(ren) in a park, I consider THAT a marriage based on what I believe the term marriage to mean.

Thank you for supporting gay marriage. You do have one myth in this though. Gay people don't choose to be gay. We rae born. Believe me if I could choose, I would be straight. My god would I be. I was raised in Mississippi for goodness sakes. Thank god my parents loved me unconditionally.

Here's my thought on that.

Having met few homosexuals, I fear that my position may not be accurate. However, I believe that a homosexual couple could in fact be better for a child's mental health than several categories of heterosexual couples, if it can be proven that either side can do the following.

1-Abusive parenting--
Any form of abuse, neglect, mental, physical, and sexual abuse are crimes and those providing the abuse should have their children put up for adoption. This isn't to say that the child will not suffer from the stresses of the adoption, but that the parents will no longer be able to use the child as a tool for their own anger, towards each other, or towards the child.

2-Forcing Idealisms/Beliefs upon the child--
Often, religious and rascist views are imprinted upon the child's psyche starting at a very early age, causing levels of intolerance that are dangerous to modern societies. Sexual orientation should be included in this category, such that Homosexual couples shouldn't force the same-sex couple ideology upon the child. I have no evidence that this will happen, only that the child sees and will at least try it, which is not a bad thing, however, adding to the gene pool is important, and the child needs to be aware of all the possibilities. In addition, that the parents chose to be homosexual because they are more attracted to members of the same sex rather then to members of the opposite sex and that most people choose heterosexuality.

Those are my reasons behind supporting homosexual marriages, being that most often, Gay couples are more supportive of not only each other, but that in some cases could be better for a child's well being.


Oh, and children raised by gay parents are no more likely to be gay than children raised by hetersexuals. There've been studies on it.

Still, again, thank you.

Alright, this is in reply to both of your recent posts, I can't seem to get both to quote in here, so I'm not quoting your second one.

I too think we're both misrepresenting ourselves, so I'm going to clarify. If the vote had been on:
Should gay civil unions be legalised?, I would've voted yes.
In the eyes of the government, should all "marriages" ( I use your term because I too can't think of another one) be considered civil unions? I would(now that I've been discussing this with you) vote yes.

But on the issue of Gay Marriage being legalized - I vote "No". Because you're united in the eyes of the government, doesn't mean I consider you married. When I see a father, mother, and child(ren) in a park, I consider THAT a marriage based on what I believe the term marriage to mean.

You know what my friend? I think we just agreed! Now 300 million more people to go :)

I am against gay marriages, and there are many moral and pragmatic reasons for my being so.

Not only is gay marrige against nearly every religion, but nature forbids it. Why do you think homosexuals are four times as likely to contract STDs that heterosexuals? Because it is unnatural. It's against God, and it contradicts with what the founding fathers believed for this country.

Allowing gay marrige to occour would be a terrible blow to America, think about it. What would this mean for gender roles? It would change everything, marrige no longer means husband and wife, bride and groom, it can mean anything. Why not polygamy (plural marrige), or beastiality (sex with animals)?
If we were to allow plural marrige or beastiality it would destroy the financial gains from marrige involving heirs, taxes, and medical decisions. We can't open this can of worms!

All of the great empires that collapsed had a great moral downfall that played a part in the country before the downfall. I'll use Rome as an example, homosexuality and other sodomy (unnatural sex) were running rampant and it destroyed any moral substance the empire had.

Why not civil unions? Because it is raising up something unnatural to the value of something Holy. The only difference between a civil union and a marrige are their titles and how they become official.

It is common for people to think that it would be lifting the burdon of gay right ralleys and such from society, well I hate to say it but I fear the anti-gay ralleys that would follow the legalization would be just as bad if not more violent since ralleys against something tend to be that way.

The reason we shouldn't leave it to the states is because that would in effect be the same as legalization, homosexuals would rush to the states legalizing it and everyone who wanted to get married still would. And then desputes over states recognizing other states marital laws would ensue and cause even more distention.

On the other hand, why would we allow gay marrige? Is there any reason to? The only reason ive heard is simply because we might as well grant them the right because there isn't any evident reason not to, I believe ive just nullified that. Most homosexuals will even admit that they demand marrige mostly just for spite against the "oppressive" and "persecuting" heterosexuals.

I am not a homophobe, nor are true Christians and Republicans, as we don't hate the person but we hate the destructive sinful act. To ban homosexuality in general would be taking away civil rights, not banning gay marrige or civil union. It would be lifting a great burdon from society.

Overall my politics encourages me not to care at all about social issues.

To me Marriage is a religous issue, therefore the government should not even call Heterosexual Unions "marriage". Marriage is something that happens in a church, not ina court house. The entire concept should be removed. Overall, yeah sure Gay Civil Unions, (or in reality Civil Unions for everyone!)

Honestly though, social issues are really not that important to me at all.

The poll isn't complete. I myself don't have a problem with gay marriage. It doesn't involve me, have at it. But the respect I have for people who support gay marriage also goes for the people who don't support it. I am a man of convictions, and I respect other people for standing up with their own, misguided as they may be. I know it goes back to the 1860's, but I believe that gay marriage should be an issue decided by the states, and not the nation. If Louisiana wants to outlaw gay marriage, so be it. If Massachusetts, my home state, wants to allow gay marriage, so be it. HOWEVER, I feel that if a couple gets married in Massachusetts and moves to Lousiana, the marriage must be recognized.

Sorry if I seem like I'm excluding non-US residents.

This message is for you Pracus.

You and I discussed what I consider marriage, and I stated that I want to get married one day to start a family. But, you being the first gay person I've come across that actually seems to want to get married, I want to know your reasons.

Not only is gay marrige against nearly every religion, but nature forbids it. Why do you think homosexuals are four times as likely to contract STDs that heterosexuals? Because it is unnatural. It's against God, and it contradicts with what the founding fathers believed for this country.

Nature forbids it? Tell that to all of the myriad of species that engage in homosexual/bisexual mating.

And allowing equal rights for all human beings certainly *does not* contradict what the founding fathers wanted.

Allowing gay marrige to occour would be a terrible blow to America, think about it. What would this mean for gender roles? It would change everything, marrige no longer means husband and wife, bride and groom, it can mean anything.

Oh no! The women wouldn't be stuck in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant any more!!!

Seriously, what gender roles do you think are being destroyed here? And do you not realize that gender roles are nothing more than a social construct anyways?

Why not polygamy (plural marrige), or beastiality (sex with animals)?
If we were to allow plural marrige or beastiality it would destroy the financial gains from marrige involving heirs, taxes, and medical decisions. We can't open this can of worms!

Looky there, you just explained why polygamy wouldn't be allowed - it would completely destroy the government's interest in recognizing marriage at all. Congratulations.

As for bestiality, there's this little issue of consent...

All of the great empires that collapsed had a great moral downfall that played a part in the country before the downfall. I'll use Rome as an example, homosexuality and other sodomy (unnatural sex) were running rampant and it destroyed any moral substance the empire had.

You do realize that Christianity had taken over Rome long before it fell, and that the mixture of religion and state actually had something to do with the fall?

Why not civil unions? Because it is raising up something unnatural to the value of something Holy. The only difference between a civil union and a marrige are their titles and how they become official.

What is holy about civil marriages?

On the other hand, why would we allow gay marrige? Is there any reason to? The only reason ive heard is simply because we might as well grant them the right because there isn't any evident reason not to, I believe ive just nullified that. Most homosexuals will even admit that they demand marrige mostly just for spite against the "oppressive" and "persecuting" heterosexuals.

The reason to allow it is simple. We live in a civilized society in which equal rights are to be granted to all human beings. Heterosexual couples have access to protections that keep them from losing the lives they have built together. Homosexual couples should have those same protections unless there is proof that homosexuality, in and of itself, harms someone. There is none.

I am not a homophobe,

If you are not, you are severely uneducated.

Oh goodness, where to go with this. I don't have time for a whole lot, but I've got to respond to af ew points.


Not only is gay marrige against nearly every religion, but nature forbids it. Why do you think homosexuals are four times as likely to contract STDs that heterosexuals? Because it is unnatural. It's against God, and it contradicts with what the founding fathers believed for this country.

Check your record books, several religious groups sanction gay marriages.

And gay are more likely to contract HIV while having unsafe anal sex because the mucous membranes and the anal canal are good at absorbing the virus. But have you look at the world-wide AIDS statistics? It's a heterosexual disease. And a IV needle user disease. Guess its really punishment on straight people.


Allowing gay marrige to occour would be a terrible blow to America, think about it. What would this mean for gender roles? It would change everything, marrige no longer means husband and wife, bride and groom, it can mean anything. Why not polygamy (plural marrige), or beastiality (sex with animals)?
If we were to allow plural marrige or beastiality it would destroy the financial gains from marrige involving heirs, taxes, and medical decisions. We can't open this can of worms!


A. Gender roles are artificial constructs that are on their way out. They are sexist and untrue.
2. Personally, no problemw ith polgygamy as long as its consentual and informed. Beastility? Of course not, animals cannot give consent.
III. Heirs, Taxes and medicial decisions would be the same for gay people as they are for straight, not sure where you are coming from here.


All of the great empires that collapsed had a great moral downfall that played a part in the country before the downfall. I'll use Rome as an example, homosexuality and other sodomy (unnatural sex) were running rampant and it destroyed any moral substance the empire had.

Not a total history buff, but my understanding was it was the invaders that destroyed the Roman Empire. Enemies that they had made because of, well, intolerance and invading other nations.


Why not civil unions? Because it is raising up something unnatural to the value of something Holy. The only difference between a civil union and a marrige are their titles and how they become official.

Why civil unions? Because it takes religion out of the equation. Its something of the secular government. Maybe you've heard of this little thing called the separation o church and state. And a difference in title and how it happens is a big thing.


It is common for people to think that it would be lifting the burdon of gay right ralleys and such from society, well I hate to say it but I fear the anti-gay ralleys that would follow the legalization would be just as bad if not more violent since ralleys against something tend to be that way.

I've never heard that as an excuse for allowing gay marriage. And if there is a backlash, we'll face it head on. You're saying that becaue some psychos might get angry is a reason not to do something? To me it sounds liek you are threatening that people will become terrorists.


The reason we shouldn't leave it to the states is because that would in effect be the same as legalization, homosexuals would rush to the states legalizing it and everyone who wanted to get married still would. And then desputes over states recognizing other states marital laws would ensue and cause even more distention.


I hope this happens.

On the other hand, why would we allow gay marrige? Is there any reason to?

Yes, because its what is right. America is founded on the principals of equal rights for everyone.


The only reason ive heard is simply because we might as well grant them the right because there isn't any evident reason not to, I believe ive just nullified that. Most homosexuals will even admit that they demand marrige mostly just for spite against the "oppressive" and "persecuting" heterosexuals.


In what world of deranged logic have you nullified it? And no, most homosexuals will not tell you we are demanding EQUALITY just to piss people like you off. We are demanding it because we are human beings who have the right to be treated the same under the law as anyone else. My guess is that you heard that drivel about getting even from Falwell or Robertson.


I am not a homophobe, nor are true Christians and Republicans, as we don't hate the person but we hate the destructive sinful act. To ban homosexuality in general would be taking away civil rights, not banning gay marrige or civil union. It would be lifting a great burdon from society.

It's not a destructive act. As far as the sin, that's up to indviiduals to decide in their own lives. I appreciate that you realize that banning homosexuality would be a breach of civil rights. But treating us differently than any other gorup of people is also a breach of those same rights.

And what burden is there on society? Most homosexuals are well-educated and hard-working people. We support society as much as any other individual.

The poll isn't complete. I myself don't have a problem with gay marriage. It doesn't involve me, have at it. But the respect I have for people who support gay marriage also goes for the people who don't support it. I am a man of convictions, and I respect other people for standing up with their own, misguided as they may be. I know it goes back to the 1860's, but I believe that gay marriage should be an issue decided by the states, and not the nation. If Louisiana wants to outlaw gay marriage, so be it. If Massachusetts, my home state, wants to allow gay marriage, so be it. HOWEVER, I feel that if a couple gets married in Massachusetts and moves to Lousiana, the marriage must be recognized.

Sorry if I seem like I'm excluding non-US residents.

Do you believe then, that we should do away with the idea that state governments must follow the tenets of the US Constitution?

The only threat to marriage as a relevent social institution is divorce.


"Defense of marriage" is a red herring to disguise hatred of gay people.
Similar stunts were used to disguise hating black people and others.

This message is for you Pracus.

You and I discussed what I consider marriage, and I stated that I want to get married one day to start a family. But, you being the first gay person I've come across that actually seems to want to get married, I want to know your reasons.

My reasons are probably remarably similiar to yours. I want to share my life with someone. I want to know that if I'm sick, he will be able to come to my bedside and will be able to make decisions for me, and vice-versa. I want to know that he will be taken care of after I die. I want to be able to adopt children and raise them to be good and loving people the way I was raised. I want to get to stand up in front of the world and swear my love to someone for all my existance. And I want the government to recognize that. Does my church have to? No. I'd like it if they did, but I won't try to force them. I can't do that. I can't force you to recognize my commitment to someone else. But I deserve to be treated equally.

Maybe that seems kind of rambly, it does as I look over it.

In fact there are two different points there. There are the reasons I want to be wed (which I can do without government intervention). And there are the reasons I want the government to recognize my union. Why? Because it helps guarantee that my husband and I will be able to live as lives as one.

NewJustice:


Oh, fuck you.

This entire post is filled with innacuracies and flat out lies.

Many of these things have been proven wrong in the thread.

If you're too lazy to read the thread, don't post.

Now go fuck yourself.


Not only is gay marrige against nearly every religion, but nature forbids it. Why do you think homosexuals are four times as likely to contract STDs that heterosexuals? Because it is unnatural. It's against God, and it contradicts with what the founding fathers believed for this country.
1) Many religions have no problem with homosexuality. But it's hard to see that with your head in your ass.
2) It is natural. It appears in nature, therefore it's natural. Dumbass. THis has been proven time and time again. It has been discuessed in this very thread.
3) Four tiems as likily? Cite sources. If they exist. They probebly don't.
4) How does it contradict anything with the founding fathers? Wait, are these the same guys that thought women should be next to property, and that people that weren't white WERE property?

Allowing gay marrige to occour would be a terrible blow to America, think about it. What would this mean for gender roles? It would change everything, marrige no longer means husband and wife, bride and groom, it can mean anything. Why not polygamy (plural marrige), or beastiality (sex with animals)?
1) You believe in gender roles? Fuck you, asshole. Lemme guess, you think women are lesser creatures who should slave away in the house all day.
2) Slippery slope fallacy. It's been proven wrong just as many times as the rest of the shit in your post. If we don't allow gay marrige, what's to stop us from not allowing inneracial marrige? Though you're probebly against that too.
3) CONSENT, asshat. Ever hear of the word? Animals can't give CONSENT.
4) Polygamy would just be way too complicated for laws to follow. But who knows? Maybe it WOULD be allowed in the future. After all, since you care SOOOOO much about things that are natural, surely you understand that polygamy is more natural then monogamy?

All of the great empires that collapsed had a great moral downfall that played a part in the country before the downfall. I'll use Rome as an example, homosexuality and other sodomy (unnatural sex) were running rampant and it destroyed any moral substance the empire had.

Rome? Bad, BAD example. Rome fell because of: retarded emperors, barbarian invaders, the people's laziness, the lack of an actual army, rising religious conflicts (that's right, the christians help topple down Rome), the strain of the empire being too big...in fact, I don't see how homosexuality brought down the empire at ALL.

Why not civil unions? Because it is raising up something unnatural to the value of something Holy. The only difference between a civil union and a marrige are their titles and how they become official.

Once again, dumbshit, homosexuality IS natural. And marrige isn't holy. It hasn't been for some time. I can grab a hooker, go down to Vegas, and be married. That doesn't sound very holy to me.

It is common for people to think that it would be lifting the burdon of gay right ralleys and such from society, well I hate to say it but I fear the anti-gay ralleys that would follow the legalization would be just as bad if not more violent since ralleys against something tend to be that way.

I don't even understand what point you're trying to make here.

The reason we shouldn't leave it to the states is because that would in effect be the same as legalization, homosexuals would rush to the states legalizing it and everyone who wanted to get married still would. And then desputes over states recognizing other states marital laws would ensue and cause even more distention.

You're absolutly right, we should make it completely legal in all states, and like bigoted idiots be damned.

On the other hand, why would we allow gay marrige? Is there any reason to? The only reason ive heard is simply because we might as well grant them the right because there isn't any evident reason not to, I believe ive just nullified that. Most homosexuals will even admit that they demand marrige mostly just for spite against the "oppressive" and "persecuting" heterosexuals.

Equal rights. And you haven't nullified shit. And...what homosexuals say that? You're making more tripe up. Shut the fuck up.

[quote]I am not a homophobe, nor are true Christians and Republicans, as we don't hate the person but we hate the destructive sinful act. To ban homosexuality in general would be taking away civil rights, not banning gay marrige or civil union. It would be lifting a great burdon from society.[/quote[

"I'm no homophobic, I just hate everything about the bastards"

I am confused? How can the President advocate abstinence until you are married to reduce the spread of HIV and other STD’s and simultaneously support a ban on same sex marriage?

As a gay man that does not seem logical to me. Am I to assume that he is telling me not to have sex, a basic human need? Or is he telling me that I must enter a heterosexual marriage to fulfill the basic human need of sex? (Let me be clear, I am not suggesting that a marriage is solely based on sex, but typically is a good starting point. If necessary, I can expound my reasoning if necessary.)

I am confused? How can the President advocate abstinence until you are married to reduce the spread of HIV and other STD’s and simultaneously support a ban on same sex marriage?

As a gay man that does not seem logical to me. Am I to assume that he is telling me not to have sex, a basic human need? Or is he telling me that I must enter a heterosexual marriage to fulfill the basic human need of sex? (Let me be clear, I am not suggesting that a marriage is solely based on sex, but typically is a good starting point. If necessary, I can expound my reasoning if necessary.)

<sighs> That paradox is one of the reasons that I'm ashamed to be a Republican. Yes, a gay Republican. Though I prefer the term Log Cabin Republican.

The current administration lacks a clearly defined agenda and, so it seems, the ability to make cohesive, logical, and non-hypocritial agendas. Of course, so do many many Americans, so maybe there's a connection.

Woah. Butt-screwing was the fall of the Roman empire? And how does being gay relate to having sex with a sheep? I'm sorry, I don't see the connection. I guess God doesn't love me enough.

It's amazing how some people can be so blatantly stupid.

[QUOTE=Goed] New Justice: Oh, fuck you. [QUOTE]

HALLELUJAH! FINALLY! THANK YOU!

It's amazing how some people can be so blatantly stupid.

Is it really? When they are rasied their entire lives believing something? Granted, people have a responsibility to research their beliefs and not follow blindly. But how can you know that if you were never taught it? I was fortunate enough to go to a liberal arts college that forced me to challenge a lot of what I held true. But I digress, this isn't about me.

I firmly that most people can figure this out--thus they aren't stupid. It just takes time. And patience. An obscenely large amount of time and patience. I know I have a hard time giving it sometimes, but we have to lead by baby steps.

One day my friend, one day. . . .

Well, I found it surprising as I had a teensy ounce of faith in that people could think for themselves. Well, people are different, and you know what? Even if we can't think for ourselves, it's nice to believe so.

Well, I found it surprising as I had a teensy ounce of faith in that people could think for themselves. Well, people are different, and you know what? Even if we can't think for ourselves, it's nice to believe so.

People CAN figure it out by themselves. It takes even longer that way. The best way for someone to learn is by an example. And by open dialogue with those of opposing viewpoints.

Dempublicents Your personal opinion, which you have no right to enforce upon others.

Stating your opinion is not enforcing it on others, your reaching for extremes

that dont even exist on here.

Your personal opinion, which you have no right to enforce upon others.

See above.



No, but I do think that people who get married for no other reason than because they are going to have a child get divorced very often. The fact that you are pregnant is *never* a sufficient reason for a marriage.

I didnt say it was, I said if you look carefully that marrige should come first,

then kids, not the screwed up way you just presented as something I never

even said, I guess when you cant get someone to say what you want, you

just make it up, right?

I'm not the one trying to force my personal opinion on others.

So you telling me that Gay marrige is right, is not enforcing your opinion on

me either?



No, because you think she holds no value to you other than to provide you with children. That is pretty sad.

Did I say that?

No you made it up, to suit your arguement.

What I said, was it is the greatest thing she and I can do together, which it

is.


I never said it was her only value, so dont make stuff up.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents]Term, you did learn to read at some point in your life, right?

Obviously, either that or you are imagining any discourse you are having with

me on here at present.


No one here is arguing that any church should be forced to perform a marriage ceremony. We are talking about the US government. Capice?

You really expect me to believe that you and all the rest of the gay rights

crowd, will accept any churches not toeing the PC facist line in future if the

State approves it.

You will probably be one of the first to hound the parisioners who attend the

particular church as perpetrators of 'gay hate crimes.'

Do you Demi, caprice now?

[QUOTE]

Obviously, either that or you are imagining any discourse you are having with

me on here at present.




You really expect me to believe that you and all the rest of the gay rights

crowd, will accept any churches not toeing the PC facist line in future if the

State approves it.

You will probably be one of the first to hound the parisioners who attend the

particular church as perpetrators of 'gay hate crimes.'

Do you Demi, caprice now?



Yes, we expect you to believe it. Because it's FUCKING TRUE

Wow, paranoid much are you?

gay marrages are all good. who cares. if some gay people love eachother and want to get married, good for them. that ain't my thing, but i aint no fuckin facist. let the people decide for themselves who they want to marry.

Do any atheists oppose gay marriage?
Just wondering.

Not me. Most people seem to be against it because of their religon.

The point of marriage, to me, is to start a family biologically, with both a mommy and a daddy.

No. Marriage is between two people who love each other and want to spend their lives together. Children have nothing to do with it, and a lot of heterosexual couples don't have any anyway.

The whole point of my post is that I don't support gay MARRIAGE because I believe marriage is a contract between a woman and a man with the intention to start a family biologically.

See above

Not only is gay marrige against nearly every religion, but nature forbids it.

What the fuck?! First off, religon =/= law. Second, did you even read the damn topic? Homosexuality is common in nature, genius.

All of the great empires that collapsed had a great moral downfall that played a part in the country before the downfall.

Beside the facts brought up by the others, you don't think America doesn't already have morality problems?

Most homosexuals will even admit that they demand marrige mostly just for spite against the "oppressive" and "persecuting" heterosexuals.

I disagree, and so would most gays in this topic. They want equality, they aren't doing this out of spite.

I am not a homophobe, nor are true Christians and Republicans, as we don't hate the person but we hate the destructive sinful act. To ban homosexuality in general would be taking away civil rights, not banning gay marrige or civil union. It would be lifting a great burdon from society.

Thank fucking god for the seperation of church and state.

=Pracus]Because offense does not remove your basic rights.


It does if you are powerless through law to put a stop to it.





Where did you get the badly mistaken idea that I want a church wedding? I want legal recognition of a marriage. If a church is willing to perform it, great. Neither myself nor any other homosexual in the world would ever try to force a church to marry us through legal actions. In fact it couldn't be done because of the separation of church and state. Why would we want a church that doesn't recognize us and hates us to marry us? I hate to insult your intelligence, but I would think this is obvious.

I know you are saying you dont care if churches recognise you and your

partner as a proper union, however I dont really believe you will never have

any problem with that.



Somehow you've misguided yourself into thinking that I care. As a gay person in the USA, I want the same rights afforded everyone else. As a Christian,

No, you are not a Christian, please dont believe you are either.


I would like my church to change its opinion

Course you would, for you and your partner to be recognised as natural,

would probably be the ultimate thrill for you.


and indeed the Methodist church encourages its members to think for themselves and to change things they don't agree with, but I do realize the slim chances of that and in the long run its not going to bother me.

So if the majority vote not to accept any homosexuality in any way, because

as you said, your church encourages its parisioners to think for themselves,

you will have no problem with that, and of course leave.



Where are you living? The "state" hasn't recognized gay marriages. They should, but lets face it, it isn't going to happen in this administration.

I was speaking more of the State in future accepting gay marriages, not at

present.



If this is the quality of the people fighting against us, then no we haven't and our victory is pretty much secure.

I'd place more quality in my little

fingernail, than your whole body.

Victory, lol you will never have one.

I'm generally against marriage but if a gay person wants to marry, he has the right to do it.He should have it.

[QUOTE]
You really expect me to believe that you and all the rest of the gay rights

crowd, will accept any churches not toeing the PC facist line in future if the

State approves it.

You will probably be one of the first to hound the parisioners who attend the

particular church as perpetrators of 'gay hate crimes.'

Do you Demi, caprice now?


What kind of world do you live in? Poor, poor, persecuted Christians holding most of the power in the nation. Wake up, whether gay marriage is legalized or not, the issue of church acceptance of it is not going to go away--just like a million and one other issues that churches has to discuss every year. And I do expect you to believe that *THIS* homosexual isn't going to try to force a church to perform a gay marriage that they don't condone. The worst I might do is ask, but I doubt I would even do that. And I think I'm fairly secure in saying that the vast majority of homosexuals would agree with me.

And, as its been posted on this and other forums on this topic, perceived persecution that MIGHT happen is certainly not a reason to deny a very large number of people the basic rights granted to the rest of the population.

What kind of world do you live in? Poor, poor, persecuted Christians holding most of the power in the nation. Wake up, whether gay marriage is legalized or not, the issue of church acceptance of it is not going to go away--just like a million and one other issues that churches has to discuss every year. And I do expect you to believe that *THIS* homosexual isn't going to try to force a church to perform a gay marriage that they don't condone. The worst I might do is ask, but I doubt I would even do that. And I think I'm fairly secure in saying that the vast majority of homosexuals would agree with me.

And, as its been posted on this and other forums on this topic, perceived persecution that MIGHT happen is certainly not a reason to deny a very large number of people the basic rights granted to the rest of the population.

Ah, but you see, all of Term's "facts" have been proven to be, well, bullshit. Perceived nonesense is all he has left.

[QUOTE=SANLand]And your undeniable proof that homosexuality is perverted would be where?

Because it serves no purpose in nature.

Why? Why is it so wrong for gay couples to adopt?

Children, not knowing any better, will grow up with the mistaken idea that

how they have been raised is normal, when it isnt.

[QUOTE]

Because it serves no purpose in nature.
A lot of things don't. There's only two ways to look at life: you can see it as Aristotle does, that EVERYTHING has a purpose, or you can believe that NOT everything has a purpose.

If not everything has a purpose, then it doesn't matter. Blowjobs don't have a purpose. Marrige without sex apparently doesn't have a purpose. Why make the big stink about this?



In fact, LOVE has no purpose. Neither does monogamy. Still wanna stick to those guns?



Children, not knowing any better, will grow up with the mistaken idea that

how they have been raised is normal, when it isnt.

According to you, it isn't.

I don't recall you being named god of the universe, however.

It does if you are powerless through law to put a stop to it.

No it doesn't. Being offended again does not remove your rights. I'm offended by a lot of what you've said. But my rights haven't been trampled upon. If being offended remove my rights, I would have to take people to court for being left-handed, wearing white shoes after Labor Day and owning dogs instead of cats.

(Please note the above statements are intended as satire).



I know you are saying you dont care if churches recognise you and your

partner as a proper union, however I dont really believe you will never have

any problem with that.


Believe what you want to believe on it. And if I have a problem with it? So what, its not like I could sue them into doing anything. Separation of church and state my friend.





No, you are not a Christian, please dont believe you are either.


That's one of the great things about America, you get to believe what you want. You can tell me not to because I don't fit into your small worldview of Christianity, but that means. . .well. . . nothing.



Course you would, for you and your partner to be recognised as natural,

would probably be the ultimate thrill for you.


The natural argument has been beaten to death in this thread. I refer you back to it. Since I already consider myself natural, no new thrill for me. Next.



So if the majority vote not to accept any homosexuality in any way, because

as you said, your church encourages its parisioners to think for themselves,

you will have no problem with that, and of course leave.


I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I'm going to impale myself upon this one anyways. Churches are private organizations and have the right to be bigotted, homophobic, sexist, or whatever the way. The governmen gets no such privledge. I accept that.




I was speaking more of the State in future accepting gay marriages, not at

present.


Then why did you speak in present tense?




I'd place more quality in my little

fingernail, than your whole body.

Victory, lol you will never have one.

Victory for me is closer than you think. And frankly, I don't care where you place quality. That's your choice. I'm not too impressed with you at the moment--though I do still grant you a level of inherent dignity simply because you are a human. Too bad you do not seem to be able to do the same.

[QUOTE=Pracus]People continue to show their complete and utter lack of understanding of any type of scientific fact. Nothing, and I repeat NOTHING can be proven, even things as common as gravity or our own existance.


You mean you cant even prove gravity?

Go drop something off a height and see what happens, why does it fall?




However, what you can do is say with a particular certainty that an event occured. Let me assure you, there is a world of evidence--genetic, morphological, histological, physiologically--that apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. They took different paths because of the different niches they occupy.

So wheres the common ancestor, you have so much evidence as you say,

then tell me who the common ancestor is?

You mean you cant even prove gravity?

Go drop something off a height and see what happens, why does it fall?

We can't prove exactly how it works and why. We know thing fall, but do they fall because of the theory of gravity we have? We can't prove it.

You mean you cant even prove gravity?

Go drop something off a height and see what happens, why does it fall?


I found this surprising too when the Ph.D.'s who taught me to think scientifically dropped this little fact in my lap. But it remains that, scientifically speaking, gravity cannot be proved. We have a theory on it, its backed up by most of the evidence, but all it takes is for something to fall up one time and we'll have to debunk the whole idea. It's a hard philosophy to grasp sometimes, and there are few single resources that can help, but you might try A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking.




So wheres the common ancestor, you have so much evidence as you say,

then tell me who the common ancestor is?

The evidence is in DNA, morphology, histology, physiology, etc. We haven't identified that link yet--and never might. It's one of the perils of science. And no one will tell you that its a 100% guarantee that its true. Nothing is ever sure until you see it happen--and even then you might not be able to explain it. It just happens to be the best possible explanation with the most corroborating evidence to back up the observations that we have made.

I'm guessing you're either in high school, were a humanities major, or attended a Christian college/university.

well, i just stumbled apon this thread about 1 1/2 hours ago. WOW thats alot of reading.

To reply to the origional question and purpose of this thread.
1)Yes I am for Gay 'marrige.'
2)The reason is because certain liberties are granted to married couples that are not given to couples with a civil union. If a civil union was = to a marrige, i would be for that.

personal note,
the same things are said here; but the fact is simple.
This country was founded to escape religious persecution. Hence why there is a seperation between church and state. If the USA is to stick to its constitution {like many other countries that allow gay unions} then all this debate and 'hub bub' would be over.
It doesnt matter if a 'gay marriage' is moral or 'against gods will.' The state has no say in that. All that matters is the equal rights given to individuals.
I am glad as a Buddhist that there is a seperation of church and state. If there was not, I am sure i would be persecuted for my beliefs. {being against 'gods will' and what not}

If everyone just learned to love humanity for what it is. This world would be a better place.:)

[QUOTE=Pracus]No it doesn't. Being offended again does not remove your rights. I'm offended by a lot of what you've said. But my rights haven't been trampled upon.

Like I said, if your offended by something, like people having sex in public

then you should have the right to put a stop to it, but because of ridiculous

laws that judge anything no matter what, as assault, you cant even touch

them.

Therefore if your law abiding in this case, your powerless to stop whats

causing offense.


Believe what you want to believe on it. And if I have a problem with it? So what, its not like I could sue them into doing anything. Separation of church and state my friend.

I dont really hold much faith in this seperation, my own church can no longer

pray for individuals or organisations publically at mass, due to privacy laws.


That's one of the great things about America, you get to believe what you want. You can tell me not to because I don't fit into your small worldview of Christianity, but that means. . .well. . . nothing.

What you call small world view, millions apon millions of Christians accept, and

reject what you think is right.

Maybe your view on this, is the small worldview one.



Then why did you speak in present tense?


You mean this right?

But what right have you got to offend those who dont agree with what youthink is now normal.
To be extremely offensive, its the only reason you want church marriages.
If you say I would be happy to be just 'married' by the state, then that
should be enough.
If however certain uncorrupt churches refuse to recognise your 'marriage' as
a normal one, then why would you have such a massive problem with that?
Their opinion shouldnt bother you, as the state has recognised
your 'marriage', so why do you really want the Church to allow it?

As you can see, it was hypothetical.

Victory for me is closer than you think.

Really, and would you care to elaborate on that, I would be most interested.


And frankly, I don't care where you place quality. That's your choice. I'm not too impressed with you at the moment--though I do still grant you a level of inherent dignity simply because you are a human. Too bad you do not seem to be able to do the same.

Sorry, but I can not accept how you are.

[QUOTE=Pracus]I found this surprising too when the Ph.D.'s who taught me to think scientifically dropped this little fact in my lap. But it remains that, scientifically speaking, gravity cannot be proved. We have a theory on it, its backed up by most of the evidence, but all it takes is for something to fall up one time and we'll have to debunk the whole idea. It's a hard philosophy to grasp sometimes, and there are few single resources that can help, but you might try A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking.

A theory on it?

This answers Sanland here as well.

Im not saying you go do it, but if you were to jump off a twenty story

building and hope that this gravity 'thing' is only a theory, umm...



The evidence is in DNA, morphology, histology, physiology, etc. We haven't identified that link yet--and never might.


Probably because its not even there, come on they should have found it by

now if it was.


I'm guessing you're either in high school, were a humanities major, or attended a Christian college/university.

None.

No one yet has been able to give me a reason WHY for gay marriage.

There's always the GED. :D

No one yet has been able to give me a reason WHY for gay marriage.

I can't think of a valid reason WHY for any marriage.

No one yet has been able to give me a reason WHY for gay marriage.

The ability for the partners to make medical decisions for each other, benefit through tax breaks that apply to hetero couples, and many more federal marraige rights. Also, it would discourage multiple partners and reduce the spread of STDs.

The ability for the partners to make medical decisions for each other, benefit through tax breaks that apply to hetero couples, and many more federal marraige rights. Also, it would discourage multiple partners and reduce the spread of STDs.

1. Possible without mariage.

2. Why do they either need or deserve to have special rights extended to them?

3. By that logic, after 6000 years of recorded heterosexual marriage, shouldn't the spread of STD's be eliminated? As for the multiple partners things: there are always exceptions to that concept, and since the whole gay marriage debate is aimed at a group that is in itself an exception and not a norm, its an invalid argument.

1. Possible without mariage.

2. Why do they either need or deserve to have special rights extended to them?

3. By that logic, after 6000 years of recorded heterosexual marriage, shouldn't the spread of STD's be eliminated? As for the multiple partners things: there are always exceptions to that concept, and since the whole gay marriage debate is aimed at a group that is in itself an exception and not a norm, its an invalid argument.
1. okay, if it's possible to get those rights without marriage then let's have the government do away with all legal contact with marriage. your ceremony in your church can make you married in the eyes of God or whatever, but you no longer get any of the marrital rights in the marriage contract. you can get those on your own, if you want them.

2. they aren't asking for any special rights at all. they are asking for the right to choose their own partner for marriage based on love rather than on the procreative ability of that partner, just as any heterosexual person can do.

3. no, "that logic" said that encouraging monogamy would reduce promiscuity, not that it would eliminate it. people will still cheat, and they still may be promiscuous before they marry, and STDs will still exist and be spread just as they are with heterosexuals. but allowing homosexuals to marry will give them even more reason to "settle down" and be committed. think about how a girl would react to maintaining a long-term relationship if she were told point blank that she would never, ever be allowed to get married to that guy...most girls would break it off right there. most guys would also see the relationship as "not going anywhere," too, and wouldn't give it the same kind of consideration as a relationship with the potential for marriage.

allowing gays to marry also promotes stability in the family,and improves the quality of life that gay parents can provide for their children. rather than spending hundreds or thousands of dollars and countless hours trying to legally acquire each of the rights given effortlessly by the marriage contract, the parents could invest that time and money in their kids, in their homes, in anything other than lawyer fees.

I am for gay and lesbian rights and gay and lesbian marriages.

1. Possible without mariage.

False. Civil unions only grant rights in the state they are made in, and confer no federal benefits.

2. Why do they either need or deserve to have special rights extended to them?

They're not special rights. They're rights that all heterosexual couples already have.

3. By that logic, after 6000 years of recorded heterosexual marriage, shouldn't the spread of STD's be eliminated? As for the multiple partners things: there are always exceptions to that concept, and since the whole gay marriage debate is aimed at a group that is in itself an exception and not a norm, its an invalid argument.

You missed the point. The problem I stated that spreads STDs is multiple partners (i.e. infidelity). Marraige for gays would help reduce that problem.

A theory on it?
This answers Sanland here as well.
Im not saying you go do it, but if you were to jump off a twenty story
building and hope that this gravity 'thing' is only a theory, umm...

ARGH! Of course if you jump off a building you will fall.No 'theory' about that. The exact specifics of gravity, eg, how, why, etc, are a theory. Before trying to refute this, please think about it for a minute. (Not trying to be insulting, it's just you don't seem to get it)

Personally, it seems that the biggest problem is in semantics. Conservative Christians feel the need to force their views on everyone--forgetting of course that the Christian founders of our country did NOT want that to happen.

Yeah... I guess I'm one of those eeeeeeeeevil Christian Conservatives trying to force my view on everyone. Yes, I believe homosexuality is wrong. Plain and simple. I hope I would never engage in that kind of lifestyle because I think it's sinful. But do I have the authority to tell you or anyone else what to do with your life or sexuality? No. All I can do is excersise my rights as a citizen in a democracy, which gays can do also. And I think that's what the founders of America wanted.

To tell the truth I'm not sure what you are getting it. Maybe its your communication, maybe its my confusion, but I'd appreciate clarification.
Well the main thing is when Vietnam starts getting brought up we know we're well off topic!! Plank and sawdust was just a dig at you, with the "don't try and remove a speck of dust from your neighbour's eye when you have a plank in your own." However, that's good vision if you can see a speck of dust with a 2x4 in your peepers.

See, I accept some truths about what some people see as the Christian faith, but I don't necessarily agree with that. There is a fundamental thought difference here between those who take the Bible as literal and infallible and non-contradictory and those who don't--I would be the latter. You have the right to believe as you will, but not the right to try to force those beliefs on others.
Accepted. Please, anyone, accept my apologies (again) for being decidedly ass-like. Can't pretend it won't happen again, but when I start being uncivil again just ignore me.

I'm not sure that you know what Siamese twins are, but then again you might. A better analogy might be to use Sophie's Choice.
Heard of Sophie's Choice but don't know what it is. I was thinking of Siamese twins as being two human people joined at one or more major organs (brain, lungs, liver etc). One of the most common situations with them is that both cannot survive joined and an operation to separate them will leave only one alive. Accurate?

Thanks reciprocated for the debate Pracus. And back to the Gay marriage question. There's an interesting thread on the forums which would seek to use a secular, civil union for tax purposes. I'm sure it's been discussed here. *checks* yes it has.

So why not just accept that any secular government should instigate the use of civil unions and base civil rights and taxes on that. Marriage can be left to belief systems that use it and everyone's happy, even Christians because a few more Bible prophecies are being fulfilled in front of their eyes.

Any participating governments shall have to relegislate for any law which is based on religious morals ( I don't know, reword them and shit). This should include the re-drafting of the US constitution to remove any mention of deity. Any minority group should be able to put forward their suggestions for new laws and the governments shall put these laws to a nationwide referendum to avoid offending anyone.

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

Asylum Nova

Well said!

Respectfully,

Dwarf the Gentle Giant
Ambassador from LOVING YOU

gay marriage is a great thing.

To quote Michael Moore from his tv show 'The Awful Truth':

Gay Marriage is a great thing! The more gay guys there are, the more chicks for us straight guys!

I hope I would never engage in that kind of lifestyle because I think it's sinful.

HAHAHAHHAHAH!!!!!!!!! :p

then...DON'T!

sheesh.

Gay marriage being allowed is good. Equal rights, eh?

This will most likely be my last response to you. You can reason with an imbecile. You cannot however reason with a brick wall.


[QUOTE]

Like I said, if your offended by something, like people having sex in public

then you should have the right to put a stop to it, but because of ridiculous

laws that judge anything no matter what, as assault, you cant even touch

them.



Fine, I find Christians like you to be offensive. I guess I should have a right to put a stop to you.

*EDITORIAL ADDITION*
I'm glad I just reread this becuase I missed a very important point you made. You think that you should be able to lay hands on someone who is doing something that you dont' liek so you can stop it? That IS assault. What you CAN do is call the police and have them come stop it, if its illegal.

By your reasoning, I should be able to physically stop straight people from holding hands in public because it offends and nauseates me. That's BS and even you should be able to see that.


[QUOTE]
I dont really hold much faith in this seperation, my own church can no longer

pray for individuals or organisations publically at mass, due to privacy laws.


If people haven't asked to be prayer for you shouldn't be able to. However, I find it hard to believe that you can't pray publically in a mass. Stretching the truth maybe?

Even if it is true, do you think God is dumb enough to not know who you are talking about even if they are unnamed? You must have a low opinion of him. And if people don't want their name mentioned, shouldn't you have enough respect for them to do that?

[QUOTE]
What you call small world view, millions apon millions of Christians accept, and

reject what you think is right.

Maybe your view on this, is the small worldview one.


Millions of people once thought the world was flat and that the sun orbitted the earth. Those are small wordlviews.





[QUOTE]
You mean this right?

But what right have you got to offend those who dont agree with what youthink is now normal.
To be extremely offensive, its the only reason you want church marriages.
If you say I would be happy to be just 'married' by the state, then that
should be enough.
If however certain uncorrupt churches refuse to recognise your 'marriage' as
a normal one, then why would you have such a massive problem with that?
Their opinion shouldnt bother you, as the state has recognised
your 'marriage', so why do you really want the Church to allow it?

As you can see, it was hypothetical.


Nope, that's not it. It was another psot where you said "The state has already given you the right to marry so why are you forcing churches to do the same."


[QUOTE]
Sorry, but I can not accept how you are.

There's a difference between accepting and tolerating. You don't have to accept me. But if you are truly an American and belive in the consitution and equal rights and due process and religious freedom and all those other ideals that make our country what is it, then you *DO* in fact have to tolerate me as far as the law allows. Hate me in your heart if you like. Just try to remember where hate comes from.

Why oh why do I keep subjecting myself to this?

[QUOTE]

A theory on it?

This answers Sanland here as well.

Im not saying you go do it, but if you were to jump off a twenty story

building and hope that this gravity 'thing' is only a theory, umm...


Had you read what I said, you would've seen that science cannot prove as true, but it can give a prediction based on experimental results. The probability of my falling downward would be very close to 1. . . but it would only take one time to ruin that and we would have to reconsider the whole theory.





[QUOTE]
Probably because its not even there, come on they should have found it by

now if it was.


Not so much, there's a lot we don't have or know and proably never will.

No one yet has been able to give me a reason WHY for gay marriage.

Because America is not a religious country that is supposed to support equal rights for all. Rights can only be removed by due process. This means that to take rights away the government has to show a compelling interest. There is no compelling interest, therefore by the american legal system, gay unions have to be recognized and granted equal rights with other unions.

1. Possible without mariage.



No, not possible. Some of the rights are, the bulk aren't. And even then, say you die and leave a will? Your blood kin, even if you haven't seen them in years, can challenge it and end up with what you've left your loved one. And beyond that, whys should gay people have to go that extra BS to have the same rights?


2. Why do they either need or deserve to have special rights extended to them?

There's the point that its not about special rights. its about *EQUAL* rights. Further, why? Because we're human beings.


3. By that logic, after 6000 years of recorded heterosexual marriage, shouldn't the spread of STD's be eliminated? As for the multiple partners things: there are always exceptions to that concept, and since the whole gay marriage debate is aimed at a group that is in itself an exception and not a norm, its an invalid argument.
[/QUOTE]
Won't argue here, always thought that wasn't a particular good argument. Look at all the heterosexual married couples who still get HIV and have like forty partners. I've seen some at the clinic.

ARGH! Of course if you jump off a building you will fall.No 'theory' about that. The exact specifics of gravity, eg, how, why, etc, are a theory. Before trying to refute this, please think about it for a minute. (Not trying to be insulting, it's just you don't seem to get it)'

In his defense, we've both been explaining it in a different way. I can see where its confusing.

Yeah... I guess I'm one of those eeeeeeeeevil Christian Conservatives trying to force my view on everyone. Yes, I believe homosexuality is wrong. Plain and simple. I hope I would never engage in that kind of lifestyle because I think it's sinful. But do I have the authority to tell you or anyone else what to do with your life or sexuality? No. All I can do is excersise my rights as a citizen in a democracy, which gays can do also. And I think that's what the founders of America wanted.

The founders in America wanted a government in which decisions were not made about a religion nor *BY* a religion. Hence freedom of religion.

Further, we aren't a democracy. We are a Republican (and to the Republic for which it stands. . . ) or a representational democracy. If we were a democracy, then the public would vote on every single bloody law.

Accepted. Please, anyone, accept my apologies (again) for being decidedly ass-like. Can't pretend it won't happen again, but when I start being uncivil again just ignore me.


Accepted of course. I do the same thing.


Heard of Sophie's Choice but don't know what it is. I was thinking of Siamese twins as being two human people joined at one or more major organs (brain, lungs, liver etc). One of the most common situations with them is that both cannot survive joined and an operation to separate them will leave only one alive. Accurate?


Sophie's Choice was a movie starring Merryl Streep (not sure if its based on fact) in which a Jewish woman is told by the Nazis to choose whether they will kill her son or her daughter. If she does not choose, they will kill both. In effect, one has to be selected so the other can live.

And you are right historically about Siamese twins. The main goal now in separation surgeries is to try and save BOTH of the twins. Not always possible, but still the philosophy.


Thanks reciprocated for the debate Pracus. And back to the Gay marriage question. There's an interesting thread on the forums which would seek to use a secular, civil union for tax purposes. I'm sure it's been discussed here. *checks* yes it has.


But like I said, its not all about taxes. Yes it would be nice to file one tax return and be treated as a single financial entity. However, its about visitation rights, inheritance, joint custody, insurance coverage, adn a basic level of respect and equality for fellow human beings.

I voted yes for the marriages, different rules for different people doesn't sound like a good idea.

PENGUINISTA: First off, here's a little funny fact for you. It has recently been proven that there is such a thing as homosexual penguins.

Secondly, you said you weren't given one reason. Oh, you were given plenty...have you even been reading this forum? Or have you just shut out the willingness to listen to others' opinions? If so, you aren't worth this post.

One reason? Here's the only reason you should need. EQUAL RIGHTS. THAT MEANS THE SAME RIGHTS FOR EVERYONE. IN THE CONSTITUTION. Oh, here's a whammy I could throw on you inspired by recent events. If equality is in the constitution, and you are against equality for gays, that makes you unconstitutional, and therefore unpatriotic which makes you a terrorist. *I hope everyone got that was sarcasm*

So, if you don't think gays should have equal rights, do you think it's okay for blacks and Jews not to have equal rights either? You're born with a skin color, you're born with a religion (though you can change it), and you're born with a sexuality. My advice: Suck it up and deal with it.

[QUOTE=Pracus]
Had you read what I said, you would've seen that science cannot prove as true, but it can give a prediction based on experimental results. The probability of my falling downward would be very close to 1. . . but it would only take one time to ruin that and we would have to reconsider the whole theory.

Sorry but that just sounds ridiculous, why do you even believe that this one

time could happen, the Earth has alot of magnetic metal in it, plus its

spinning around at a fast velocity, you are not going to not fall down, ever.

What silly theory do you think justifys that you could one day against all logic

defy the power of gravity?

Are you one of these people who believe if a tree falls in the forest and no

one hears it, it therefore makes no sound?

[QUOTE]

Sorry but that just sounds ridiculous, why do you even believe that this one

time could happen, the Earth has alot of magnetic metal in it, plus its

spinning around at a fast velocity, you are not going to not fall down, ever.

What silly theory do you think justifys that you could one day against all logic

defy the power of gravity?

Are you one of these people who believe if a tree falls in the forest and no

one hears it, it therefore makes no sound?

AHEM! HOLD UP!

I don't believe you responded to an earlier post. You asked how a group of apes could suddenly turn into humans, to which I asked how could a rib suddenly turn into a woman?

You claim to be logical, yet you continually contradict yourself. Please think though things before you attack other theories.

[QUOTE]

Sorry but that just sounds ridiculous, why do you even believe that this one

time could happen, the Earth has alot of magnetic metal in it, plus its

spinning around at a fast velocity, you are not going to not fall down, ever.

What silly theory do you think justifys that you could one day against all logic

defy the power of gravity?

Are you one of these people who believe if a tree falls in the forest and no

one hears it, it therefore makes no sound?

I'm just a lowly scientist. You can argue against it all you want. But that is the standing of science. My reason for bringing this point up was not to argue gravity wiht you, but to show that you do not have an understanding of science and how it works. Which, to people who do understand it, I have done.

[QUOTE=Indiru]AHEM! HOLD UP!
I don't believe you responded to an earlier post. You asked how a group of apes could suddenly turn into humans, to which I asked how could a rib suddenly turn into a woman?

Sorry I missed it.

As for Adams rib, well I guess if you believe in creating from DNA, then their

would be enough in Adams rib to do so.

You claim to be logical, yet you continually contradict yourself.

How so?

Be specific.


Please think though things before you attack other theories.

Sorry I didnt realise merely questioning a theory, would be taken so

seriously :rolleyes:

I'm just a lowly scientist. You can argue against it all you want. But that is the standing of science. My reason for bringing this point up was not to argue gravity wiht you, but to show that you do not have an understanding of science and how it works. Which, to people who do understand it, I have done.

Well then please enlighten me, to as why you think the theory of gravity is

not correct?

I am truly wondering about this.

PENGUINISTA: First off, here's a little funny fact for you. It has recently been proven that there is such a thing as homosexual penguins.

Secondly, you said you weren't given one reason. Oh, you were given plenty...have you even been reading this forum? Or have you just shut out the willingness to listen to others' opinions? If so, you aren't worth this post.

One reason? Here's the only reason you should need. EQUAL RIGHTS. THAT MEANS THE SAME RIGHTS FOR EVERYONE. IN THE CONSTITUTION. Oh, here's a whammy I could throw on you inspired by recent events. If equality is in the constitution, and you are against equality for gays, that makes you unconstitutional, and therefore unpatriotic which makes you a terrorist. *I hope everyone got that was sarcasm*

So, if you don't think gays should have equal rights, do you think it's okay for blacks and Jews not to have equal rights either? You're born with a skin color, you're born with a religion (though you can change it), and you're born with a sexuality. My advice: Suck it up and deal with it.


So are you proposing gay marriage for penguins?

Second, homosexual marriage is not an EQUAL RIGHT! Marriage benefits are in and of themselves SPECIAL RIGHTS extended to married couples. So the question is still why should special rights be extended to another group? In fact, why are married couples given special rights in the first place? Answer that first. Then see if you can find some justification for extending those rights to homosexual couples.

This is not an issue of equal rights. Homosexuals have every right to engage in heterosexual marriage and obtain those special benefits; they have just as much access as everyone else. What they don't have the right to is special rights just for themselves without reason or justification.

[QUOTE]

Sorry I missed it.

As for Adams rib, well I guess if you believe in creating from DNA, then their

would be enough in Adams rib to do so.



How so?

Be specific.




Sorry I didnt realise merely questioning a theory, would be taken so

seriously :rolleyes:

You're right, there would have been enough DNA, but then wouldn't it create an identical clone of Adam? And where were the high-tech labs for developing that DNA while Adam and Eve were frolicking?

You contradict yourself by saying that the THEORY of gravity is unquestionably true, and say the THEORY of evolution is unquestionably not true. You back up the first thing with gravity by talking about magnetism, but how do you back the second thing up? By saying that it's more probable that from a rib came humans than from apes? Where do you get that information? The Bible? The difference between the theory of creationism and the theory of evolution is that the theory of evolution is based on scientific research (Darwin on Galapagos Islands) and the theory of creationism is based on myth. Now, I'm not saying that the Bible isn't true, but myths can be proved or disproved and you've backed up your argument with the myth itself. It's contradictory.

And it's not that you questioned a theory, it's that you totally disregarded it in the first place. :rolleyes:

So are you proposing gay marriage for penguins?

Second, homosexual marriage is not an EQUAL RIGHT! Marriage benefits are in and of themselves SPECIAL RIGHTS extended to married couples. So the question is still why should special rights be extended to another group? In fact, why are married couples given special rights in the first place? Answer that first. Then see if you can find some justification for extending those rights to homosexual couples.

This is not an issue of equal rights. Homosexuals have every right to engage in heterosexual marriage and obtain those special benefits; they have just as much access as everyone else. What they don't have the right to is special rights just for themselves without reason or justification.

That's like handing a cookie to one kid, but then to another kid asking why they should have the cookie too. But, if YOU think the first kid is superior are you going to give the second kid a cookie?

I'm not stupid. I understand that special rights are given because it is the common belief that a heterosexual couple will reproduce and propel the human race. However, can't gay couples adopt kids? Artificial insemination? And if this isn't about equal rights, neither of those should be an issue for you.

And if a gay married couple moved in down the block from you, you'd need justification for their marriage? I'm sorry, but why do you care?

Without reason or justification. Soooo what you're saying is that an individual group needs justification while others' don't? That's a double standard.

P.S.- I thought the penguin thing was funny because you, who is anti-gay marriage, made your name after penguins. And no, I'm not suggesting penguin gay marriage, because once penguins find their partner they stick with them for the rest of their lives (which in itself is marriage) and some penguins choose their own gender. (which also proves that homosexuality isn't "unnatural" as penguins are about as natural as you can get)

Fine, I find Christians like you to be offensive. I guess I should have a right to put a stop to you.

Well if it was just up to me, I would have no problem with you trying to do

that.

But that doesnt mean, I would let you.


I'm glad I just reread this becuase I missed a very important point you made. You think that you should be able to lay hands on someone who is doing something that you dont' liek so you can stop it? That IS assault. What you CAN do is call the police and have them come stop it, if its illegal.

But what if a kids being molested, or a womans being raped, or a man is

getting violently mugged in front of me?

The police cannot be everywhere, sometimes the onus is on you to do

something.

And I dont think yelling at them will do much.

By your reasoning, I should be able to physically stop straight people from holding hands in public because it offends and nauseates me. That's BS and even you should be able to see that.

No by all means do so, and expect the same in return.


If people haven't asked to be prayer for you shouldn't be able to. However, I find it hard to believe that you can't pray publically in a mass. Stretching the truth maybe?

No its law now under the privacy act in Australia, any community prayers

must have the permission of the subject before they are read out in mass.


Even if it is true, do you think God is dumb enough to not know who you are talking about even if they are unnamed?

I never said unnamed.

One of the main points, in praying for somone in public at mass, is to name

them as the subject of that prayer.

People who object to being prayed for, must have no problems in the first

place, which means they wouldnt be prayed for.


Millions of people once thought the world was flat and that the sun orbitted the earth. Those are small wordlviews.


So is accepting homosexuality as a normal behaviour.

You may think that this is some great enlightenment that has come apon

Humanity like the Restoration, an idea whos time has come, and will stay

forever, but its a dark temporary cloud if anything.



Nope, that's not it. It was another psot where you said "The state has already given you the right to marry so why are you forcing churches to do the same."

Well I cant find it, its not there.


There's a difference between accepting and tolerating. You don't have to accept me. But if you are truly an American and belive in the consitution and equal rights and due process and religious freedom and all those other ideals that make our country what is it, then you *DO* in fact have to tolerate me as far as the law allows. Hate me in your heart if you like. Just try to remember where hate comes from.

But dont you believe in Democracy?

What if this was put to a single vote, and the outcome said overwhelmingly,

which it would, that no homosexuality should be accepted as normal

behaviour, you would have to abide by that, or leave the country.

Free speech only means something when the majority approve it, not the

minority.

I dont hate you, and I dont have to tolerate you either, I'm sure theres a

middle ground somewhere.

Im not American either.

Well then please enlighten me, to as why you think the theory of gravity is

not correct?

I am truly wondering about this.

I didn't say that I don't think it is correct. I think that there is a great chance that it is. I just said that the possibility remains that it is not.

And it continues that this tangent was not the point of this example.