NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Except that homosexuals are NOT heterosexuals. And you're right? Why give special rights to married people? I say down wtih all marriage rights.

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.

Absolutely it's an issue of equal rights. Not of gay rights, though- it's more like women's lib.

I mean, a man can legally marry a woman, but a woman cannot. Tell me that's fair.

Stating your opinion is not enforcing it on others, your reaching for extremes that dont even exist on here.

Taking away another's rights through legislation is much more than stating your opinion, and it *is* enforcing it on others.

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?

And I never said you state that. If you would look back at the coversation, it went roughly this way:

Term: Kids are the reason for marriage.
Dem: If kids were the only reason for marraige, there would be even more divorces.
Term: You think kids cause divorce? What is wrong with you?
Dem: No, I think people who are married for no other reason that kids are in unhealthy marriages that will most likely end in divorce.
Term: I NEVER SAID THAT!!!

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

Me telling you that there is no compelling interest for the government to deny equal protection to homosexual couples is stating a fact, not enforcing an opinion. If you can ever come up with a compelling interest, I'll be happy to listen. However, I have never told you that you have to agree with gay marriages, only that there is no *legal* basis for banning them.

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.

You also stated that because my boyfriend and I are not currently trying to procreate, we have no purpose to each other. What follows from this? Well, simple. If a couple not trying to procreate has no purpose to each other, this means that the only purpose a couple can ever have to each other is to make kids. Thus, a perfectly reasonable conclusion is that you think your wife has no purpose to you other than to be someone you can have children with.

Or are you going to admit that two human beings in a relationship can hold great purpose for one another without procreation being involved?

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

You certainly implied it when you said that a couple could have no purpose to each other if they weren't procreating.

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.'

Um...yes. If my church denies a friend of mine the right to get married in that church, I'll just go to another church. No skin off my back. Hell, I haven't started attacking the Catholics because I can't be married in a Catholic mass. Why? Because I'm not Catholic and don't wish to have any control over Catholic rituals. I don't attack Muslims because I can't be married in a mosque. Why? Because I'm not Muslim and I don't wish to have any control over Muslim rituals.

However, the government has no business denying equal protection to a subset of the population just because some people's religions are against the idea. And that is all that is being fought.

I'm guessing you're either in high school, were a humanities major, or attended a Christian college/university.

Hey, nothing inherently wrong with attending a Christian university. I did, and I know how science works. =) I also know quite a bit about theology (more than the average person anyways) which is a really interesting subject. It is much easier to question and form my faith when I have a good history on where the ideas came from.

No one yet has been able to give me a reason WHY for gay marriage.

IT
IS
CALLED
EQUAL
PROTECTION

Absolutely it's an issue of equal rights. Not of gay rights, though- it's more like women's lib.

I mean, a man can legally marry a woman, but a woman cannot. Tell me that's fair.


Ok, once again, its not an issue of equal rights. Its like someone demanding Veteran's benefits because "I want it too and its not fair." If you think otherwise, come up with a valid argument, don't just do the childish "It is too poopy head" back at me.

As for your second statement, yeah thats a subtlety in the law in many states, dating back to a "less enlightened" age. Doesn't really have anything to do with anything, its like one of those weird laws you find in books, like its illegal to come to church without your rifle in some states and stuff like that

IT
IS
CALLED
EQUAL
PROTECTION

IT ISN'T A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT ITS A SPECIAL BENEFIT

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.

Actually, a Y chromosome would have to be removed and an X chromosome added. Thus, random things would have to disappear and appear.

Well then please enlighten me, to as why you think the theory of gravity is not correct?

I am truly wondering about this.

No one said that it was. We just stated that it is a theory. In science, some things have such an overwhelming amount of evidence and are so repeatable that people in general tend to refer to them as "proven." However, it is also known by all scientists that we cannot truly prove anything, we can only disprove.

By dropping something one million times and seeing it fall to the floor, we have disproven any idea that things fall up most of the time. However, we have not disproved the idea that something might fall up one day and thus have not proven that things will *always* fall down. All we have shown is that such an occurrence is *extremely* unlikely and that the best explanation is there is that there a force that pulls things down.

Of course, gravity is a product of Newtonian physics, which fall apart completely when you get to the quantum level.

IT ISN'T A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT ITS A SPECIAL BENEFIT

So are driver's licenses. Would you advocate denying driver's licenses to gays just because they happen to be gay?

If a law to give a special privilege is made, it must be applied equally unless the state can demonstrate a compelling interest to deny it to a certain group. In this case, there is no compelling interest.

IT ISN'T A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT ITS A SPECIAL BENEFIT

Isn't straight marriage also a special benefit?

now gay marrigas are alowwed

So are you proposing gay marriage for penguins?

Did penguins become citizens of this country when I wasn't looking?

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.

Married couples are given special protections for two basic reasons:
1) It makes things much more convenient for the government.
2) It makes the couple themselves more financially and emotionally stable.

You see, the rights extended to married couples all have to do with the idea that, by law, they are now a single entity. This is convenient for the government because the two are now living as if they are a single entity, so not recognizing them as such introduces all sorts of problems in determining ownership, debt, custody, etc. This is helped by providing marriage benefits.

The couple gets protection so that their belongings cannot be taken away or taxed into oblivion. They also gain the protection afforded by being able to make decisions for each other (should one become incapacitated). In addition, because they are a single entity, they cannot be forced to incriminate each other.

Read up on the rights afforded by marriage, and maybe you will understand.

And why should these rights be extended to homosexual unions? Simple, life-long homosexual couples bind themselves together in exactly the same way as heterosexual couples. It is likewise more convenient for the government to recognize their union, as well as making the couple themselves more stable.

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.

The problem is that you are thinking of marriage as an individual right. By its very definition, marriage protections are extended to *couples*, not *individuals*. Thus, the government is quite clearly discriminating against homosexual couples and elevating heterosexual couples.

Isn't straight marriage also a special benefit?


Thats exactly my point. Special benefits are given to a couple because they have entered into a marriage contract, for whatever reason. Another group cannot come along and simply demand that right in the name of equality, because the benefit in and of itself is a special benefit.

Pssh! Yes, I'm all for it. The plain and simple is that civil unions are not the same as a marriage. You can say they arn't, but it's jsut not true. When you die, and you're married, the survivor has more say as to where everything goes, where as if it's only a civil union, there are fights over where your stuff goes within the family. When you only have a civil union, it is almost impossible to adopt children. If you want to make a constitutional ban on gay marriage, it simply makes no sense, as there is no constitutional right to get married at all. And it's discrimination, which is not supposed to be an american value. I say that the government should not ban gay marriage, as it hurts no one. It does not hurt the 'sanctity' of marriage, or however it's spelled. It is quite simply something that is labeled as "sin" by some religions, such as Christianity. To use the secular government to push forward a religous objective is illegal by the constitution.

Whew, so yeah, that's my stance on that issue

Thats exactly my point. Special benefits are given to a couple because they have entered into a marriage contract, for whatever reason. Another group cannot come along and simply demand that right in the name of equality, because the benefit in and of itself is a special benefit.

You don't know much about the 14th Amendment do you?

Did penguins become citizens of this country when I wasn't looking?



Married couples are given special protections for two basic reasons:
1) It makes things much more convenient for the government.
2) It makes the couple themselves more financially and emotionally stable.

You see, the rights extended to married couples all have to do with the idea that, by law, they are now a single entity. This is convenient for the government because the two are now living as if they are a single entity, so not recognizing them as such introduces all sorts of problems in determining ownership, debt, custody, etc. This is helped by providing marriage benefits.

The couple gets protection so that their belongings cannot be taken away or taxed into oblivion. They also gain the protection afforded by being able to make decisions for each other (should one become incapacitated). In addition, because they are a single entity, they cannot be forced to incriminate each other.

Read up on the rights afforded by marriage, and maybe you will understand.

And why should these rights be extended to homosexual unions? Simple, life-long homosexual couples bind themselves together in exactly the same way as heterosexual couples. It is likewise more convenient for the government to recognize their union, as well as making the couple themselves more stable.



The problem is that you are thinking of marriage as an individual right. By its very definition, marriage protections are extended to *couples*, not *individuals*. Thus, the government is quite clearly discriminating against homosexual couples and elevating heterosexual couples.


By part of that logic then, roomates, housemates, etc, should also be extended special benefits. Second, there are additional means to gain the right to make medical decisions and the like for each other beyond marriage; any individual has that right. Furthermore, a power of attorney is still necessary to make certain decisions, even while married. Many of my friends going to Iraq had to obtain one for their wives.

The individuals within a marriage still retain some autonomy in the government's eyes. Tax returns can be filed sepperately, property can be filed in individual's names, and so on. The state still recognizes them as individuals. As far as making the relationship more stable, hopefully a talk on the divorce rate is unnecessary to discount that idea.

Finally, by the logic in that final statement, essentially any "pair" of people should be extended rights, whether in a hetero or homosexual relationship, becuse they constitute a couple. Otherwise, once again using the logic set forth, the government would be discriminating, elevating the relationship of one pair of people over that of another.

You don't know much about the 14th Amendment do you?


Apparently more than you. Show me where an individual has a right to obtain marriage benefits, in the constitution or otherwise? Show me where any individual is denied the right to apply for access to marriage benefits?

14th Amendment does not apply. Homosexuals have every legal right to gain marriage benefits if they simply follow the standards and marry someone of the opposite sex. The fact that their specific relationship that they demand rights for has no benefits extended to it is not a denial of rights for that relationship, because that relationship has no inherent right to any benefits.

By part of that logic then, roomates, housemates, etc, should also be extended special benefits.

If they go and get a marriage license, yes, they should. Of course, not many people are going to go through the hassle of getting a marriage license, and later a divorce, if they don't plan on spending the rest of their lives together. After all, the same could be said right now - any man and woman who are roommates, housemates, etc. could go get a marriage license and thus be married.

Of course, this has nothing to do with my logic, as roommates, housemates, etc. do not bind themselves together in such a way that their assets are pretty much impossible to separate.

Second, there are additional means to gain the right to make medical decisions and the like for each other beyond marriage; any individual has that right. Furthermore, a power of attorney is still necessary to make certain decisions, even while married. Many of my friends going to Iraq had to obtain one for their wives.

And this has what to do with the fact that *all* of the protections afforded by marriage cannot be obtained by other legal means?

The individuals within a marriage still retain some autonomy in the government's eyes. Tax returns can be filed sepperately, property can be filed in individual's names, and so on.

Of course it can. But only in a married couple can those things be done completely together. The fact that the couple can choose to not use some of the protections provided to them is not the point.

The state still recognizes them as individuals. As far as making the relationship more stable, hopefully a talk on the divorce rate is unnecessary to discount that idea.

By stable, I meant in a financial sense.

Finally, by the logic in that final statement, essentially any "pair" of people should be extended rights, whether in a hetero or homosexual relationship, becuse they constitute a couple. Otherwise, once again using the logic set forth, the government would be discriminating, elevating the relationship of one pair of people over that of another.

Wrong. Any "pair" of people that wishes to obtain a marriage license and is willing to pay the fee to get one should be granted one. The government is not discriminating by not giving people privileges that they do not seek. It is similar to driver's licenses. The government is not discriminating against people without driver's licenses by not allowing those without them to drive. However, if the government said "We will not give homosexuals driver's licenses because they are homosexual," that would be unconstitutional discrimination.

Likewise, if a couple does not pay for and obtain a marriage license, the government has not discriminated against them in not extending marriage protections to them. If, however, the government says "We are not going to give these couples marriage licenses because they are homosexual," they have clearly discriminated.

Apparently more than you.

I think not.

Show me where an individual has a right to obtain marriage benefits, in the constitution or otherwise? Show me where any individual is denied the right to apply for access to marriage benefits?

This entire part is a misnomer, as no individual ever has a right to obtain marriage benefits, only couples do. And if you want to see where those are, check the law codes.

14th Amendment does not apply. Homosexuals have every legal right to gain marriage benefits if they simply follow the standards and marry someone of the opposite sex. The fact that their specific relationship that they demand rights for has no benefits extended to it is not a denial of rights for that relationship, because that relationship has no inherent right to any benefits.

In other words, you think it is perfectly ok for the government to discriminate against homosexual relationships, even though they meet all of the reasons for which the government extends marriage benefits in the first place.

Again, I ask, do you also think it is ok if the government denies homosexuals driver's licenses? These are also special privileges. By your logic, if the government put a question on the driver's test that said "Are you a homosexual?" and the person answered yes, it would be valid grounds the government could use to discriminate and deny them that privilege.

So the upshot of this thread seems to be that, from a legal point of view, a group of intelligent Americans with different views and persuasive arguments, you guys, can't reach a suitable compromise on this issue.

What makes you think that your government will be able to exceed you in this century?

(Ok, most of you people are American)

So the upshot of this thread seems to be that, from a legal point of view, a group of intelligent Americans with different views and persuasive arguments, you guys, can't reach a suitable compromise on this issue.

What makes you think that your government will be able to exceed you in this century?

Ahem, not all Americans (I, for one, am Australian).

And intelligent people often disagree. On this forum it seems to be exaggerated because the intelligent debate is interrupted by, um, not-so-intelligent debate ("gays shouldn't be able to marry because I think they're icky!"). This annoys people, and since the idiots tend to run in and then flee, the intelligent debaters take it out on each other.. sad really.

Hey, nothing inherently wrong with attending a Christian university. I did, and I know how science works. =) I also know quite a bit about theology (more than the average person anyways) which is a really interesting subject. It is much easier to question and form my faith when I have a good history on where the ideas came from.

I'll give me apologies for that comment. When I said it, I was thinking of some of the Christian universities in the area. When it comes right down to it, I went to a Methodist affiliated school. The Methodist opinion on education though is to never interfere, just to fund.

Sadly the other two Christian schools in the area seem to be more concerned with indoctrination than with education in free thoughts.

Ok, once again, its not an issue of equal rights. Its like someone demanding Veteran's benefits because "I want it too and its not fair." If you think otherwise, come up with a valid argument, don't just do the childish "It is too poopy head" back at me.


Yes, it is an issue of equal rights. Veterans did something to deserve their benefits. They were employees who are being rewarded. Heterosexuals do nothing to deserve the special benefits they get from marriage except to be born. Therefore its not a special right, its a basic right. Homosexuals. are. born. too! Therefore, we deserve the same basic rights.

By part of that logic then, roomates, housemates, etc, should also be extended special benefits. Second, there are additional means to gain the right to make medical decisions and the like for each other beyond marriage; any individual has that right. Furthermore, a power of attorney is still necessary to make certain decisions, even while married. Many of my friends going to Iraq had to obtain one for their wives.


Roomates, housemates, etc. can already get those special benefits provided they are male/female. They CAN get married. Why? Just because they are straight, no love involved. I fail to see how its different if two gay people love one another just like a heterosexual couple. Or for that matter if two male roomates want to do that just like a male/female pairing.


The individuals within a marriage still retain some autonomy in the government's eyes. Tax returns can be filed sepperately, property can be filed in individual's names, and so on. The state still recognizes them as individuals. As far as making the relationship more stable, hopefully a talk on the divorce rate is unnecessary to discount that idea.


Yes, but they also have the option to do those things together. Gay couples are being denied that option for no compelling reason. Ergo they are being denied their rights without due process. Very unAmerican (for the Yanks in the group).


Finally, by the logic in that final statement, essentially any "pair" of people should be extended rights, whether in a hetero or homosexual relationship, becuse they constitute a couple. Otherwise, once again using the logic set forth, the government would be discriminating, elevating the relationship of one pair of people over that of another.

Those rights have already been extended to any "heterosexual" pair. You don't have to convince a judge your in love. Just go get married.

And for the record, the government *is* discriminating by elevating heterosexual pairings over homosexuals ones.

Apparently more than you. Show me where an individual has a right to obtain marriage benefits, in the constitution or otherwise? Show me where any individual is denied the right to apply for access to marriage benefits?

14th Amendment does not apply. Homosexuals have every legal right to gain marriage benefits if they simply follow the standards and marry someone of the opposite sex. The fact that their specific relationship that they demand rights for has no benefits extended to it is not a denial of rights for that relationship, because that relationship has no inherent right to any benefits.

For that matter, neither does a heterosexual relationship. What is its inherant right to any benefits? Because we've done it for so long? Prostitution is the oldest profession, its been around for ages, but THEY don't get special benefits.

I thought we have seperation between church and state? if so, wouldnt gay marriage be legal? Anyways, im all for gay marriage.. what you guys do in the bedroom isnt my business or the governments.

So the upshot of this thread seems to be that, from a legal point of view, a group of intelligent Americans with different views and persuasive arguments, you guys, can't reach a suitable compromise on this issue.

What makes you think that your government will be able to exceed you in this century?

The intelligent Americans HAVE reached a compromise.

And so goes my last post on this board.

I have tickets to see Dolly Parton tonight and exams starting on Friday and running for a week and a half. Ah the life of a medical student.

I hope you all enjoy debating this. Remember, everyone deserves to be treated equally and fairly.

I agree. Except for the French.

Does all the US have exams now? How come? Ok, 'When are your exams' thread required.

Probably right on the intelligent Americans reaching a Compromise really. There are reasonable American Christians out there if not in evidence in numbers on NS forums but I'm fairly sure they would resignedly bow to this if the Government imposed it. And anything the US does, Tony B will be sure to follow...

P.S. Dolly Parton?!? The pneumatically-enhanced Barbie doll of the South?

[QUOTE=Dempublicents]Taking away another's rights through legislation is much more than stating your opinion, and it *is* enforcing it on others.

If the majority of people want a legislation passed that suits them, then if it

discriminates against gays, then its redundant as the majoritys opinion should

always decide a nations issues, not a minoritys.


And I never said you state that. If you would look back at the coversation, it went roughly this way:
Term: Kids are the reason for marriage.
Dem: If kids were the only reason for marraige, there would be even more divorces.
Term: You think kids cause divorce? What is wrong with you?
Dem: No, I think people who are married for no other reason that kids are in unhealthy marriages that will most likely end in divorce.
Term: I NEVER SAID THAT!!!

Well not the way you have simplistically implied I have, I also never use

capital letters like that either.

If your so sure of your side of this arguement, then why do you have to make

stuff up?


Me telling you that there is no compelling interest for the government to deny equal protection to homosexual couples is stating a fact, not enforcing an opinion.

A fact, in your opinion, doesnt mean its right.

If you can ever come up with a compelling interest, I'll be happy to listen.

OMG How many have I given you already!

To repeat, marriage was established primarily to bind a woman to a man, and

vicaversa, to ensure that proper records were kept of births etc, if everyone

was just going around with anyone, inbreeding and all its negativitys could

ensure.

As homosexuals do not procreate, there is no need for them to be married.

And I believe, Gay rights issues is more about tearing down the Church and

hetero society values, than establishing any 'equal rights', gays believe they

are missing out on.


However, I have never told you that you have to agree with gay marriages, only that there is no *legal* basis for banning them.

There is no legal or logical reason, to have them in the first place.

You also stated that because my boyfriend and I are not currently trying to procreate, we have no purpose to each other.

Well that would depend on if you plan on getting married or not, wouldnt it?



What follows from this? Well, simple. If a couple not trying to procreate has no purpose to each other, this means that the only purpose a couple can ever have to each other is to make kids. Thus, a perfectly reasonable conclusion is that you think your wife has no purpose to you other than to be someone you can have children with.

:rolleyes: Look your putting the 'only purpose' spin on this, not me, I said it

was the best thing a couple could do, and you automatically throw a

negative slide on it.



Or are you going to admit that two human beings in a relationship can hold great purpose for one another without procreation being involved?



Having children is the greatest thing a man and a woman can do with each

other, there are other great things of course, but they will not beat that.

You certainly implied it when you said that a couple could have no purpose to each other if they weren't procreating.

No that was how you wanted it to be implied, geesz louise, see my above

answers already, they cover this as well.



Um...yes. If my church denies a friend of mine the right to get married in that church, I'll just go to another church. No skin off my back. Hell, I haven't started attacking the Catholics because I can't be married in a Catholic mass. Why? Because I'm not Catholic and don't wish to have any control over Catholic rituals. I don't attack Muslims because I can't be married in a mosque. Why? Because I'm not Muslim and I don't wish to have any control over Muslim rituals.

So if the Catholic Church doesnt collapse in moral decay like other Churches

have lately, you will never have a problem with Catholics, not accepting

homosexuality, because that would be just their belief, in your eyes, and of

course no skin off your back.

However, the government has no business denying equal protection to a subset of the population just because some people's religions are against the idea. And that is all that is being fought.

How nicely you put it, does the 'subset' of the population then have any right

to harrass Churches or parisioners that dont agree with their views?

I agree. Except for the French.

Does all the US have exams now? How come? Ok, 'When are your exams' thread required.

Probably right on the intelligent Americans reaching a Compromise really. There are reasonable American Christians out there if not in evidence in numbers on NS forums but I'm fairly sure they would resignedly bow to this if the Government imposed it. And anything the US does, Tony B will be sure to follow...

P.S. Dolly Parton?!? The pneumatically-enhanced Barbie doll of the South?

Okay, cannot resist responding to this. . .mainly because of the Dolly Parton thing. She is not enhanced. In fact she just had a reduction because of back strain (still the difference is like going from the Chrystler Building to the Empire State. . . there's a few floors difference but both are huge and pointy). So why is a gay boy defending Dolly? I guess its the queen deep within me. Anyways, check the recordings of her from the seventies--before boob jobs. They were huge then. Pictures of her go all the way back to the sixites. And she might look like Barbie, but she can *sing* something awful.

And no, all the US doesn't have exams right now. . . this is just local school exams. We're on a block schedule.

If the majority of people want a legislation passed that suits them, then if it
discriminates against gays, then its redundant as the majoritys opinion should
always decide a nations issues, not a minoritys.

Tell that to the black people who had to fight for equal rights.

Well not the way you have simplistically implied I have, I also never use capital letters like that either. If your so sure of your side of this arguement, then why do you have to make stuff up?

I'm sorry, paraphrasing is much easier than digging back through to find the entire conversation, but that is pretty much how it went.

OMG How many have I given you already!

None. All you have given me is "I believe that marriage should be X and therefore that is a good enough reason to deny equal protection to other people." I'm sorry, but your personal opinion is not a compelling interest.

To repeat, marriage was established primarily to bind a woman to a man, and vicaversa, to ensure that proper records were kept of births etc, if everyone was just going around with anyone, inbreeding and all its negativitys could ensure.

I've never even heard this posited, but even if it is true, that is no longer the purpose of civil marriage, so it is a moot point.

As homosexuals do not procreate, there is no need for them to be married.

The majority of the protections applied to marriages have absolutely nothing to do with children, so your theory that procreation is all there is to it falls pretty quickly.

And I believe, Gay rights issues is more about tearing down the Church and hetero society values, than establishing any 'equal rights', gays believe they are missing out on.

Yeah. Ok. Conspiracy theories are fun!

There is no legal or logical reason, to have them in the first place.

There are the same logical and legal reasons to have the government recognize any marriages.

Well that would depend on if you plan on getting married or not, wouldnt it?

No, not really. My boyfriend and I could never get married and still serve the exact same purpose to each other that we are now for the rest of our lives. We do plan on getting married, but we wouldn't have to in order to be a family, nor would we have to get married in order to be important to each other.

:rolleyes: Look your putting the 'only purpose' spin on this, not me, I said it was the best thing a couple could do, and you automatically throw a negative slide on it.

Wrong. You explicitly stated in an earlier post that my boyfriend and I could serve absolutely no purpose to each other because we are not currently married or currently procreating.

So if the Catholic Church doesnt collapse in moral decay like other Churches have lately, you will never have a problem with Catholics, not accepting homosexuality, because that would be just their belief, in your eyes, and of course no skin off your back.

Pretty much, yeah. I would just never convert to Catholocism, which isn't going to happen anyways because I have loads of problems with their dogma.

How nicely you put it, does the 'subset' of the population then have any right to harrass Churches or parisioners that dont agree with their views?

The subset of the population has no right to "harrass" anyone. They have the right to demand equal protection from their government and they have the right to try and enact changes from within their church. However, their church also has the right to kick them out if they don't like the ideas.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents]Tell that to the black people who had to fight for equal rights.

This doesnt mean gays should be given marriage rights, you are putting forth

an extreme example of human rights abuse, and justifying Gays be seen in

the same light, but sorry their not, they are not being worked to death on

plantations, dont get whipped, can vote etc

Blacks were allowed to marry when they were slaves also, this is not a good

or proper analogy.

Dempublicents
I'm sorry, paraphrasing is much easier than digging back through to find the entire conversation, but that is pretty much how it went.

I think thats pretty much how you wanted to see it, more likely.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents]
None. All you have given me is "I believe that marriage should be X and therefore that is a good enough reason to deny equal protection to other people." I'm sorry, but your personal opinion is not a compelling interest.

Protection?

How do you see it that way?

My personal opinion does matter unless your into communism.

And a lot of similar ones would make it a very compelling interest indeed.



I've never even heard this posited, but even if it is true, that is no longer the purpose of civil marriage, so it is a moot point.

So you believe then that people should just marry whoever they like, without

checking close bloodlines, thats why we have last names, identity mainly for

this purpose, to avoid cross breeding, it is not ever a moot point,

unless you dont mind a higher percent of retarded people increasing with each generation.

Opinions are like buttholes. Everyone's got one but not everyone wants to see it. Unnhkay Termy?

Don't boast religious freedom and national pride while trying to strip away the rights of American citizens.

I vote for gay marriage, because I'm gay, natch. I want my American brothers to have the same freedom I have up here in Canada. ^_^

[QUOTE]

unless you dont mind a higher percent of retarded people increasing with each generation.

Must.. Refrain.. From ironic.. comment..

[QUOTE=Mirkai]I vote for gay marriage, because I'm gay, natch. I want my American brothers to have the same freedom I have up here in Canada. ^_^

The freedom to spread aids? :rolleyes:

Opinions are like buttholes. Everyone's got one but not everyone wants to see it. Unnhkay Termy?

what the ? :)

[QUOTE]

The freedom to spread aids? :rolleyes:

Heterosexuals transmit AIDS as well.

Furthermore, one could say that legalizing gay marriage would cut down on STDs among homosexuals, as two men in a monogamous relationship aren't as likely to contract/transmit an STD than two men who each have a promiscuous relationship.

And the freedom to which I was referring was the freedom to marry the person you love, regardless of gender.

=Dempublicents]

The majority of the protections applied to marriages have absolutely nothing to do with children,

THE WHOLE POINT OF MARRIAGE IS CHILDREN! :rolleyes:





Yeah. Ok. Conspiracy theories are fun!

Except when their not conspiracy theorys.



There are the same logical and legal reasons to have the government recognize any marriages.

Marriage is only right for men and women.

THE WHOLE POINT OF MARRIAGE IS CHILDREN! :rolleyes:







Except when their not conspiracy theorys.





Marriage is only right for men and women.


I really hate getting into this arguement, but I have nothing else to do, and I consider myself a beacon of truth amongst the.. ignorance.. Well, you know, dramatic crap. Anyway:

1: Perhaps the point of your marriage. Many others consider marriage to be a binding, a commitment, the ultimate expression of love and the solidification of the feelings two people feel for one another. It's saying "I love you so much that I wish to be with you forever, that I will never need anyone else."

If you want to marry just to procreate, that's fine.. But I doubt that would be a very satisfying marriage. Not to mention it wouldn't be too much fun for the kids, who have to watch their parents fight all the time.

2: I don't know about the evil gay subsect that's bent on world domination that you're referring to, but me and the other gays I know don't want to tear down any church values or do anything to the "heteros." In fact, most of them don't even make that distinction, they see everyone as people, not as a religion or a sexual orientation. At any rate, they wish only to be able to marry their partner, nothing more.

3: According to your religious scripture, perhaps. But not everyone is Christian, and certainly not every Christian believes that gays shouldn't be married.

=Mirkai]Heterosexuals transmit AIDS as well.

Nowhere near as much as gay men do.

Furthermore, one could say that legalizing gay marriage would cut down on STDs among homosexuals, as two men in a monogamous relationship aren't as likely to contract/transmit an STD than two men who each have a promiscuous relationship.

Of course they wont play the field will they, when their partners not around,

why would an act of 'marriage' change the way they are now?

Why cant they be just as committed to each other without trying to mimic a

heterosexual marriage?


And the freedom to which I was referring was the freedom to marry the person you love, regardless of gender.

Sorry, but you guys are really trespassing on a cremony that doesnt, and

should never involve you as its main participants.

You are homosexual, therefore you are different, acept that and keep to your

own ceremonys, whatever they are.

Nowhere near as much as gay men do.



Of course they wont play the field will they, when their partners not around,

why would an act of 'marriage' change the way they are now?

Why cant they be just as committed to each other without trying to mimic a

heterosexual marriage?




Sorry, but you guys are really trespassing on a cremony that doesnt, and

should never involve you as its main participants.

You are homosexual, therefore you are different, acept that and keep to your

own ceremonys, whatever they are.

1: Yes, AIDS is more prevelant among homosexuals. But it can be easily prevented with an STD test, and safe sex. The fact that it continues to spread among gays isn't so much a fact of their sexual orientation as it is a fact of individual irresponsibility.

2: Because some people don't see the point in pursuing a monogamous relationship without the act of marriage to consumate it.

3: I have a different sexual orientation, but I am still a person. To imply that your fellow human beings were anything less than human would be against myriad biblical teachings, I'm sure. Aside, times they-are-a-changin' bub, and with them so must the definition and purpose of some of our more archaic institutions. Marriage has become one of them.

Err.. Main participants? Are you under the assumption that we want to change the definition so ONLY homosexuals can get married? Seriously, we want only the same legal benefits that heterosexuals obtain when they marry, and the same legal affirmation of devotion.

Whisky Tango Foxtrot?


AIDS is seen most in hetrosexual women, last I checked.



Termy's logic is the following:

"The ONLY purpose of marrige is children. You can only be married if you're going to have kids."
"What about people who CAN'T have kids?"
"Uhhh...they're allowed to be married."
"So gay people-who can't have kids-arn't allowed to be married?"
"...The ONLY purpose of marrige is children..."




Really, I don't know why you argue with him so much. It's like fighting with a recording machine. Only you can't take out the batteries then say "Ha! Fuck YOU! I won, bitch!"

Whisky Tango Foxtrot?


AIDS is seen most in hetrosexual women, last I checked.



Termy's logic is the following:

"The ONLY purpose of marrige is children. You can only be married if you're going to have kids."
"What about people who CAN'T have kids?"
"Uhhh...they're allowed to be married."
"So gay people-who can't have kids-arn't allowed to be married?"
"...The ONLY purpose of marrige is children..."




Really, I don't know why you argue with him so much. It's like fighting with a recording machine. Only you can't take out the batteries then say "Ha! Fuck YOU! I won, bitch!"

Sorry, I had to do a quick fact check with the CDC and didn't have time to look over everything. Aside, I figured it'd be best just to concede that point anyway, arguing with him over AIDS would've taken away from my point.

Well, it's kinda fun to see what he makes up next. Aside, meh. As I said, nothing better to do.

I had to respond to this one.
Term, you are right about one statistic.

http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm

Of the 298,248 men (13 years or older) who were living with AIDS,

58% were men who had sex with men (MSM)
23% were injection drug users (IDU)
10% were exposed through heterosexual contact
8% were both MSM and IDU.

but tell your argument to the thousands of others that die not related to homosexual contact. here is another one for you.


Of the 82,764 adult and adolescent women with AIDS,

61% were exposed through heterosexual contact
36% were exposed through injection drug use.

and another.

An estimated 3,893 children were living with AIDS at the end of 2002

i swear, if you argue that homosexual's getting married will spread aids.... then you are THE most ignorant person i have ever.... and i mean have ever heard of. Dont use a disease to argue against the right for two people that love eachother to get the SAME RIGHTS as other people. Thats all this arguement is about. Not about a epidemic that is world wide.
If you wish to argue reasonably, and without insulting the millions that die every day, then go ahead. This is about rights and not church matters.
But dont use a disease as a backing.

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?

probably. But would they call renault freedom? or refer to french cars as freedom cars?

Nowhere near as much as gay men do.

Have you ever been to Africa?

Nowhere near as much as gay men do.

wrong. heterosexual contact is spreading HIV much, much, much faster than homosexual contact. the fastest growing groups of infectees are heterosexuals, and the group most at risk for contracting HIV is heterosexual women, who get it from the HETEROSEXUAL men in their lives.

probably. But would they call renault freedom? or refer to french cars as freedom cars?
Definitely wouldn't call a Laguna or a Citroen C5 a freedom car.

Vehicle Intelligence system: "Hello. Today you will driven largely without any of your own input. If you try to break the speed limit we will slap you in the face and cut the engine. If you try to drive over a line we will kick you somewhere nasty and cut the engine. Please state your destination and the car will take you there without letting you get comfortable because of the crap seat design. Have a nice day. If you don't we'll drive you over a cliff"

So far off topic. Anyway. re: Africa, there are a lot of cases of very young children being raped and getting HIV due to the wide-ranging belief that if an infected man has sex with a virgin he will be cured of the disease.

So if the American Government would just break out the stores of the HIV vaccine they started making 20 years ago, everyone would be a lot happier.

Nowhere near as much as gay men do.



Of course they wont play the field will they, when their partners not around,

why would an act of 'marriage' change the way they are now?

Why cant they be just as committed to each other without trying to mimic a

heterosexual marriage?


so no different from heterosexuals then? when the wifes away the husband will play i guess

to the people that don't think we are animals or evolved, err.... can someone explain what we are and where we came from then please?

actually curious

We're minerals.

You left out the option banning straight marriage. :mad:

What is wrong with people? This isn't the 17th century. Homosexuality is as commonplace today as interracial marriage. Who cares? I certainly don't. I say let them. A girl's best friend is always a gay guy. :)

People just need to back off and let others live their lives as they see fit.

I bet those same people who abhor gay marriages are the same sad sacks of crap who probably have a gay/lesbian child and are trying to take it out on the rest of the world. :gundge:

This doesnt mean gays should be given marriage rights, you are putting forth
an extreme example of human rights abuse, and justifying Gays be seen in
the same light, but sorry their not, they are not being worked to death on
plantations, dont get whipped, can vote etc

I was referring to the civil rights movement, not slavery. Apparently you are the one who only believes in extremes.

Blacks were allowed to marry when they were slaves also, this is not a good or proper analogy.

Somebody doesn't know their history. Slaves were *not* allowed to marry. This is where the tradition of jumping the broom that many black citizens still perform today came from. They were not allowed to truly marry, so they came up with their own ceremony that included jumping over a broom. At that point, as far as the slaves were concerned, they were married. However, legally and according to their masters, they were not.

And blacks were not allowed to marry whites until after the civil rights movement.

Protection?
How do you see it that way?

Because that is what it is? The laws regarding marraige are put in place to protect the property and lives of those who are married.

My personal opinion does matter unless your into communism. And a lot of similar ones would make it a very compelling interest indeed.

Wrong. You don't know much about the court system either apparently. A bunch of bigots do not constitute a compelling interest. The KKK and all the other bigots did not constitute a compelling interest to keep blacks from getting equal rights. Similar views do not constitute a compelling interest now.

Here is an example of a compelling interest:

So you believe then that people should just marry whoever they like, without checking close bloodlines, thats why we have last names, identity mainly for this purpose, to avoid cross breeding, it is not ever a moot point, unless you dont mind a higher percent of retarded people increasing with each generation.

See? That is a compelling interest. People marrying close relatives results in highly increased risk of birth defects, recessive diseases, etc. Thus, the state has a compelling interest in preventing it.

However, you are arguing for banning a group of the population from marriage protections when the group does not harm anyone, is not going to produce a significantly hight amount of sick children, etc. Homosexual relationships harm no one, so there is no compelling interest in banning them, just as there is no compelling interest in banning women from the workplace, regardless of how many men think she shouldn't be there.

THE WHOLE POINT OF MARRIAGE IS CHILDREN! :rolleyes:

This is your personal opinion, and it is not backed up in the law. As I pointed out, very few of the protections provided to married couple have anything at all to do with children. I'd have to check the actual codes, but I would place them at about 10% of all of the protections provided.

And would you prevent a sterile couple, an older couple, or a couple who simply didn't want to have children from marrying?

Except when their not conspiracy theorys.

Yours certainly are.

"We want equal rights"
"They just hate my church and my views and my government and they're out to destroy the world!!!"

Marriage is only right for men and women.

Personal opinion, not backed up in the law, and not something you can enforce on other human beings.

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'm so sorry to disappoint you, but I never talked about abuse (please read all of my posts if you are suspicious). It was the person who replied to one of my posts that brought that up.
I am all for sarcasm and irony (it brightens up our dull life), but please, next time use it with someone who is really "guilty".

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.

Okay, I see your point now. Sorry for having misinterpreted you earlier.
(I didn't quite get that last paragraph though...)

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.

I don't know if the "unnatural" part of the talk was directed at me (probably it was since I'm the one using "natural" all the time) but I'd just like to say that I am a girl - maybe that doesn't say much about my DVD collection but when I talked about gay couples I was including gay women couples (actually I said it clearly in some of my posts).
I didn't understand what you meant by "heterosexual couples do it too". Do what?
And, I'm sorry, but from your speech I don't think anyone could conclude you were the most tolerant person on earth...

Okay, I see your point now. Sorry for having misinterpreted you earlier.
(I didn't quite get that last paragraph though...)

No problem, it's hard to misinterpret people sometimes. =)

As for the last paragraph, chances are that most people are bisexual, to a degree. However, the distribution tends to be more of a biphasic one than a normal distribution. Thus, many people are attracted to a certain gender something on the order of 99% of the time and the other only 1% of the time (this applies to heteroseuxal and homosexual people). However, there is a full spectrum in which some people are 50-50%, some are 60-40%, etc.

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.

Okay, got you now. I think that's the same with all things, and it all comes to this: there are "good" and "bad" people everywhere. I wasn't saying that they would be worse parents, but that the concept of life they would transmit doesn't seem to me the "better" one.
(sorry for having misinterpreted you earlier, I too am trying to do my best.)

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.

No flames from my part.
I would just like to say that I'm not sure I'd be favourable to that specific technology that can put men carrying children - I'm presuming that would need much lab work and that millions of fertilised eggs would be wasted that way, and I believe that a fertilised egg is already the beggining of a child, it is life already. Also, I think that that particular technology would take hundreds of years to implement - men aren't use to carrying babies and they wouldn't become used to it in a flash, I believe.

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

Hmm.. But they don't say that that if you have that gene you are automatically gay... they say it is probable right? I heard a story (true-story so they said) in a TV show where they debated this sort of issues about a boy that had to have an operation when he was still a baby and I'm sorry I don't remember the details but he end up without his penis. So his parents educated him like a girl (I suppose he didn't grow facial hair and that sort of things later, I don't know the epilogue), he played with dolls and wear dresses and that sort of thing. He was born a boy and at that time he was a girl. I'm just telling this because I think that there are several factors that can influence "gayness" or "straightness". And, although genes can be one of those factors (so I read in the article), I believe they are not the crucial one. I believe education, society, the cultural environment have much more to it than genes.
Thanks for the article.

Hmm.. But they don't say that that if you have that gene you are automatically gay... they say it is probable right? I heard a story (true-story so they said) in a TV show where they debated this sort of issues about a boy that had to have an operation when he was still a baby and I'm sorry I don't remember the details but he end up without his penis. So his parents educated him like a girl (I suppose he didn't grow facial hair and that sort of things later, I don't know the epilogue), he played with dolls and wear dresses and that sort of thing. He was born a boy and at that time he was a girl. I'm just telling this because I think that there are several factors that can influence "gayness" or "straightness". And, although genes can be one of those factors (so I read in the article), I believe they are not the crucial one. I believe education, society, the cultural environment have much more to it than genes.
Thanks for the article.

If you are interested in the "causes", a pubmed search might do you good. There are several articles now demonstrating that hormone levels in the womb contribute a great deal to sexuality.

I'm so sorry to disappoint you, but I never talked about abuse (please read all of my posts if you are suspicious). It was the person who replied to one of my posts that brought that up.
I am all for sarcasm and irony (it brightens up our dull life), but please, next time use it with someone who is really "guilty".

I wasn't being sarcastic or ironic. I'm sorry, I don't remember which post it was... I've made a few recently, and I've kind of lost track of what and where... and with thirty-something pages on this thread alone... I'm not sure how easy it would be for me to find my post.

Let me try to expalin... and this is how I think it happened...

You and another individual were discussing gay marriage, and the other poster brought up the topic of heterosexual abuse of children. You questioned the relevence, and I posted my post...

(This is, if I recall correctly, roughly what happened).

I didn't say you HAD made any points about abuse. But, people do make those posts in threads like this... this is far from the first time 'homosexual marriage' has been a thread, and the ability of homosexuals to parent always gets thrown out sooner or later. I saw the topic broached tangentially, and I decided to rush the topic, then.

Like I say - I didn't even IMPLY that you had commented about 'abuse'... I was posting to try to illustrate the issue which the other poster had opened.

I'm not sure why you think I'd be disappointed....

Until I see one good reason why the government has a pressing interest to ban gay marriages...
There isn't a single one. The government has no place denying people their basic human rights. Denying the same rights afforded married hetero couples is an anachchorism from an age when religion was used to determine the moral compass of the nation. As is has turned out, religion has proven itself to be a breeding ground for hypocrisy and intolerance making second class citizens of those who dare defy it's precepts. Religion's boundry is within the hearts and minds of their own congregations. Not in town hall, the county seat, the state capitol and definitely not in DC.

There isn't a single one. The government has no place denying people their basic human rights. Denying the same rights afforded married hetero couples is an anachchorism from an age when religion was used to determine the moral compass of the nation. As is has turned out, religion has proven itself to be a breeding ground for hypocrisy and intolerance making second class citizens of those who dare defy it's precepts. Religion's boundry is within the hearts and minds of their own congregations. Not in town hall, the county seat, the state capitol and definitely not in DC.

AMEN

(and I am aware of the irony)

Gay marriage is immoral, impractical, disgusting, and freakishly weird. Not only that but gay sex is an extremely unhealthy practice. Think about it this way, there aren't that many gay married people, but there are plenty of gay couples having sex. Studies have shown that more unmarried gays are having sex more than unmarried straights. The fact that they aren't married means that they are and will probably have sex with multiple people. (Anybody that's graduated middle school knows where I'm going with this.) That being said, STDs are being spread through gays at an allarming rate! I shudder at the very thought. Don't think me a homophobe; I'm not scared of gay people.
I just don't like what they do.


For those who are Christians:
If God wanted us to be gay, he wouldn't have instituted marriage as a union between a man and a woman. And seeing that this country was founded on Christian principles and beliefs, gay marriage should be banned.

Why shouldn't gay people be allowed the happiness of marriage? They've done nothing wrong.

If the majority of people want a legislation passed that suits them, then if it discriminates against gays, then its redundant as the majoritys opinion should always decide a nations issues, not a minoritys.
The majority, usually, elects officials. The majority of officials decides legislation that must be accordance with the constitution. When such laws are found to conflict with the constitution there are two results;
1. The courts strike down the law.
2. Elected officials must draft new legislation in accordance with the courts findings.
The tyranny of the majority is thus kept in check.



- SNIP -

To repeat, marriage was established primarily to bind a woman to a man, and
vicaversa, to ensure that proper records were kept of births etc, if everyone
was just going around with anyone, inbreeding and all its negativitys could
ensure.

As homosexuals do not procreate, there is no need for them to be married.
And I believe, Gay rights issues is more about tearing down the Church and
hetero society values, than establishing any 'equal rights', gays believe they
are missing out on.

It is irrelevent what the "primary" reason for marriage was. It has established many rights and privileges that are denied to life long same sex relationships. These rights and privileges are the same available to hetero marriages that either choose not to or cannot procreate.

However, I have never told you that you have to agree with gay marriages, only that there is no *legal* basis for banning them.
There is no legal or logical reason, to have them in the first place.
There are many reasons with both legal and logical basis. See above.

- snip -

However, the government has no business denying equal protection to a subset of the population just because some people's religions are against the idea. And that is all that is being fought.
How nicely you put it, does the 'subset' of the population then have any right to harrass Churches or parisioners that dont agree with their views?
By inserting themselves into the political process the churches have opened themselves to criticism and attack. Would you propose that churches have some kind of special immunity not afforded to others?

You've actually forced me out of my hiatus to study for pathology and pharmacology to come back challenge this trite! For a moment I actually thought you were being facetious and I really hope that you were, but I fear you weren't.

Gay marriage is immoral, impractical, disgusting, and freakishly weird.


To you who are not gay. To me gay marriage is perfectly normal.


Not only that but gay sex is an extremely unhealthy practice.


Actually, sex of any kind is good for a person. It raises the heart rate, burns calories, and increases endorphins and therefore happiness. Also, since I'm sure you'd say its disgusting. I'd like to point out that I find the vagina to be one of the most disgusting things there is. But I don't promote a law preventing heterosexuals from having sex.


Think about it this way, there aren't that many gay married people, but there are plenty of gay couples having sex. Studies have shown that more unmarried gays are having sex more than unmarried straights.


Well gee, could that be because GAY CAN'T GET MARRIED? And there are LOTS of gay people in relationships. Some of the strongest relationships I"ve known have been between two men or two women. And gays are less likely to cheat in a relationship that married men.


The fact that they aren't married means that they are and will probably have sex with multiple people. (Anybody that's graduated middle school knows where I'm going with this.)


So the logical response here would be to allow them to get married and reduce promiscuity (though it hasn't worked for heterosexuals).


That being said, STDs are being spread through gays at an allarming rate! I shudder at the very thought. Don't think me a homophobe; I'm not scared of gay people.
I just don't like what they do.


Check your facts. World-wide, HIV is an overwhelmingly straight disease. And most other STDs are nearly exclusively heterosexual. I gues since chlamydia and syphillis spread so much heteroseuxally, we should take that as a message that heterosexual loving should not be allowed.


For those who are Christians:
If God wanted us to be gay, he wouldn't have instituted marriage as a union between a man and a woman. And seeing that this country was founded on Christian principles and beliefs, gay marriage should be banned.

If God didn't want us to be gay, he would've given us a choice in the matter.

And this country was NOT founded on Christian principles. It was founded by a group of people fleeing religious persecution who established FREEDOM OF RELIGION as one of its primary tenets.

And you want to talk about Christian principles? What about unconditional love and tolerance and taking care of your own sins/problems before trying to take care of others and not being judgemental?

Gay marriage is immoral, impractical, disgusting, and freakishly weird.

Immoral - only according to some people.
Impractical - no more than any marriage
Disgusting - only according to some people
Freakishly weird - What???

Not only that but gay sex is an extremely unhealthy practice.

And this is why lesbians are the lowest risk group for all sorts of diseases.

Think about it this way, there aren't that many gay married people, but there are plenty of gay couples having sex. Studies have shown that more unmarried gays are having sex more than unmarried straights.

Think about it this way, most of the obviously gay people are male. Males tend to have more libido than females. Thus, the guys are gonna get it on more often. What is your point?

The fact that they aren't married means that they are and will probably have sex with multiple people.

And if they could get married, they will probably have sex with less people.

That being said, STDs are being spread through gays at an allarming rate! I shudder at the very thought.

Actually, homosexuals are no longer in the top risk factor. Currently, heterosexual black women are contracting STDs at the highest rate. STDs among homosexuals have dropped drastically since the '80s.

Don't think me a homophobe; I'm not scared of gay people. I just don't like what they do.

Homophobic = being afraid of or having an extreme dislike for homosexuals.

Therefore, yes, you are a homophobe.

For those who are Christians:
If God wanted us to be gay, he wouldn't have instituted marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

If God had not wanted people to be gay, God would not have made gay people.

And seeing that this country was founded on Christian principles and beliefs, gay marriage should be banned.

This country was founded by mostly Deists who instituted the 1st Amendment specifically so that we could not institutionalize any religion. Sorry, you lose.

Just a series of random questions I wanted to ask the people opposed to gay marriages on religious grounds. I apologize to people not from the USA, but this one applies to our laws and I'm not always familiar enough with foreign-to-me governments to be able to have an opinion one way or another.

The questions are these:

1. Do you believe in Freedom of Religion?
2. If yes, do you believe that people who fall under the same religious title (IE Christians whether Methodist, Catholic, Baptists, etc; Muslims whether Sunni or Shiite; Jews whether reformed, messianic, hasitic (sp?)) sometimes might disagree with one another but that is, as far as the government is concerned, okay because we have Freedom of Religion?

I guess I'm trying to lead to the conclusion that if one group wants to practice their own religion, they have to let other groups. Therefore if a group believes gays should be able to marry, shouldn't they be able to without an outside group forcing their beliefs off on them?

Boy that's rambly.

Gay marriage is immoral, impractical, disgusting, and freakishly weird. Not only that but gay sex is an extremely unhealthy practice.

how immoral, weird, or disgusting something is falls only in the realm of the subjective, and you are within your rights to feel any way you like about it. however, science proves that homosexuality is no more impractical or unhealthy than heterosexuality, and since those are objective qualities you will need to either present evidence to support your claims or admit defeat.


Think about it this way, there aren't that many gay married people, but there are plenty of gay couples having sex.

that's because gay people aren't allowed to get married.


Studies have shown that more unmarried gays are having sex more than unmarried straights.

let's see your sources. the fact is that gay MEN tend to have more partners than straight men, but gay WOMEN are a segment of the population that your sort don't usually like to acknowledge. men in general have far more sex and sexual partner than women in general, so if your standard for morality is promiscuity then gay women are about 10 times as moral as straight men.


The fact that they aren't married means that they are and will probably have sex with multiple people. (Anybody that's graduated middle school knows where I'm going with this.)

no, that doesn't necessarily follow. many gay people are in committed, monogamous relationships, even though they aren't allowed to be legally married. many unmarried people, straight or gay, are in committed, monogamous relationships; i am unmarried, but i've got just one partner (same one for the last 4 years or so), and i have no urge to go slut around.


That being said, STDs are being spread through gays at an allarming rate! I shudder at the very thought.

then you should shudder at the thought of heterosexuality even more, since STDs are being spread much more quickly through heterosexual populations than through the gay population. if you really have graduated middle school, as you implied, then i must question the quality of your schools if they failed to educate you into the realities of STD transmission.


Don't think me a homophobe; I'm not scared of gay people.
I just don't like what they do.

homophobia does not require that you be afraid of gays, merely that you dislike them or hold them in contempt. you clearly do, so you are a homophobe. introduce yourself to the dictionary.


For those who are Christians:
If God wanted us to be gay, he wouldn't have instituted marriage as a union between a man and a woman. And seeing that this country was founded on Christian principles and beliefs, gay marriage should be banned.
1) America wasn't founded on Christian principles. of the 10 Commandments, only 3 are recognized by American law, and those three are principles held by pretty much every society and religion in the world (prohibitions against theft, murder, and bearing of false witness).
2) America was specifically designed by the Founders to be a non-theocratic nation. the laws of your God have nothing to do with the laws of this nation. nobody is forcing you to get married to a person of the same gender, nor is anybody forcing you to like gay people, nor is anybody forcing your church to marry gay people. if you don't like equal rights then feel free to borrow my time machine and return to the 19th century.

[QUOTE]

The freedom to spread aids? :rolleyes:
Now you are being inflammatory by pretending ignorance. Reexamine, I should say examine, the demographics on AIDS in the USA and while you're at it, do a gut check. I believe you'll find a major organ missing.

THE WHOLE POINT OF MARRIAGE IS CHILDREN! :rolleyes:
What do you base this assumption on?

AMEN

(and I am aware of the irony)
:D

I can't make sense of it I don't understand how gay marriage threatens anything. I'm perplexed the refusal by many nations to recognise gay marriage. Why is it illegal? It doesn't threaten lives or the modus operandi of society!I'm befuddled thats why I said yes!

Gay marriage is immoral, impractical, disgusting, and freakishly weird. Not only that but gay sex is an extremely unhealthy practice. Think about it this way, there aren't that many gay married people, but there are plenty of gay couples having sex. Studies have shown that more unmarried gays are having sex more than unmarried straights. The fact that they aren't married means that they are and will probably have sex with multiple people. (Anybody that's graduated middle school knows where I'm going with this.) That being said, STDs are being spread through gays at an allarming rate! I shudder at the very thought. Don't think me a homophobe; I'm not scared of gay people.
I just don't like what they do.


For those who are Christians:
If God wanted us to be gay, he wouldn't have instituted marriage as a union between a man and a woman. And seeing that this country was founded on Christian principles and beliefs, gay marriage
should be banned.

Errr...I thought the country was based on separation of church and state? But ummm...okay. And STD's aren't a "gay" thing, they're just as common in straight people. And if homosexuality is unnatural how come penguins have gay sex? You know, the only thing the Bible really says about homosexuality is that guys should not "spill their seed". It doesn't say anything about it being "immoral, disgusting, or freakishly weird". Honestly, I think all those people who say that just aren't comfortable with their OWN sexuality.

I'm not religious or anything, but i think Gay marriage is just plain WRONG! I mean, the only point of sex is to produce offspring so that the race can survive. Sure, you people will say "But God didn't say that!" or "But sex is for FUN!" but thats not true. When it comes down to it, Sex is to continue the SPECIES. Who gives a care about you? NO ONE! Will you be remembered 150 years from now? Probably not! But will the human race continue? OF COURSE! If everyone were to go gay, the HUman race would be gone by the end of the century. KAput. SPlat. Dead. And since i don't fancy the Human race going away, i am against gay marriage. Come to think of it, Gayness itself is bad! Less offspring=less people= smaller population= bad in the long run!

That being said, i am NOT anti-gay PEOPLE. I dont like homosexuality, but i have nothing against the person. I dont give a care if your gay or not when it comes to personality. But to the human race as a whole, homosexuality is a plague that must be wiped from the earth or we are doomed to a ever-smaller population.

Gay marriage is immoral, impractical, disgusting, and freakishly weird. Not only that but gay sex is an extremely unhealthy practice. Think about it this way, there aren't that many gay married people, but there are plenty of gay couples having sex. Studies have shown that more unmarried gays are having sex more than unmarried straights. The fact that they aren't married means that they are and will probably have sex with multiple people. (Anybody that's graduated middle school knows where I'm going with this.) That being said, STDs are being spread through gays at an allarming rate! I shudder at the very thought. Don't think me a homophobe; I'm not scared of gay people.
I just don't like what they do.


For those who are Christians:
If God wanted us to be gay, he wouldn't have instituted marriage as a union between a man and a woman. And seeing that this country was founded on Christian principles and beliefs, gay marriage should be banned.


I was going to take your ridiculous arguments to pieces, element by element, showing you how you had concocted a tirade of bigotry and baseless acuusation, seasoned with a heavy lack of facts, and garnished with ill will...

But, I didn't need to, partly because of how obvious that would be... and partly because Bottle, Dempublicents and Pracus have done more than capable jobs of discrediting you, utterly.

What do you base this assumption on?

THe fact that marriage produces children :/ And without children there is no mroe human race.

THe fact that marriage produces children :/ And without children there is no mroe human race.
not to bust your bubble, but marriage is not required for production of children.

THe fact that marriage produces children :/ And without children there is no mroe human race.

Even if all homosexuals marry and don't produce children, the human race is still going to survive. There is no compelling public interest in forbidding granting rights to those unions.

Further, as had already been discussed here, there are many many heterosexual marriages between people who cannot have or do not want children.

not to bust your bubble, but marriage is not required for production of children.

All i did was say what she based her facts on! i know Marriage isn't needed to make children, but married couples produce mroe children then un-married couples (and i base that on absolutly NO factual evidence at all).

All i did was say what she based her facts on! i know Marriage isn't needed to make children, but married couples produce mroe children then un-married couples (and i base that on absolutly NO factual evidence at all).

So what if they do? (and you certainly cannot base that on my extended family, most of their kids are conceived OUT of wedlock and then they rush into marriages to get divorced eight years later).

But I digress.

Marriage in America (which is where I'm from and the only country I'm really even remotely qualified to argue about) is not based on having children. It's based on forming a life-long relationship and shared rights between two people. If you elect to make it about having children, you are free to do so. However, that is not the only reason for rights to be granted to married couples. And its unconsitutional to deny those rights to one specific group without due process. The government has not shown compelling interest to deny homosexuals the same rights afforded to other humans. To deny those rights would be teh equilvent of saying African Americans or Jewish Americans cannot get married. Gay Americans deserve to be treated like all other humans. Why? Because we ARE humans.

So what if they do? (and you certainly cannot base that on my extended family, most of their kids are conceived OUT of wedlock and then they rush into marriages to get divorced eight years later).

But I digress.

Marriage in America (which is where I'm from and the only country I'm really even remotely qualified to argue about) is not based on having children. It's based on forming a life-long relationship and shared rights between two people. If you elect to make it about having children, you are free to do so. However, that is not the only reason for rights to be granted to married couples. And its unconsitutional to deny those rights to one specific group without due process. The government has not shown compelling interest to deny homosexuals the same rights afforded to other humans. To deny those rights would be teh equilvent of saying African Americans or Jewish Americans cannot get married. Gay Americans deserve to be treated like all other humans. Why? Because we ARE humans.


I NEVER said your not human! All i said is that Gay Sex isn't as good for the race as strait sex! Thats IT! Nothing more!

I NEVER said your not human! All i said is that Gay Sex isn't as good for the race as strait sex! Thats IT! Nothing more!
but you fail to support that statement. production of babies alone is not what determines reproductive fitness, so simply having more babies is not inherently good for an individual or for a species.

I heard a story (true-story so they said) in a TV show where they debated this sort of issues about a boy that had to have an operation when he was still a baby and I'm sorry I don't remember the details but he end up without his penis. So his parents educated him like a girl (I suppose he didn't grow facial hair and that sort of things later, I don't know the epilogue), he played with dolls and wear dresses and that sort of thing. He was born a boy and at that time he was a girl.As I recall the efforts to turn him into a girl, which included messing with his hormones (no facial hair), didn't take well and were ultimately unsuccessful. The researcher who first presented the case study (Mooney) lied about the results presumably because he didn't have the integrity to accept that his pet theory was wrong. It would appear that gender identity is more than a matter of nurture, or of hormones.
This is a big deal because, in part based on Mooney's theories, cosmetic surgery used to be quite common on intersexual babies, and children and teenagers were kept in the dark about their condition. The cosmetic surgery often was very damaging to sexual function, and the assigned gender was often wrong, and some intersexuals are very vocally opposed to what was done to them. The medical community is coming around. Sexual (re)assignment surgery can be delayed until age 8 or so without adverse consequences. I'm not sure if eight year olds are well equipped to decide what surgery they should or should not have, but at least they can tell the doctors what gender they are. I don't understand it myself, but it appears that having a body of the wrong gender can be very distressing to some people.

This has nothing to do with the above but....

As a famous Canadian politician once said:

"The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation".

So very true.

I NEVER said your not human! All i said is that Gay Sex isn't as good for the race as strait sex! Thats IT! Nothing more!

Maybe I am in some kind of weird minority... but I very rarely think about whether it is 'good for the race' during sex.

"Come on, baby... western civilisation is DEPENDING on us..."

Similarly, I refuse to link the sexual act with the 'rightness of religion'.

"Ooooh, honey.... this one's for JESUS"....

This is beginning to scare me.

I NEVER said your not human! All i said is that Gay Sex isn't as good for the race as strait sex! Thats IT! Nothing more!

I was making a bigger arguement for why gay people deserve equal rights in marital relationships. Didn't mean to imply that you were implicitly being that big of a dillweed. Although I do think that saying gays don't deserve equal protection under the law leads to an indirect implication that they are lesser beings.

Maybe I am in some kind of weird minority... but I very rarely think about whether it is 'good for the race' during sex.

"Come on, baby... western civilisation is DEPENDING on us..."

Similarly, I refuse to link the sexual act with the 'rightness of religion'.

"Ooooh, honey.... this one's for JESUS"....

This is beginning to scare me.

Randomly this reminds me of the story of the Elizbethan mother giving advice to her daughter on her wedding day. "And tonight dear, just close your eyes and think of England."

And yes, I know I'm supposed to be on hiatus. But I'm sicka nd don't wanna study.

Randomly this reminds me of the story of the Elizbethan mother giving advice to her daughter on her wedding day. "And tonight dear, just close your eyes and think of England."

And yes, I know I'm supposed to be on hiatus. But I'm sicka nd don't wanna study.

Hey, we're using machine-code and satire to right all the evils of humanity... that's got to be more important than study, right?

As unlikely as it seems... in an attempt to keep my comment on-topic....:

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/agenda.html

Hey, we're using machine-code and satire to right all the evils of humanity... that's got to be more important than study, right?

As unlikely as it seems... in an attempt to keep my comment on-topic....:

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/agenda.html

That was officially one of the funniest and truest things I've ever seen. Thank you.

Hey, we're using machine-code and satire to right all the evils of humanity... that's got to be more important than study, right?

As unlikely as it seems... in an attempt to keep my comment on-topic....:

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/agenda.html

THAT'S.. THAT'S AN ABSURDLY GAY CUP OF COFFEE HE'S HOLDING!!! IT IS SENDING OUT SUBLIMINAL MESSAGES!!! LOOK IT SAYS "Kobayashi pottery" AAAAAAAAAGGGHH!!

It's a good point. I wish some (I said 'some') homosexuals in Britain were that normal. I don't think some have got over the novelty value yet.

Okay... my work here is officially done.

I shall return....

*Exit.... stage right*

THAT'S.. THAT'S AN ABSURDLY GAY CUP OF COFFEE HE'S HOLDING!!! IT IS SENDING OUT SUBLIMINAL MESSAGES!!! LOOK IT SAYS "Kobayashi pottery" AAAAAAAAAGGGHH!!

It's a good point. I wish some (I said 'some') homosexuals in Britain were that normal. I don't think some have got over the novelty value yet.

I've no doubt whatsoever that there are some homosexuals in Britian that are just like that. We just don't see them because they don't stand out. And there are plenty of straight people, I'm sure, who haven't gotten over novelty value like that. Look at the punk rock movement.

I've no doubt whatsoever that there are some homosexuals in Britian that are just like that. We just don't see them because they don't stand out. And there are plenty of straight people, I'm sure, who haven't gotten over novelty value like that. Look at the punk rock movement.

True true true. All true.

Of course, no matter how much stuff everyoen says to support gay marriage, im still not gonna change my mind.

Stubborn Bastard, aren't I? ;)

True true true. All true.

Of course, no matter how much stuff everyoen says to support gay marriage, im still not gonna change my mind.

Stubborn Bastard, aren't I? ;)

Yes. You are. But that's okay, because I am too. The difference is that I actually have the law on my side.

Yes. You are. But that's okay, because I am too. The difference is that I actually have the law on my side.

Hmmmm... You have a point.

But if we moved to Somalia, we'd be even!

Hmmmm... You have a point.

But if we moved to Somalia, we'd be even!

You know, don't take this the wrong way, but I like you. You are funny and that's a valuable trait in a friend, sparring partner, or just a fellow human being.

That being said, don't get any romantic hopes, because I'm sure your not my type, being straight and all.

wow, its amazing how light hearted that last set of posts have been.......

*looks around for more narrow minded arguements and lack of disscussion.*

nice animation that was posted.

oh and anyone one else who wants to come into the thread should REALLY read up on all the argueing that has been going on before charging in with a topic we already disscussed/yelled about.

exsample........
after reading the last post....

'GAYS SPREAD STD's AND AIDS AND THEY ARE BAD PEOPLE'

there are only 41 pages of replies to these kind of posts.
hehe.

Maybe I am in some kind of weird minority... but I very rarely think about whether it is 'good for the race' during sex.

"Come on, baby... western civilisation is DEPENDING on us..."

Similarly, I refuse to link the sexual act with the 'rightness of religion'.

"Ooooh, honey.... this one's for JESUS"....

This is beginning to scare me.

LMAO! :D

Who honestly cares if gay sex is good or not? Let people do what they want, sheesh.

Apparently there are over 600 idiots on this forum.

LMAO! :D

Who honestly cares if gay sex is good or not? Let people do what they want, sheesh.
I'll stop you there. Let people do what they want? Legalise paedophilia, legalise incest, legalise murder, legalise the sale of drugs to five year olds (wealthy five year olds). You know why governments can't do that? Because people wouldn't vote them back in... (follows thread of reasoning through non-existent governmental concern for people's wellbeing) because the government cares about us... *cough*

Good flamebait though

I'll stop you there. Let people do what they want? Legalise paedophilia, legalise incest, legalise murder, legalise the sale of drugs to five year olds (wealthy five year olds). You know why governments can't do that? Because people wouldn't vote them back in... (follows thread of reasoning through non-existent governmental concern for people's wellbeing) because the government cares about us... *cough*

Good flamebait though

Fine then, I suppose I'll have to resort to logic. Ok, gay sex hurts no one. Pedophiles hurt people. Incest, actually, hurts no one, so it should be legal. If some redneck and his cousin want each other, it's not the government's job to stop them. Murder definately hurts people. Drugs should be completely legalized, but preying on children is still wrong.

What I should have said was, "Let people do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone, sheesh".

Sorry for the confusion. :)

Fine then, I suppose I'll have to resort to logic. Ok, gay sex hurts no one. Pedophiles hurt people. Incest, actually, hurts no one, so it should be legal. If some redneck and his cousin want each other, it's not the government's job to stop them. Murder definitely hurts people. Drugs should be completely legalized, but preying on children is still wrong.

What I should have said was, "Let people do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone, sheesh".

Sorry for the confusion. :)

There ya go. Just checking.

(Incest can hurt by producing more children with birth defects, leading to causing the children and parents pain, emotional and physical)
(Drugs hurt people. Look up 'Leah Betts' on Google. Equate giving someone a bad pill with murder)

There ya go. Just checking.

(Incest can hurt by producing more children with birth defects, leading to causing the children and parents pain, emotional and physical)(Drugs hurt people. Look up Leah Betts on Google. Equate giving someone a bad pill with murder)

I looked up Leah Betts. Apparently she died from drinking too much water, after taking an extasy pill. Funny thing is the media ran with the story that the pill itself killed her, even though she was an experienced extasy user.

http://www.urban75.com/Drugs/drugxtc1.html

I didn't see anything about a bad pill. However, it's well known that black market drugs are unreliable. The solution to this is legalization and regulation, as we've done with alcohol and tobacco. I would definately agree that selling someone a bad pill without their knowledge is murder.

Bout incest, yes it can produce defective children, but so can smoking or drinking while pregnant. You can't force everyone to have perfectly healthy babies. But the incest itself, you cannot argue hurts anyone.

Anyways, I'm of the somewhat libertarian belief that you can do anything you want as long as it does not hurt anyone else. Would you disagree with that?

I'm not going to pretend that I've read the whole thread, so this may have already been brought up, forgive me if it has.
Seems to me that any laws banning gay marriage would conflict with discrimination laws. we are all told that we cannot be discriminated against because of gender, but telling gays that they cannot marry is doing just that!
I guess it's already obvious that I voted FOR gay marriage in the poll! Anyone, regardless of gender, should be able to marry and spend their life with the person that they love!

I have heard and read the views of several gay men who have a problem with gay marriage, even though I am a gay man I do not understand. In all things I have read only three points made were:

1)Anti-gay Governments (I live in Austalia, Howard, who is Liberal), this makes things like Family Tax Benefits, Joint Bank Accounts, Gay Parents, Divorce and other things, very, very messy.

2) (This one is stupid) We are different because we're gay, and so don't need to get married.

2.5) (Stupid also) We start becoming/thinking straight when we marry, because marriage is the straight thing to do. Hence making us like them(straighties).

As a homosexual, I find this extremely insulting, so I found some solutions.

Point 1 can be fixed by voting Labor or Green in a Federal election.
Point 2 These people just want sex, they can be shot or just not get married.
Point 2.5 Only way to deal with people who think like this is put them on the moon and launch WMD at them.

You know, don't take this the wrong way, but I like you. You are funny and that's a valuable trait in a friend, sparring partner, or just a fellow human being.

That being said, don't get any romantic hopes, because I'm sure your not my type, being straight and all.

:D!

Romance? PUUUUHHH-LEEEEZE!

All i want is an army of robot-cyborgs, 50,000 Nuclear ICBMS, oh, and an ALien Planet to destroy!

Point 1 can be fixed by voting Labor or Green in a Federal election.
Point 2 These people just want sex, they can be shot or just not get married.
Point 2.5 Only way to deal with people who think like this is put them on the moon and launch WMD at them.

1: your going to have to wait a LOOOONG time(three years, in fact). Plus, only ike, 2% of the pople who posted here are australian.

2: Well, the first reason was a bit...extremist... but the second was ok!


2.5: You have problems. Seriously. At least use the WMD's on TERRORISTS! Besides, a WMD hitting the moon = Alot of screwed earthlings!

I looked up Leah Betts. Apparently she died from drinking too much water, after taking an extasy pill. Funny thing is the media ran with the story that the pill itself killed her, even though she was an experienced extasy user.

http://www.urban75.com/Drugs/drugxtc1.html

I didn't see anything about a bad pill. However, it's well known that black market drugs are unreliable. The solution to this is legalization and regulation, as we've done with alcohol and tobacco. I would definately agree that selling someone a bad pill without their knowledge is murder.
So an experienced drug user doesn't know how to take drugs properly because it wasn't a bad pill. Or was it the ecstasy burning up all the water in her body via increasing the metabolic and heart rate? The guy who writes one of the articles on this also thinks the man who sold it to her should not be charged as they feel he did not break any laws. GCSE biology can discount the theory that the water was osmotically taken up into her brain. Water would have taken up by the immediate area of the mouth and the rest would have passed into her stomach. It would have stayed there for at least 30 mins then been passed into her small intestine where it would be taken into the bloodstream and worked around the body, probably targetin the head first if it was particularly dehydrated. Etc etc. It's like saying AIDS didn't kill someone, the cold they had killed them.

Anyways, I'm of the somewhat libertarian belief that you can do anything you want as long as it does not hurt anyone else. Would you disagree with that?

Yes but only on belief grounds and there are better threads for that.

So an experienced drug user doesn't know how to take drugs properly because it wasn't a bad pill. Or was it the ecstasy burning up all the water in her body via increasing the metabolic and heart rate? The guy who writes one of the articles on this also thinks the man who sold it to her should not be charged as they feel he did not break any laws. GCSE biology can discount the theory that the water was osmotically taken up into her brain. Water would have taken up by the immediate area of the mouth and the rest would have passed into her stomach. It would have stayed there for at least 30 mins then been passed into her small intestine where it would be taken into the bloodstream and worked around the body, probably targetin the head first if it was particularly dehydrated.She wasn't dehydrated, she was overhydrated. It is possible to overdose on water. Usually it's hard to do because the kidneys are good at dumping any excess, but appearently that's not as true on extascy. Athletes have to worry about this too; they drink a lot of water to stave off dehydration, but occasionally one will go too far the other direction.

She wasn't dehydrated, she was overhydrated. It is possible to overdose on water. Usually it's hard to do because the kidneys are good at dumping any excess, but appearently that's not as true on extascy. Athletes have to worry about this too; they drink a lot of water to stave off dehydration, but occasionally one will go too far the other direction.

Regarless, it would not have happened if it were not for the E. There are a lot of reasons that drugs should be regulated and this is one of them. There is a reason it takes six years to become a pharmacist and that such a large part of Doctors training is in understanding drugs mechanisms, interactions and side effects. Some problem can be virutally eliminated if training is done properly and if usage is limited to the guidance of professionals. That is not to say that problems won't still happen--but they can be greatly reduced to extremely rare occurences.

of course, this is a major tangent for this thread :)

Regarless, it would not have happened if it were not for the E. There are a lot of reasons that drugs should be regulated and this is one of them. There is a reason it takes six years to become a pharmacist and that such a large part of Doctors training is in understanding drugs mechanisms, interactions and side effects. Some problem can be virutally eliminated if training is done properly and if usage is limited to the guidance of professionals. That is not to say that problems won't still happen--but they can be greatly reduced to extremely rare occurences.

of course, this is a major tangent for this thread :)

Yes, quite a tangent. I fully agree though, legalization and regulation is the solution.




So...gay marriage is cool. :D

Yes, quite a tangent. I fully agree though, legalization and regulation is the solution.




So...gay marriage is cool. :D


Oh me. I can't stay away--even from tangents. I'm not support legalizing E. There are currently no known medical uses and the risks are too great for me to support legalizing it (I assume, I will admit I haven't done much research specifically into it, though I know that they ARE greater than most users claim).

Oh me. I can't stay away--even from tangents. I'm not support legalizing E. There are currently no known medical uses and the risks are too great for me to support legalizing it (I assume, I will admit I haven't done much research specifically into it, though I know that they ARE greater than most users claim).

Are there any known medical uses for tobacco? And I think we've established by now the risks of smoking.

Cannot help but continue on with the tangent... :D

Is America thinking about making gay marriages illegal as part of the constitution? Because I was under the impression that the constitution entrenched rights, and wasn't meant to take them away. . . Except in the Prohibition period.

Doesn't bother me if gays get married, I'm not religious. If the Christians are pissed off, don't get married in a church?

Is America thinking about making gay marriages illegal as part of the constitution? Because I was under the impression that the constitution entrenched rights, and wasn't meant to take them away. . . Except in the Prohibition period.

Doesn't bother me if gays get married, I'm not religious. If the Christians are pissed off, don't get married in a church?

They tried to amend the national constitution, but came up lacking in votes. So now they're amending state constitutions. :rolleyes:

Are there any known medical uses for tobacco? And I think we've established by now the risks of smoking.

Cannot help but continue on with the tangent... :D

There are some medical uses for nicotine (though not as many as alternatives have been developed). However, those are risks based upon chronic exposure. The risks posed by E and other illegal drugs are very acute--one time and you are dead.

They tried to amend the national constitution, but came up lacking in votes. So now they're amending state constitutions. :rolleyes:

While I am opposed to the amendments, at least that is the area where it should happen. Family law has always been a states issue, not a federal one. Of course, what one state recognizes as a marriage, the others are supposed to . . . .

I almost don't have a problem with an amendment that would let one state not recognize the marriages from another (note the use of the word almost). Frankly, I think we need to just get the show on the road. Gay marriages will happen. And guess what? Life will go on much as it has for the last few hundred years.

They tried to amend the national constitution, but came up lacking in votes. So now they're amending state constitutions. :rolleyes:

Yeah, but GA's should fall by the wayside before it ever gets voted on since the legislators purposely misled voters. *crosses fingers*

Yeah, but GA's should fall by the wayside before it ever gets voted on since the legislators purposely misled voters. *crosses fingers*

Let's hope. Of course I've no doubt MS's will pass, though I will be voting against it.

i voted no. i will stand by that. hate me for it...the only thing you people will not tolerate is a straight white christian opinion..but by hating me for my opinion you become the intolerent...

I am for Gay marriages...or at least, Civil Unions. and I am also against discrimination based on the gender of one's spouse. GWBushwhacked needs to get a clue as to how people actually feel. not everybody is Christian like him. hell, i'm not even sure i believe in the same diety as him. I have semi-paganistic beliefs. I believe that discrimination, hate, murder, and various other things(which i won't go into, as that would become an essay...) are all wrong. when i turn 35, I am going to run for president as the first Lesbian canidate. Screw what the "Proper" people who are "Holier-than-thou" just because they are "Religious" think. End discrimination, and you solve a hell of a lot of the country's problems! and on another note, i'm not being discriminatory towards religious people, i just don't care for religion. i grew up, and am still growing up, in a small town. i basically accepted religion, until about middle school, when i realized it just didn't feel right to me. if you think i'm stupid, let me just say that in my town, the people who go against the flow are usually smarter than the rest of the people in town. i am one of the people who goes against the flow. i believe in something that contradicts what my family believes. i'm for gay marriages. i have no problems with gays. hell, i AM a Lesbian. and i'm starting to get ticked. so i will leave you with these words of wisdom: If you don't like it, don't look, don't preach against it, don't even pretend to accept it if you don't want to. just leave it be.

I am for Gay marriages...or at least, Civil Unions. and I am also against discrimination based on the gender of one's spouse. GWBushwhacked needs to get a clue as to how people actually feel. not everybody is Christian like him. hell, i'm not even sure i believe in the same diety as him. I have semi-paganistic beliefs. I believe that discrimination, hate, murder, and various other things(which i won't go into, as that would become an essay...) are all wrong. when i turn 35, I am going to run for president as the first Lesbian canidate. Screw what the "Proper" people who are "Holier-than-thou" just because they are "Religious" think. End discrimination, and you solve a hell of a lot of the country's problems!

you all bash religious people but marriage is a religious institution...civil union i would say ok but my religion says man + woman =marriage...is the reason you fight so hard for the word marriage the fact you want to rub it in the face of the religious...also my religion teaches me to love the person and hate the sin...i do not hate anyone for being gay but i have a deep seated believe that it is wrong therefore to be tru to myself and my religion i will always say no to gay "marriage"..

you all bash religious people but marriage is a religious institution...civil union i would say ok but my religion says man + woman =marriage...is the reason you fight so hard for the word marriage the fact you want to rub it in the face of the religious...also my religion teaches me to love the person and hate the sin...i do not hate anyone for being gay but i have a deep seated believe that it is wrong therefore to be tru to myself and my religion i will always say no to gay "marriage"..

Marrige is not a religious institution.

Several religions are just fine with marrige.

You're religion does not hold a monopoly on it.

Seperate is not equal, so you can't have marrige for one couple and "civil unions" for the other.

Marrige also has emotional ties, which is another argument for homosexuals to have it.



Any reasons I didn't shred?

Marrige has cultural and emotional value, wh

I almost don't have a problem with an amendment that would let one state not recognize the marriages from another (note the use of the word almost). Frankly, I think we need to just get the show on the road. Gay marriages will happen. And guess what? Life will go on much as it has for the last few hundred years.

Those are the kinds of laws that states passed to counter interracial marriages. I find that telling.

you all bash religious people but marriage is a religious institution...civil union i would say ok but my religion says man + woman =marriage...is the reason you fight so hard for the word marriage the fact you want to rub it in the face of the religious...also my religion teaches me to love the person and hate the sin...i do not hate anyone for being gay but i have a deep seated believe that it is wrong therefore to be tru to myself and my religion i will always say no to gay "marriage"..

The problem is the government is directly involved in marriage, through tax breaks, benefits, etc. Once this ends, then marriage can return to the churches, and civil unions can be the only official law of the land. Some gay people probably are angry about being oppressed and would like to "rub it in your face" but most just want the same rights straight people have.

There are some medical uses for nicotine (though not as many as alternatives have been developed). However, those are risks based upon chronic exposure. The risks posed by E and other illegal drugs are very acute--one time and you are dead.

How bout alcohol? People have used it once and died, VERY OFTEN! There any medical uses for booze? And I think you're buying into the anti-drug propoganda. Many people use illegal drugs and don't die the first time. No one has ever died from pot. Or LSD.

And I think you're buying into the anti-drug propoganda. Many people use illegal drugs and don't die the first time. No one has ever died from pot. Or LSD.

And he's wrong about E, too. Many of the fatalities are caused by impure/false E or overdosing. One hit of real E is very unlikely to kill you.

But, I have another reason for disliking that particular drug, personally.

i voted no. i will stand by that. hate me for it...the only thing you people will not tolerate is a straight white christian opinion..but by hating me for my opinion you become the intolerent...

Ah but see, we don't *HATE* you for your opinion. We disagree with your opinion, and unlike you (in the US anyways), we have legality on our side.

i voted no. i will stand by that. hate me for it...the only thing you people will not tolerate is a straight white christian opinion..but by hating me for my opinion you become the intolerent...

Actually, you will find that many straight white Christians have no problem at all with gays marrying. You should have said, "the only thing you people will not tolerate is a straight white christian homophobe's opinion".

you all bash religious people but marriage is a religious institution...


I don't bash religious people. I bash *intolerant* people. I can't help it if the two go together most all too often. And I won't be ashamed of bashing intolerance. And just so you know . . . marriage ceased to be a religious institution when the government started regulating it. Separation of Church and State.


civil union i would say ok but my religion says man + woman =marriage...


Your religion says one man, one woman. Mine doesn't. Relgion is a personal matter. Whose is better? We each think ours is. That's why relgion doesn't belong in government, someone gets pissed on. If a gay marriage is illegal I *AM* affected. If it is legal, it doesn't hurt you in the least. No one has asked you to get a gay marriage.

However, I would support the title civil unions for all gay "marriages" if, as far as the government is concerned, everyone had them, gay or straight.


is the reason you fight so hard for the word marriage the fact you want to rub it in the face of the religious...


No, the reason we fight so hard for gay marriage is that we want equal rights. Plain. And. Simple.


also my religion teaches me to love the person and hate the sin...i do not hate anyone for being gay but i have a deep seated believe that it is wrong therefore to be tru to myself and my religion i will always say no to gay "marriage"..

Really?!? Cause I would've thought you were Christian the way you were talking. "Love the person, hate the sin" is a Hindu principle that was started by Gandhi. Very little known fact. But then the Christian religion has been stealing things like that for years (Yule, evergreen wreathes and trees, etc.) and not giving the original any credit.

You can be true to yourself all you want. But you don't believe in the American principles of freedom of religion, equality, and due process if you try to force your personal beliefs off on everyone else.

is the reason you fight so hard for the word marriage the fact you want to rub it in the face of the religious.

Is the reason you oppose the work 'marriage' because you want to rub it in the face of the homosexuals?

Those are the kinds of laws that states passed to counter interracial marriages. I find that telling.




How bout alcohol? People have used it once and died, VERY OFTEN! There any medical uses for booze? And I think you're buying into the anti-drug propoganda. Many people use illegal drugs and don't die the first time. No one has ever died from pot. Or LSD.

Alcohol can be used as a disinfectant and as a pain killer. Granted, much like nicotine it is pretty much outclassed these days. Many people may use them and not die, but its the risk of them dieing that makes it law. Most people who don't wear seatbelts don't die on the first time either, but we still have laws making them mandatory because the risk is so much greater than the alternative. And I agree with you on pot. At the very least it should be legal medicinally (I have done enough research into it). And LSD has certainly caused deaths on the first use--people jumping out of windows or having rage issues and killing others.

And he's wrong about E, too. Many of the fatalities are caused by impure/false E or overdosing. One hit of real E is very unlikely to kill you.

But, I have another reason for disliking that particular drug, personally.

See that word overdosing. . . .that's one of the risk factors for death from any drug. That's why drugs should be strongly regulated and only available by prescription--if they have a medicinal use (which I'm not saying E doesn't have, but I'm pretty sure its yet to be found). Why are we debating this though? Are we that bored on this thread?

See that word overdosing. . . .that's one of the risk factors for death from any drug. That's why drugs should be strongly regulated and only available by prescription--if they have a medicinal use (which I'm not saying E doesn't have, but I'm pretty sure its yet to be found). Why are we debating this though? Are we that bored on this thread?

Well, having been here about a month, I've debated gay marriage till my brain feels like its going to explode. I wonder what people who have been here for a year feel like after repeating themselves over and over again. So I'm fine with the tangent.

And why should a medicinal use be mandatory? What if someone just wants to use the drug for recreation?

Well, having been here about a month, I've debated gay marriage till my brain feels like its going to explode. I wonder what people who have been here for a year feel like after repeating themselves over and over again.

How do you think I got the way I am?

In ye good olde days there never were such problems. It was just outlawed.

So for all to have happier lives: Outlaw EVERYTHING!

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

Pracus and Uginin, before you send that bill to congress, send it my way so that I can show my support as well! snorkelingsnuffelufagus@hotmail.com

See that word overdosing. . . .that's one of the risk factors for death from any drug. That's why drugs should be strongly regulated and only available by prescription--if they have a medicinal use (which I'm not saying E doesn't have, but I'm pretty sure its yet to be found).

Well, I disagree...simply because that's a matter of personal responsibility. I am a liberal Libertarian, so I do not believe in banning any kind of personal choice that is not detrimental to anyone but oneself. I say produce is under federal regulations and sell it (much safer that way), so long as it doesn't make you a harm to others in a way that's beyond your control (i.e. PCP).

Why are we debating this though? Are we that bored on this thread?

Yes. I've been hitting up threads on this subject for well over a year now. Same intolerance, same weak arguments, different posters. You just happen to have hit on another pet topic of mine, so I'm running w/ it.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents]I was referring to the civil rights movement, not slavery. Apparently you are the one who only believes in extremes.

You referred to a time when Blacks had no rights in America, so try and be

specific next time.


Wrong. You don't know much about the court system either apparently. A bunch of bigots do not constitute a compelling interest. The KKK and all the other bigots did not constitute a compelling interest to keep blacks from getting equal rights. Similar views do not constitute a compelling interest now.

So you compare millions of Americans and other people around the world who

are against gay marriage, as the same people as the KKK, you never reach

for extreme examples do you...


However, you are arguing for banning a group of the population from marriage protections when the group does not harm anyone, is not going to produce a significantly hight amount of sick children, etc. Homosexual relationships harm no one, so there is no compelling interest in banning them, just as there is no compelling interest in banning women from the workplace, regardless of how many men think she shouldn't be there.

This isnt the point, of course they are not going to produce any sick children,

except for ones they adopt unfortunately, homosexual relations although a

part of society, should not be bought into the mainstream as acceptable.

Banning women from the workplace...?

i voted no. i will stand by that. hate me for it...the only thing you people will not tolerate is a straight white christian opinion..but by hating me for my opinion you become the intolerent...

Straight white Christian people, specifically men, seem to be seen as the

enemy of all minority groups.

There must be something in that I guess.

[QUOTE=Slap Happy Lunatics]The majority, usually, elects officials. The majority of officials decides legislation that must be accordance with the constitution. When such laws are found to conflict with the constitution there are two results;
1. The courts strike down the law.
2. Elected officials must draft new legislation in accordance with the courts findings.
The tyranny of the majority is thus kept in check.

Tyranny of the majority? lol

So anything you see that discriminates against minoritys is actually 'tyranny'

now.

What about the PC tyranny of the left, that condemns people who wont

conform to anything they say is now exceptable, whos next on the OK- open

your mind list, the paedophiles?



It is irrelevent what the "primary" reason for marriage was. It has established many rights and privileges that are denied to life long same sex relationships. These rights and privileges are the same available to hetero marriages that either choose not to or cannot procreate.

Yes, because they are at least heterosexual.



By inserting themselves into the political process the churches have opened themselves to criticism and attack.

How have they?

By objecting to perversion?

Would you propose that churches have some kind of special immunity not afforded to others?

They already have that.

Yes. You are. But that's okay, because I am too. The difference is that I actually have the law on my side.

So your saying he isnt allowed by law to object to the notion of gay marriage?

Now you are being inflammatory by pretending ignorance. Reexamine, I should say examine, the demographics on AIDS in the USA and while you're at it, do a gut check. I believe you'll find a major organ missing.

Who bought aids to the west, homosexuals, therefore no matter who has

currently got the highest percent of contamination, it is still a gay disease.


My guts are fine, try and keep the juvenile flaming out of it.

[QUOTE=GazingEyes] .
but tell your argument to the thousands of others that die not related to homosexual contact. here is another one for you.

Whoever gave it to them, had contact with a homosexual, or with someone

who did.



Of the 82,764 adult and adolescent women with AIDS,
61% were exposed through heterosexual contact

See above.


An estimated 3,893 children were living with AIDS at the end of 2002

Even more tragic, innocent kids suffering from a homosexual disease.

i swear, if you argue that homosexual's getting married will spread aids....

Thats not why I'm against Homosexual marriage, dont try and twist the

arguement.


then you are THE most ignorant person i have ever.... and i mean have ever heard of.

lol see above again.

Dont use a disease to argue against the right for two people that love eachother to get the SAME RIGHTS as other people. Thats all this arguement is about. Not about a epidemic that is world wide.


Your bringing the epidemic into my view against gay marriage, not me.


If you wish to argue reasonably, and without insulting the millions that die every day, then go ahead. This is about rights and not church matters.
But dont use a disease as a backing.

Applause, I thought Grave was a master at twisting an arguement into

something it was never really about, but you beat him hands down, I never

referred to Aids as being the reason I am against gay marriage in Church.

Have you ever been to Africa?

Doesnt change the fact that it was bought to the west by homosexual men.

Homosexuality is a developmental disorder.

wrong. heterosexual contact is spreading HIV much, much, much faster than homosexual contact. the fastest growing groups of infectees are heterosexuals, and the group most at risk for contracting HIV is heterosexual women, who get it from the HETEROSEXUAL men in their lives.

Who had contact with homosexual men, or someone who did, no matter how

you want to twist it, it is a homosexual disease.

Homosexuality is a developmental disorder.

Bingo.

Bingo.
Wrongo.

Wrongo.

Explaino. :rolleyes:

Explaino. :rolleyes:

There is no evidence to support it is "developmental" and it isn't classified as a disorder either. :rolleyes:

Tyranny of the majority? lol

So anything you see that discriminates against minoritys is actually 'tyranny'

now.


Well, actually, yes. It is. As long as that minority does not include murderers and rapists. Just in case you come out with that one.


What about the PC tyranny of the left, that condemns people who wont

conform to anything they say is now exceptable, whos next on the OK- open

your mind list, the paedophiles?


I won't ask you to open your mind. I will, however, ask you to use your brain.

Because gay people are obviously the same as paedophiles. Yup.

And why is it always "The Left"? Left and Right are economic theories. What does money have to do with sex?

I'll mention here that I don't like huge welfare states, I'd rather pay less taxes than pay for 1 in 5 people in the UK to be out of employment.

Does that make me left wing? And does it make me "PC" to want fascist bigots with a tenuous grip on reality to wake up and smell the coffee?


Yes, because they are at least heterosexual.


Does that include the 50% of heterosexual marriages that end in divorce, making a hell of a bigger mockery of your precious traditions than any gay marriage would?


How have they?

By objecting to perversion?


By involving themselves in the political process, actually. Don't expect me to be sympathetic towards your god when your god wants to strike me down as an abomination. I would rather commit deicide than roll over and take it up the butt from your Almighty.


They already have that.

They DO?

Links please. Frankly if they do, I consider that to be dangerous.

"The man who excepts everything soon whittles himself away to nothing."

I think you hit the nail on the head with that one. LOL.

There is no evidence to support it is "developmental" and it isn't classified as a disorder either. :rolleyes:

Well it should be, if you cant work out whether your a man or a woman what

the opposite sex is for, then you must have a developemental problem

somewhere.

Its so obvious lol

Im sure any research into this, is of course actively discouraged

as discriminating.

Im sure any research into this, is of course actively discouraged

as discriminating.

Ahh yeah... part of the great gay liberal psychologist conspiracy to bring in a new age of Pagan debauchery. Whoooo!:D

It is very sad what is happening in America today. The image of this nation is getting more disgusting as it is turning into an extremist Christian Theocracy. Its subtle, and by far from complete, but slowly, the laws of this nation are being modeled after peoples religious beliefs, not the enlightened rationalist origins of the country. There is an amendment to the Ohio constitution this year that says not only is marriage between a man and a woman but that civil unions between ANYBODY not just same sex partners will not be recognized. Those that got this amendment on the ballot are OPENLY Christian and the spokesperson is head of the Christian Coalition in Ohio. The fact is religious groups, who are expressly denied the right to legislate in this country use loopholes to force their religious rights on the citizens of this country regardless of their personal beliefs. That is a theocratic nightmare and America is waning because of this. The first step for any religously minded person is that you CANNOT use your faith to make judgements about our society. You may have your beliefs and you are welcome to them, but they are not welcome in the dialogue of this countrys formulation. Until we recognize this fact and exclude it from the discourse, we will become less and less free. I pray for the future of this nation...

My opinion... "gay marriage" should be neither allowed or disallowed Nationally. Let the states decide.

As a gay man, I have very little desire to get "married." Marriage is God stuff, and I don't want anything to do with it.

I'm more interested in finding some sort of union that is legally binding and affords us the same sort of financial benefit as typical "straight" unions.

That, and there should be a tax break for NOT having kids. Not an encouragement to have them. Stop the spawning.

Whisky Tango Foxtrot?


AIDS is seen most in hetrosexual women, last I checked.



Termy's logic is the following:

"The ONLY purpose of marrige is children. You can only be married if you're going to have kids."
"What about people who CAN'T have kids?"
"Uhhh...they're allowed to be married."
"So gay people-who can't have kids-arn't allowed to be married?"
"...The ONLY purpose of marrige is children..."




Really, I don't know why you argue with him so much. It's like fighting with a recording machine. Only you can't take out the batteries then say "Ha! Fuck YOU! I won, bitch!"

GAH! Watch it with the mental images!

Man, now I want to go draw a humanoid with a battery implant... mmm, someone I could *always* beat in a debate!


-----------------------
(standard warning: I am avoiding studying for my exams. Insane (or inane) notions contained in posts are a direct result of too much sugar, too much sleep, and not enough studying).

Explaino. :rolleyes:

It's not a disorder unless there are negative consequences. There are no more inherent physiological problems with being gay than with being a redhead- and no more inherent social problems than with being black. Do you think both of those are genetic disorders that should be treated?

Well, having been here about a month, I've debated gay marriage till my brain feels like its going to explode. I wonder what people who have been here for a year feel like after repeating themselves over and over again. So I'm fine with the tangent.

And why should a medicinal use be mandatory? What if someone just wants to use the drug for recreation?

I however I am not here to debate this right now. I will be happy to do so later, but given that I'm supposed to be avoiding this thread and instead studying. . . . let's pick it up in a couple weeks when exams are over.

This isnt the point, of course they are not going to produce any sick children,

except for ones they adopt unfortunately, homosexual relations although a

part of society, should not be bought into the mainstream as acceptable.

Banning women from the workplace...?

We've said it before and we will say it again. Children raised by homosexuals are no better are worse than those raised by heterosexuals. There have been studied that have shown that they score just as high on tests of psychological, emotional, adjustment, maturiational, and intellectual fitness.

[QUOTE]

Tyranny of the majority? lol

So anything you see that discriminates against minoritys is actually 'tyranny'

now.

What about the PC tyranny of the left, that condemns people who wont

conform to anything they say is now exceptable, whos next on the OK- open

your mind list, the paedophiles?


Yes, tyanny of the majority. Slavery was a tyranny of the majority. Forbidding women's suffrage was tyranny of the majority. It's not a difficult concept. We are supposed to be civilized enough that things like this don't happen. That's why we have constitutional safeguards. As for what happens in Australia? I do not know your system of government well enough to say. However, I would have thought you were civilized.

[QUOTE]
How have they?

By objecting to perversion?


By objecting to what they view as perversion in a political forum. When you start talking politics, you get talked back to. Had churches just kept it within themselves and not tried to force it off on the rest of the world, there would be no objection.

So your saying he isnt allowed by law to object to the notion of gay marriage?

By law he can object. By law he cannot force his opinion on me or keep me from getting married because of due process. Read the thread and keep up or don't respond.

Who bought aids to the west, homosexuals, therefore no matter who has

currently got the highest percent of contamination, it is still a gay disease.


My guts are fine, try and keep the juvenile flaming out of it.

So I guess it doesn't matter that it was straight people who most likely brought the disease to the human race? There've been blood samples tested as far back as the forties which contain the virus. These were in people who were known to be straight from Africa. I guess its their fault <sarcasm>.

And if you get "juvenille flaming" its because you give juvenille arguements and behave in a juvenille manner by refusing to listen to other arugements.

I was mostly going to leave this one alone, but this one paragraph I cannot resist responding to:

[QUOTE]
Applause, I thought Grave was a master at twisting an arguement into

something it was never really about, but you beat him hands down, I never

referred to Aids as being the reason I am against gay marriage in Church.

No one has asked for gay marriage in Church. Where did you get this idea? We asked for governmental marriage that would grant equal rights.

Randomly this reminds me of the story of the Elizbethan mother giving advice to her daughter on her wedding day. "And tonight dear, just close your eyes and think of England."

And yes, I know I'm supposed to be on hiatus. But I'm sicka nd don't wanna study.

You can avoid studying with me! Yay!

Of course, I'm only avoiding studying for English, English Lit, Classics and Psychology... so, I guess I can afford to slack off. (Reread, or in some cases just plain read, the texts? Take note of quotes? Practice essays? Do I really have to?)




God, I'm such a slacker :( :p

Homosexuality is a developmental disorder.

This one has been beaten to death. Read the previous portions of the thread before posting please.

Well it should be, if you cant work out whether your a man or a woman what

the opposite sex is for, then you must have a developemental problem

somewhere.

Its so obvious lol

Im sure any research into this, is of course actively discouraged

as discriminating.

Oh, I see! You know more about than say, EXPERTS. There has been a LOT of research into this. So no, its not discouraged, its just proven the way things are.

And the idea of sex with the opposite gender makes me nauseated. So what if I like the same gender? It doesn't hurt you beyond your oh so sensitive sensibilities. That's not a compelling interest.

My opinion... "gay marriage" should be neither allowed or disallowed Nationally. Let the states decide.

As a gay man, I have very little desire to get "married." Marriage is God stuff, and I don't want anything to do with it.

I'm more interested in finding some sort of union that is legally binding and affords us the same sort of financial benefit as typical "straight" unions.

That, and there should be a tax break for NOT having kids. Not an encouragement to have them. Stop the spawning.

Just out of curiousity, because I have a feeling that if we talked for a while we would reach a common middle point on which we coudl agree, but what do you think about DOMA? Should the federal government and other states have to recognize gay unions that ARE sanctioned by one state?

And this is a question from Homozonia. Anyone can respond (how can I stop you?) however, I doubt you'll get much of a response from me.

You can avoid studying with me! Yay!

Of course, I'm only avoiding studying for English, English Lit, Classics and Psychology... so, I guess I can afford to slack off. (Reread, or in some cases just plain read, the texts? Take note of quotes? Practice essays? Do I really have to?)

God, I'm such a slacker :( :p

LOL! I'm supposed to be studying pathology, pharmacology, public health, preventive medicine, microbiology, biostatistics and intro to clinic medicine. And yet I'm not. Who's the bigger slacker now! :-P

So your saying he isnt allowed by law to object to the notion of gay marriage?

Object, yes.

Make it illegal without due reason, no.

So far, no *objective* (ie, non-bollocksy 'opinion') reasons have been presented.

Who bought aids to the west, homosexuals, therefore no matter who has

currently got the highest percent of contamination, it is still a gay disease.


My guts are fine, try and keep the juvenile flaming out of it.


A bi-sexual actually - most likely through passing it onto both men *and* women.

Black, straight women are most at risk, not homosexuals. So it's not a 'gay disease'. It's an STD - transmitted by ANY form of unprotected sexual contact to ANY person engaging in it. AIDS doesn't stop to check the gender of it's hosts.

Doesnt change the fact that it was bought to the west by homosexual men.

NO! Bad Terminalia! Do research! No cookies for you!

Bi-sexual. No homosexual. *BI*-sexual

Spread to members of both sexes, by him. Not just to other men.

Demographic most at risk is STRAIGHT black women, NOT homosexuals.

Who had contact with homosexual men, or someone who did, no matter how

you want to twist it, it is a homosexual disease.

Bi-sexuals? Hellooooo? Is anybody there to pay any attention?

And the disease can spread to both homo and hetero sexuals.

Maybe you should learn to use facts, rather than just assuming reality backs up your opinions.

A bi-sexual actually - most likely through passing it onto both men *and* women.

Black, straight women are most at risk, not homosexuals. So it's not a 'gay disease'. It's an STD - transmitted by ANY form of unprotected sexual contact to ANY person engaging in it. AIDS doesn't stop to check the gender of it's hosts.

And all this assumes that 'Patient Zero' was the actual first point of contact for the virus in the west... which has never really been proved...

And it's not even just an STD... it is passable through any kind of body 'fluid' contact...

Of course, all these 'facts' aren't going to interfere with the hard thought opinions of those with an anti-gay agenda...

LOL! I'm supposed to be studying pathology, pharmacology, public health, preventive medicine, microbiology, biostatistics and intro to clinic medicine. And yet I'm not. Who's the bigger slacker now! :-P

Mmmmso-much-sciency-goodness.

And, oh I dunno, I think I'm still a pretty big slacker.

Did I mention having not read half of the texts I need for English/Lit? Because, like, that tends to make people comment on my slacker-ish-ness.

Then again, I can't really argue with not studying scary science (oooh, scary). I think I might even have to (gasp!) admit defeat and hand over the slacker-crown (how I came to possess it, I have no idea :p)

You referred to a time when Blacks had no rights in America, so try and be
specific next time.

No, I didn't. I referred to a time when blacks had *less* rights in America, just like homosexuals have right now.

So you compare millions of Americans and other people around the world who are against gay marriage, as the same people as the KKK, you never reach for extreme examples do you...

Why do we generally not like the KKK? Because they are bigots
Why are people against homosexual unions? Because they are bigots.

That isn't exactly reaching.

This isnt the point, of course they are not going to produce any sick children, except for ones they adopt unfortunately, homosexual relations although a part of society, should not be bought into the mainstream as acceptable.

Read up on the subject. Children raised by homosexuals are not sick in any way. They also have no more chance of being homosexual themselves than the rest of the population. You really are arguing out of your ass here, Term.

Banning women from the workplace...?

It would be unacceptable, would it not? However, there are many idiots out there who would like to do it.

Who had contact with homosexual men, or someone who did, no matter how you want to twist it, it is a homosexual disease.

This is completely baseless. You are apparently making this statement because the disease was first well-known in this country among the gay population. This was largely because the gay populace was uneducated and had not been taught that they, too, should use condoms. However, the disease popped up in the African heterosexual community much earlier, and there is absolutely no way of knowing who first brought it to this country.

I think the easiest solution is to end government sanctioned marriage all together. We should create government sanctioned civil unions, that can be made between any two adults of consenting age with a number of different requirements (the two live together, are in a committed relationship, share some sort of financial accounts, ect.)

Leave marriage to religious groups, and the civil unions to the state.

I think the easiest solution is to end government sanctioned marriage all together. We should create government sanctioned civil unions, that can be made between any two adults of consenting age with a number of different requirements (the two live together, are in a committed relationship, share some sort of financial accounts, ect.)

Leave marriage to religious groups, and the civil unions to the state.

Welcome to the club. That conclusion has been reached like three times on this forum. To me its the les than perfect solution, but sometimes you have to compromise and that is a perfectly acceptable one.

Kudos.

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

Bush tried to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and he talks about it constantly. Don't even try to pretend he's not making it an issue.

I am totally for gay marriage. In fact, I think calling them civil unions is illegal - it still makes gays second class citizens. The supreme court already gave a ruling on the legality of "seperate but equal" institutions: THEY ARE NOT LEGAL. Their seperateness is inherently unequal, so calling them civil unions makes their marriage different somehow. That's LAME.

I love being from Boston, Massachusetts. It's a liberal paradise, not to mention the greatest college town on earth. And I, as a straight person, am PROUD that our state is the only one progressive enough to pass this law.

It is only a matter of time before it's legal everywhere, and we will look back on those legislators (and people in general) who opposed gay marriage the same way we look back on people who opposed the civil rights bill or the voting rights act: as bigots.

Mmmmso-much-sciency-goodness.

And, oh I dunno, I think I'm still a pretty big slacker.

Did I mention having not read half of the texts I need for English/Lit? Because, like, that tends to make people comment on my slacker-ish-ness.

Then again, I can't really argue with not studying scary science (oooh, scary). I think I might even have to (gasp!) admit defeat and hand over the slacker-crown (how I came to possess it, I have no idea :p)

Mmm... sciency goodness with a side-salad of English lit.

I love being from Boston, Massachusetts. It's a liberal paradise, not to mention the greatest college town on earth. And I, as a straight person, am PROUD that our state is the only one progressive enough to pass this law.


I am from Worcester, Massachusetts, and ive gone to Boston many times. The only fault i find with it is that its Liberal. And what do you mean our state is the only one "progressive" enough to pass this law? I personally believe that its a step BACKWARDS, letting the States defy the supremem government. Not the marriage part, but the blatant ignorance of the Head Government. It was issue like this that caused the South to rebel(the fact that all they did was defy the government.)

I wonder if any gay people are against gay marriage? Just curious.
I actually do know one, even if I do strongly feel as though gays should be able to marry. By not allowing it, it supports legal discrimination, telling people that who they are is not right, yet they can't prove that what they are doing is a mere choice. Marriages should be first and foremose about love, why deny people the right to be recognized to be in love?

I am from Worcester, Massachusetts, and ive gone to Boston many times. The only fault i find with it is that its Liberal. And what do you mean our state is the only one "progressive" enough to pass this law? I personally believe that its a step BACKWARDS, letting the States defy the supremem government. Not the marriage part, but the blatant ignorance of the Head Government. It was issue like this that caused the South to rebel(the fact that all they did was defy the government.)

Hmm. States' rights. Is that a conservative idea or a liberal one?

The fact is, Stagiria, *civil marriage is the only thing the government ever *had* jurisdiction over.


Marriage in America is a purely *secular* institution.

The state extends the *privilege* to clergy to perform civil marriage at the *same time* as religious marriage, but the *law* does not have anything to do with religious marriage, only the civil marriage.

The fact is, Stagiria, *civil marriage is the only thing the government ever *had* jurisdiction over.


Marriage in America is a purely *secular* institution.

The state extends the *privilege* to clergy to perform civil marriage at the *same time* as religious marriage, but the *law* does not have anything to do with religious marriage, only the civil marriage.

So long as there are legal benifits involved in marrige, it is a federal matter, not a religious one.

That, by the way, folks, if it's not obvious, means that the United States already *has* an institution of nondiscriminatory 'civil unions.'

That doesn't mean that any church or minister has to perform or approve of any marriage they don't want to. They never did.

It's just that people in *homosexual* marriages deserve equal access to this civil, legal institution, and the courts have recognized this, much to the chagrin of the bigoted, who have taken the tack of claiming that it's *taking something away* from religious marriage that it never really had.

It's not the job of the *state* to 'sanctify' marriage, or the definition of marriage. It's basically, contract law. You can go to Vegas and drop fifteen bucks for a quickie heterosexual marriage, and the clergy can't say boo.

People also aren't on a crusade to make that illegal.

Even if it doesn't exactly respect a lot of people's 'definition' of marriage.

We've already *got* an equal, nonjudgemental form of civil unions.

It's called civil marriage.

Just cause some religious people are trying to deny others equal protection under the law because of their beliefs, doesn't mean it was ever any different.

If you want to avoid confusion, then maybe make everyone getting married religiously go to a secular Justice of the Peace. You could do that, but it's extra bureaucracy and not very romantic.

That's why churches and clergy of many religions are extended the *courtesy* of performing the civil and religious ceremonies at the same time. It doesn't mean that the 'definition' of civil marriage ever belonged to the churches.

Have I said that enough?

I am from Worcester, Massachusetts, and ive gone to Boston many times. The only fault i find with it is that its Liberal. And what do you mean our state is the only one "progressive" enough to pass this law? I personally believe that its a step BACKWARDS, letting the States defy the supremem government. Not the marriage part, but the blatant ignorance of the Head Government. It was issue like this that caused the South to rebel(the fact that all they did was defy the government.)

Ummm, the South rebelled due to slavery. It was stupid.

Allowing gay marriage is not.

And let's talk about defying the head government. According to the Constitution of the United States of America, all powers not granted to the federal government are in the prevue of the states. The federal government has NEVER before regulated marriage--its a matter of family law which has ALWAYS been a matter for the states. So there is no supreme government to defy in this matter. That's how the USA was set up, the powers of governance were shared beteween the state and federal governments.

Ummm, the South rebelled due to slavery. It was stupid.

Allowing gay marriage is not.

And let's talk about defying the head government. According to the Constitution of the United States of America, all powers not granted to the federal government are in the prevue of the states. The federal government has NEVER before regulated marriage--its a matter of family law which has ALWAYS been a matter for the states. So there is no supreme government to defy in this matter. That's how the USA was set up, the powers of governance were shared beteween the state and federal governments.

1. Gay marriage IS stupid in my opinion.

2. Thats what i hate about the U.S. The States have too much power. It threatens the internal stability of the overall nation.

Umm, if you look at the currency, dude, you'll see this is called the "United States of America."

States united. Under the Constitution they all signed onto.

That means that the states have certain powers which are united under the Full Faith And Credit clause of the Constitution.

Which means among other things, that every state can define legal marriage within that state, and that the other states are to recognize those marriages, so long as the Federal courts don't rule that such definitions violate the Constitution.

That's why the homophobes are trying to pass a specifically-discriminatory amendment to the Federal constitution, ...because they're trying to make an end-run around our system of checks and balances and impose their religious will on the whole nation.

1. Gay marriage IS stupid in my opinion.

2. Thats what i hate about the U.S. The States have too much power. It threatens the internal stability of the overall nation.


First of all, the civil war was fought over state's rights. Slavery was just the catalyst.

Secondly...LS, you arn't a republican, are you? :p

First of all, the civil war was fought over state's rights. Slavery was just the catalyst.

Secondly...LS, you arn't a republican, are you? :p

Well, im mostly a republican. I differ on some issue tho.

Sexuality is not a choice so I support the right of people to live as they as it harms me none. Besides divorce is far worse for the sanctity of marrige then extending the rights of marrige to all.

1. Gay marriage IS stupid in my opinion.

2. Thats what i hate about the U.S. The States have too much power. It threatens the internal stability of the overall nation.


And your opinion is just that, your opinion. You have no right to deprive people of basic rates based solely upon your opinion.

Further, if you don't like it you can leave it.

<EDITORAL ADDITION>
Okay, that was harsh. You do have the right not to like it. . . and even the right to try to change it. However, based on our system now you don't have the right to deny people basic rights just because you think something is stupid.

What have gays ever done to not deserve the right to marriage? Be born? Cause that's a crappy reason to deny anyone the right to anything.

First of all, the civil war was fought over state's rights. Slavery was just the catalyst.

Secondly...LS, you arn't a republican, are you? :p

Sorry, but in my experience the only people who think that the Civil War was fought over state's rights are those that think "the South will rise again." At least that's the way it is here in Mississippi.

And I'm a Republican. Which is why I stand for states rights--even though it seems to not be the party's major platform these days.

Since the separation of church and state (or lack thereof as some people seem to think) here is a little quiz on the matter just to see if you know the history. Granted, it is from a free-thinker's group so it is going to be biased. However the facts it presents are true.

http://ffrf.org/quiz/scripts/ffrfquiz_results.php

My opinion... "gay marriage" should be neither allowed or disallowed Nationally. Let the states decide.

As a gay man, I have very little desire to get "married." Marriage is God stuff, and I don't want anything to do with it.

I'm more interested in finding some sort of union that is legally binding and affords us the same sort of financial benefit as typical "straight" unions.

That, and there should be a tax break for NOT having kids. Not an encouragement to have them. Stop the spawning.

i gotta agree with this...especially the tax break..i am tired of paying taxes on schools to educate others..i decided to have no children, let the folks who have them pay for their education and for those of you concerned by it I am straight, male , and christian...i dont hate gays or treat them different..i just think its wrong..thanx

i gotta agree with this...especially the tax break..i am tired of paying taxes on schools to educate others..i decided to have no children, let the folks who have them pay for their education and for those of you concerned by it I am straight, male , and christian...i dont hate gays or treat them different..i just think its wrong..thanx

This we can work with. This is where we can find a common ground somewhere in the middle. Would you agree with civil unions for all people as the means of getting the rights of marriage? And I'm not just talking about tax breaks--for me that's the last thing on the list. I'm talking things about joint decision making, co-ownership of property, inheritance rights, power of attorney rights, etc.

A big reason to pay for education for all is because this is supposed to be a democracy.

Do you really want to be governed by people who don't know what's going on and 'just know these people are wrong?'

It's so easy to tell people that, and so hard to undo the damage if you happen to be one of the bystanders it's expedient for some people to call 'I dunno, it's just wrong.'

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

You have a very good point. Marriages are (or were) closely tied to religion, which in US, is different (and certainly allowed to be different) from other people. Civil unions should in fact replace marriage

Marrige is not a religious institution.

Several religions are just fine with marrige.

You're religion does not hold a monopoly on it.

Seperate is not equal, so you can't have marrige for one couple and "civil unions" for the other.

Marrige also has emotional ties, which is another argument for homosexuals to have it.



Any reasons I didn't shred?

Marrige has cultural and emotional value, wh

you shred nothing...marriage is a religious institution...
i never claimed my religion had a monoploly on anything
face it good or bad ..and contrary to the views of special interest groups the country is majority rule..put it to a vote and see what the majority thinks
you can have emotional ties without marriage also...and i am so sorry you cant force religious doctrine to change for your personal desires.. and yes marriage has cultural value..name a culture that doesnt see marriage as a man and a woman..

That would still concede the word 'marriage' as something only straights are good enough for... so I'm not wild about this idea.

Besides. Get real.

No one's going to want their *marriage* downgraded to a 'civil union' ...even in name.

Which should, if nothing else does, prove that bigorty motivates trying to reserve the word, if not the rights of marriage, to straights.

They *know* the 'civil union' is a lesser, second-class status.

I am against gay marriages because I believe marriage is something beyond a civil contract. It entails the formation of a family and formalising certain vows of committment. I know we live in a secular culture and I agree with the fact the issue should be decided via referendum.

I find the proposal of downgrading marriage to "civil union" ridiculous. A civil union does not contemplate all the legal implications of marriage.

you gotta look at the motivation here..do two people want to spend their lives together and have it legally recognized..or do they want their bond to be a slap in the face of the religious community...is their union a lifetime bond of love or a statement...in all the rehtoric i hear it is for the same financial security that married men & women enjoy..healthcare benefits and such..which civil unions will allow

you shred nothing...marriage is a religious institution...
No it isn't. As long as there are legal benifits, it is a federal institution.
i never claimed my religion had a monoploly on anything
You said, quote, "...but my religion says man + woman =marriage." This implies that your religion is the only one that matters. Several religions and churches were wedding together people of the same sex.

face it good or bad ..and contrary to the views of special interest groups the country is majority rule...put it to a vote and see what the majority thinks
Wrong wrong wrong wrong WRONG. The country is NOT majority rule. It is NOT a democracy, it is a republic. Where did you get that idea from? The country's laws were shaped so that it WOULDN'T be majority rule-the framers didn't want a tyrrany of the majority.

you can have emotional ties without marriage also...and i am so sorry you cant force religious doctrine to change for your personal desires.. and yes marriage has cultural value..name a culture that doesnt see marriage as a man and a woman..

Cultural value is meaningless.

It was once our culture to degrade everyone who wasn't a white, landowning male.

Secondly, nobody wants to force religious doctrine to change. THere you go again, assuming that either a) every religion is like yours, or b) your religion is the only one that matters. Churches arn't going to be FORCED to marry homosexuals. Nobody wants that. Except the people fighting against it, apparently.

you gotta look at the motivation here..do two people want to spend their lives together and have it legally recognized..or do they want their bond to be a slap in the face of the religious community...is their union a lifetime bond of love or a statement...in all the rehtoric i hear it is for the same financial security that married men & women enjoy..healthcare benefits and such..which civil unions will allow

Read up on your history.

Seperate is never equal.



You must be pretty paranoid to think that homosexuals want to be married just to shove in the face of your religion.

By the way-and I covered this in my previous post, but-you ARE aware that many religions have no problems with homosexuals being married?

At least be honest. It's not the "religious community," it's the "christian community." You don't own religion.

you gotta look at the motivation here..do two people want to spend their lives together and have it legally recognized..or do they want their bond to be a slap in the face of the religious community...is their union a lifetime bond of love or a statement...in all the rehtoric i hear it is for the same financial security that married men & women enjoy..healthcare benefits and such..which civil unions will allow

What do you think? I think homosexual people want to get married for the same reasons heterosexual people want to get married.

you gotta look at the motivation here..do two people want to spend their lives together and have it legally recognized..or do they want their bond to be a slap in the face of the religious community...is their union a lifetime bond of love or a statement...in all the rehtoric i hear it is for the same financial security that married men & women enjoy..healthcare benefits and such..which civil unions will allow
Gay marriage is not a slap in the face of religion. Straight marraige is a slap in the face of all of the commited homosexual couples who are being barred from this union. "We have something you don't have! We're better than you because we're married."
What do you imagine that homosexuals are saying to "religion" by getting married? "Ooh, look at us, we're married. That makes us equal to you." Not much of a slap, now is it?

Marriage is a very loaded term. It not only grants couples certain legal rights, but symbolizes commitment and love. Tell me, when you were a kid, when you were growing up, when you were starting to date, did you dream of finding the man or woman you would someday love enough to marry, or the man or woman who you could enter into a civil union with?

Religion does not have a monopoly on marriage, christianity does not have a monopoly on religion, and conservatives do not have a monopoly on christianity. :headbang:

name a culture that doesnt see marriage as a man and a woman..

The gay culture. Native American Culture. Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman Culture.

I am against gay marriages because I believe marriage is something beyond a civil contract. It entails the formation of a family and formalising certain vows of committment. I know we live in a secular culture and I agree with the fact the issue should be decided via referendum.

I find the proposal of downgrading marriage to "civil union" ridiculous. A civil union does not contemplate all the legal implications of marriage.

People who propose downgrading all civil "marriage" to civil "unions" would support adding all rights to civil unions. And while marriage may be more than a civil contract to you, it is not to everybody and the civil government does not involve itself in religious affairs. I find it interesting that no one ever tries to refute the many many statements about separation of church and state, civil marriage, etc. that people have presented time and again.

you gotta look at the motivation here..do two people want to spend their lives together and have it legally recognized..or do they want their bond to be a slap in the face of the religious community...is their union a lifetime bond of love or a statement...in all the rehtoric i hear it is for the same financial security that married men & women enjoy..healthcare benefits and such..which civil unions will allow

It's also about basic respect as ahuman being and being expected to be treated equally under the law. Certainly we never expect to be treated equally by religions--Christians (as most others) are notorious for treating some as second class. Thank goodness that our government is a secular one.

And no, civil unions do NOT currently grant the rights of marriage. There are over 800 rights assocaited with marriage (as I've said at least three times already) and less than fifty associated with civil unions . . . and none of hte ones that are associated are on a federal level, etc. Read up on the law, learn about your country, before you make these decisions. (This is of course assuming you are from the USA, I can't make judgements about other governments in the world, not knowing enougha bout them).

At least be honest. It's not the "religious community," it's the "christian community." You don't own religion.

It's not even the entire Christian community. . .

:headbang:

Dude, that's the best thing I think I've ever seen. I'm gonna have to use it.

you shred nothing...marriage is a religious institution...
i never claimed my religion had a monoploly on anything
face it good or bad ..and contrary to the views of special interest groups the country is majority rule..put it to a vote and see what the majority thinks
you can have emotional ties without marriage also...and i am so sorry you cant force religious doctrine to change for your personal desires.. and yes marriage has cultural value..name a culture that doesnt see marriage as a man and a woman..

1- Marriage is a Religious Insitution
I can't speak for America, but in Europe it's not. France, for example, is a secular nation and refuses to acknowledge any sort of religious belief as an entity. They still have marriage. It's a civil contract between two people in the eyes of the state. If you want to bring religion into it, that's your perogative. Here in Britain a wedding is also a civil contract, which you can have in a church or religious community if you wish, but if not you can have it in a State Registry office. Therefore marriage is a civil institution which some people like to fit into their religious beliefs. It's all groovy, it's called choice and freedom.

2- face it good or bad ..and contrary to the views of special interest groups the country is majority rule
Actually, it's democracy not majority rule. There's a subtle difference. Of course in America it's neither. But theoretically, if you had an elected President, I think you'll find you elect representatives not delegates. They are there to represent your constituency (or state or whatever your system has). In Britain the role of the House of Lords (second chamber) is to scrutinise bills before they become law to check if they are fair, just and do not infringe the rights of minorities. Majority Rule is A) unworkable and B) mob rule.

3-and i am so sorry you cant force religious doctrine to change for your personal desires
I don't think anyone is asking to push their personal beliefs onto anyones religious beliefs. They are asking for the law to be changed, not any religious doctrine. It's called choice. Some religious doctrines support gay marriage. Are you not forcing THEIR religious doctrine to change for your personal desires? The gay marriage agenda is to allow consenting adults to marry and receive the same rights as other consenting adults who happen to be in opposite sex relationships. No one is asking you to change your religious beliefs or to support gay marriage or to get married yourself, they're just asking that you allow them to.

4-name a culture that doesnt see marriage as a man and a woman
America. Isn't Governor Bush trying to pass a law to change the constitution so it says 'Between a Man and a Woman'? Doesn't that imply that it doesn't currently say that? Other cultures include Early American Mormonism and various Muslim and Eastern Cultures, which define it as a union between a Man and lots of women. It's all cultural. The gay culture sees a marriage as a union between consenting adults. However, the laws of the countries of the world prevent their cultural view from being expressed.


No-one is asking you to change your culture, religious beliefs or cultural beliefs. They are asking you to respect their culture, religious beliefs and cultural beliefs.

Duce, I thought this was made clear.

You're free to believe marriage is something *beyond a civil contract.*

But. The legal, civil institution of marriage *is by definition a civil contract and nothing more or less.

Anything *beyond* that is a matter of your beliefs and conscience, *not American law.* ...and I commend you to the *clergy* for that beyondness.


My religion believes it's *beyond* a civil contract, too, and we have no problem with that *beyondness* applying to gay couples, as well.

Fair is fair, law is law, beliefs are beliefs.

Anyone that told you the former two were ever supposed to be beholden to the latter, was misleading you.

I'm just waiting for his/her response :p

A number of issues don't need governmental interference. Live and let live on this one.

I said no, I don't think gay marriage should be legalized.

The reason being is that the institution of marriage is a fossil. I think its cute in an ideological, romantic sort of way,... but it still needs a lot of fine tuning to become modernized.

I think either we could grant gay marriage rights, but to be consistent we would need to grant rights of polygamy, and polyamorous, or we should just screw the entire idea and just not let ourselves be bound by the "sanctity" of marriage and just quit abusing the state for tax breaks because of a wedding ring and a piece of paper. :mp5:

That argument's pretty meaningless, Canucks, if it's *you* that might not get to see the love of your life on her deathbed, if, Gods forbid, something happenned to her tomorrow.


The institution of marriage as it exists legally should not discriminate against gay couples, period. The only thing that it requires for us to enjoy equal rights and protection is for the state to simply *stop discriminating.*



If you want to revamp the entire institution, well, go ahead and try, but it's irrelevant to the rights and wrongs of this question.

That argument's pretty meaningless, Canucks, if it's *you* that might not get to see the love of your life on her deathbed, if, Gods forbid, something happenned to her tomorrow.


The institution of marriage as it exists legally should not discriminate against gay couples, period. The only thing that it requires for us to enjoy equal rights and protection is for the state to simply *stop discriminating.*



If you want to revamp the entire institution, well, go ahead and try, but it's irrelevant to the rights and wrongs of this question.

I don't think its meaningless, I think my point quite valid. I have someone who is my "fiancee" we have been together for four years, and we will probably be together for many more, but we don't need a marriage certificate to prove that we love each other, furthermore, gay, hetero, polyamorous do not require it either.

I mean if you're going to have the institution, it should be granted to everyone, equally, but I am just saying it would seem easier to scrap the archaic institution than wait to see how the gay marriage thing pans out, and than try and reintroduce polygamy, because that is just another minority group that should be granted recognition if they so choose to want to have it.

I said no, I don't think gay marriage should be legalized.

The reason being is that the institution of marriage is a fossil. I think its cute in an ideological, romantic sort of way,... but it still needs a lot of fine tuning to become modernized.

I think either we could grant gay marriage rights, but to be consistent we would need to grant rights of polygamy, and polyamorous, or we should just screw the entire idea and just not let ourselves be bound by the "sanctity" of marriage and just quit abusing the state for tax breaks because of a wedding ring and a piece of paper. :mp5:


While most of your arguement I would agree with there is one point that I cannot let go by without respoding. Everyone who posts on this thread needs to understand this one thing.

GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT ABOUT TAX BREAKS. Its' about equality. Its about respect. Its about human rights. There are over 800 different rights associated with civil marriage. Let me assure you that rights to inheritance, to power of attorney, to decision making in end-of-life issues, to not be excluded by your spouses family just because they don't like the fact that s/he is gay, are far Far FAR more important to most homosexuals than a simple tax break.

Now I realize that this is not quite what you said, but I think the point bears reiterating for the many many other people who don't seem to understand this.

I don't think its meaningless, I think my point quite valid. I have someone who is my "fiancee" we have been together for four years, and we will probably be together for many more, but we don't need a marriage certificate to prove that we love each other, furthermore, gay, hetero, polyamorous do not require it either.


You're right, you don't need a marriage certificate to prove your love to her. But you know what? You need one if something happens to her and she goes into coma. Why? Because her family might hate you and without that marriage certificate, they are her next of kin. Not. You. You also need that certificate to leave your money to her. Otherwise your blood kin can easily challenge even the most watertight of wills to the contrary. Now, things might be different in Canada (I do not know) and they might not be that way in your family. But the legal issues are that way here and there are many homosexuals who are in those circumstances here. My husband will be lucky, my family would never do that. I'm not guaranteed the same privledge here because who knows what his family will be like when I meet him.

I mean if you're going to have the institution, it should be granted to everyone, equally, but I am just saying it would seem easier to scrap the archaic institution than wait to see how the gay marriage thing pans out, and than try and reintroduce polygamy, because that is just another minority group that should be granted recognition if they so choose to want to have it.[/QUOTE]

I am from Worcester, Massachusetts, and ive gone to Boston many times. The only fault i find with it is that its Liberal. And what do you mean our state is the only one "progressive" enough to pass this law? I personally believe that its a step BACKWARDS, letting the States defy the supremem government. Not the marriage part, but the blatant ignorance of the Head Government. It was issue like this that caused the South to rebel(the fact that all they did was defy the government.)

Mass has not defied the "Supreme Government". There is no federal ban and this has thus far been left up to the states. The Mass. state government has decided to allow it. There is no contradiction here.

I suppose my problem lies in that I think everyone, gay, hetero, bi, trans or otherwise should be held in the same esteem, and yet... America has worked backwards and made polygamy illegal? How can a nation so backwards ever hope to grant a civil right as important as gay, bi, multi partner marriages.

It won't. So perhaps maybe reducing heterosexual marriages to a legal civil union might suffice? I just personally think civil unions is a form of tolerance and hence discriminitory, so I don't think just doing it half assed is gonna work. Do it right, or don't do it all.

I respect everyone's opinions though.

I am against gay marriages because I believe marriage is something beyond a civil contract.

So do homosexuals, but they can get all of the "something beyond a civil contract." It is the civil contract itself that they are denied.

It entails the formation of a family and formalising certain vows of committment.

Yup, and homosexuals can already do that. Again, it is the actual civil contract part that they are being denied - and this is wrong.

I know we live in a secular culture and I agree with the fact the issue should be decided via referendum.

Referendums only work where civil rights are not involved. A referendum on whether or not to raise sales tax by 1% makes sense. However, if there was a referendum on whether or not to raise sales tax by 1% only for homosexuals, the law would probably pass - and then would be rightfully struck down by a court of law.

I find the proposal of downgrading marriage to "civil union" ridiculous. A civil union does not contemplate all the legal implications of marriage.

Which is exactly why we cannot continue to deny homosexuals the legal protections that heterosexuals already have.

I suppose my problem lies in that I think everyone, gay, hetero, bi, trans or otherwise should be held in the same esteem, and yet... America has worked backwards and made polygamy illegal? How can a nation so backwards ever hope to grant a civil right as important as gay, bi, multi partner marriages.

It won't. So perhaps maybe reducing heterosexual marriages to a legal civil union might suffice? I just personally think civil unions is a form of tolerance and hence discriminitory, so I don't think just doing it half assed is gonna work. Do it right, or don't do it all.

I respect everyone's opinions though.

Umm, while I will admit that America is rather behind in some things, I would hardly call us backwards because of that one law. Now mind you, I'm not arguing against polygamy--I don't really have much of an opinion on it as its not something I have ever considered for myself or done much research into. America has a lot to be proud of--as does every nation on the earth.

Gee, I guess this is the typical "I can talk bad about my family, but don't you dare" scenario.

I personally believe that Gay Marriage is an abomination before God, as well as all Gay activities. That is how I have been raised, and that is what I bleieve.

I personally believe that Gay Marriage is an abomination before God, as well as all Gay activities. That is how I have been raised, and that is what I bleieve.

So... don't get a gay marriage?

Really, nobody is forcing you to.

Do you guys just like to hear yourselves say that 'abomination' line, or do you spend a lot of time imagining how 'abominable' it must be?

Sheesh.

I personally believe that Gay Marriage is an abomination before God, as well as all Gay activities. That is how I have been raised, and that is what I bleieve.

I have this little theory on life. It's really very interesting. It's called live and let live. My being gay does nothing to stop you from living nor does it deprive you of equal rights to do and believe as you want (provided of course, as my liberarian comrades would say it hurts no one--I don't extend that all the way out to no one but yourself, but I'm considering it).

So you are entitled to believe as you like. Believe I'm an abomination and I'm going to hell. Frankly Scarlet, I dont give a damn.

However, please don't try to force that off on me in the laws of a secular government. I don't keep you from exercising your religion and beliefs. Just don't try to keep me from doing the same for mine.

Frankly Scarlet, I dont give a damn.

Clue rocks! Tim Curry forever!

Clue rocks! Tim Curry forever!

He's just a sweet transvestite . . . from transexual, Transylvania.

However, I only unintentionally quoted Clue. I was going for Gone with the Wind. But Clue works too!

Do you guys just like to hear yourselves say that 'abomination' line, or do you spend a lot of time imagining how 'abominable' it must be?

Sheesh.

They really like that word don't they. :p

IF YOU DONT LIKE GAY MARRIAGE, DONT GET ONE! :D

I personally believe that Gay Marriage is an abomination before God, as well as all Gay activities. That is how I have been raised, and that is what I bleieve.

Hmm, I notice that nothing in what you've said implies that any actual thought has gone into it - rather, you cite what people have told you and your static opinion, respectively. Does this bother you?

Bi-sexuals? Hellooooo? Is anybody there to pay any attention?

And the disease can spread to both homo and hetero sexuals.

Maybe you should learn to use facts, rather than just assuming reality backs up your opinions.

Rubbish, bi sexual homosexual same thing.

Sorry but reality backs that up, you indulge in bi sexual activitys you might

as well be a homosexual.

Its these people who have taken it to the hetrosexual population, from

homosexuals.

Where did Aids start in America Shaed?

Rubbish, bi sexual homosexual same thing.
Sorry but reality backs that up, you indulge in bi sexual activitys you might
as well be a homosexual.

Wow, someone has absolutely no understanding of sexuality. Congratulations on making an even bigger ass out of yourself, Term.

Heterosexual = exclusively attracted to opposite sex
Homosexual = exclusively attracted to same sex
Bisexual = variably attracted to either sex
Asexual = not really interested in either sex

Now, a valid argument can be made that everyone (except perhaps the asexual types) are actually bisexual to varying degrees (with some waaaaaaaay over to one direction on the scale). But to argue that bisexuality=homosexuality is like saying that 2=1.

Its these people who have taken it to the hetrosexual population, from homosexuals.

What? Homosexuality?

Where did Aids start in America Shaed?

At first? Completely unknown. The first diagnosed case is believed to have been a bisexual male flight attendant (if I remember correctly). However, there is no way of knowing if he actually was the first case, as the likely case would be that many people died of AIDS before the disease was even known - and since it was incorrectly labeled as a "gay disease," doctors often didn't report cases they had.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents]No, I didn't. I referred to a time when blacks had *less* rights in America, just like homosexuals have right now.

Can you give me any other society in history that has recognised gay unions

as the equal of normal ones in religon and law?

Why do we generally not like the KKK? Because they are bigots
Why are people against homosexual unions? Because they are bigots.

Sorry, but not recognising homosexual unions as right doesnt make me a

bigot, just wondering do you ever draw a line on when somone isnt a bigot, if

their against something that offends them?

I would guess in ten years time when paedophiles are asking for rights to

have sex with children, you will be calling me a bigot for being against that as

well?

Of course not.

You would have to draw the line somewhere, of whos rights are more

important, the difference is, I have drawn the line ten years earlier than you

have, because I dont agree with gay unions being recognised as legal by the

Church or state, or agree to gays raising children, this does not make me a

bigot.

If you had asked me this a hundred years ago say, and I disagreed as I do

now, I would not be considered a bigot, however now with the moral collapse

of western civilisation I am now subjected to being called a bigot for still

holding the same view, therefore this is a subjective view of whats bigoted

and whats not, bought about by nothing but PC pressure.

What do gays stand to gain by this?

Nothing.

What does society gain by this?

Nothing.

Therefore it isnt necessary.




Read up on the subject. Children raised by homosexuals are not sick in any way. They also have no more chance of being homosexual themselves than the rest of the population. You really are arguing out of your ass here, Term.

I dont think so, I would say there would be more chance of kids growing up

to be homosexual than less.

Children copy the closest adults in their lives the most, and whatever they

find acceptable or not, they will too.

It would be unacceptable, would it not? However, there are many idiots out there who would like to do it.

Well, I have no problem with women working, unless there are children to

raise, that I believe comes first, and I really dont care if you think my opinion

is neanderthal or sexist, or un PC, I believe this is what is meant to work

better, anyway Ill put my flamesuit back on. lol

I also think our policeforce, security services and armed forces would run alot

more smoothly if they were male only, with strict rules on fitness of course.

I think I better put on two flamesuits for this one.


This is completely baseless. You are apparently making this statement because the disease was first well-known in this country among the gay population. This was largely because the gay populace was uneducated and had not been taught that they, too, should use condoms.

Well I still think gay men bought it over, unless your suggesting some

heteromen went to San Francisco in 1978 with the deliberate intention of

spreading Aids?

I would guess in ten years time when paedophiles are asking for rights to have sex with children, you will be calling me a bigot for being against that as well.
I'm only replying to this part because it's been used so many times and refuted so many times its pathetic.

PEDOPHILES DO NOT HAVE CONSENT FROM CHILDREN.

It's rape.

Two consenting adults, is not rape.

Can you give me any other society in history that has recognised gay unions as the equal of normal ones in religon and law?

Druidic societies did. Native American societies didn't exactly have laws, but many revered homosexuals and believed that they were endowed with a great gift from God. Romans and Greeks tended to believe that love between two men was greater than that of a man and a woman.

Sorry, but not recognising homosexual unions as right doesnt make me a bigot, just wondering do you ever draw a line on when somone isnt a bigot, if their against something that offends them?

Someone is a bigot if they look down on other people or wish to discriminate against them for no logical reason. This applies.

I would guess in ten years time when paedophiles are asking for rights to have sex with children, you will be calling me a bigot for being against that as well.

You know, you really need to get a dictionary. Mark the word consent. And every time you feel like posting this stupidity, check the word.

I dont think so, I would say there would be more chance of kids growing up to be homosexual than less.

And scientific studies demonstrate that you are wrong - as evidenced by the fact that the chances are not more, not less, but exactly the same.

Children copy the closest adults in their lives the most, and whatever they find acceptable or not, they will too.

Yes, that's why all those kids raised in hellfire and brimstone Baptist communities were gay. Don't be stupid Term, you're sexuality does not come from copying adults directly. If it did, then every male ever raised by a single mother would necessarily be gay.

Well, I have no problem with women working, unless there are children to raise, that I believe comes first, and I really dont care if you think my opinion is neanderthal or sexist, or un PC, I believe this is what is meant to work better, anyway Ill put my flamesuit back on. lol

The point is, you can have your opinion. But if you try to legislate that a woman cannot work just because she has kids, you and I will have to butt heads.

I also think our policeforce, security services and armed forces would run alot more smoothly if they were male only, with strict rules on fitness of course. I think I better put on two flamesuits for this one.

And that is your opinion. But, again, if you tried to legislate it, you would have to come up with something better than "this is my opinion and so we have to do it my way." You wouldn't have anything, so it wouldn't get legislated.

Well I still think gay men bought it over, unless your suggesting some heteromen went to San Francisco in 1978 with the deliberate intention of spreading Aids?

It is very unlikely that San Fran was actually the site of the first American case of AIDs.

I'm only replying to this part because it's been used so many times and refuted so many times its pathetic.
PEDOPHILES DO NOT HAVE CONSENT FROM CHILDREN.
It's rape.
Two consenting adults, is not rape.

Not necessarily, alot of children have been molested by Adults they trusted,

and given their consent at the time not knowing any better, this comes back

to really haunt them later in life, also guilt from experiencing pleasure from

the act, the majority of kids are molested this way, the rape scenario,

although numerous, is actually a minority of the way victims are molested.

Also two thirds of childmolesters were found to be homosexual/bisexual,

which is a big reason why I am against gays raising children.

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

I agree! "Marriage" is generally a religious thing. My dad and step mum got married last summer, and they got a legal marriage, not a Church marriage, or a civil union I guess. My step mum is not Christian and my dad is a non-practicing Catholic. They had nothing to do with the marriage that Bush or Kerry (running for President of the States for those of you who don't know, and yeah I'm a Canadian who is watching the American Presidential Debates haha)... Well, they had nothing to do with the type of marriage that Bush or Kerry talk about being between a woman and a man. Yes, it's true that they are a woman and a man, but not in the kind of marriage they speak of.

Homosexuals should have a right to have a civil union and not be critisized about not being married in Church!


****EDIT**** Tell me, what ever happened to the seperate of Church and State! Well, I know in Canada that at least they try to seperate it, and I do learn about American history in school, however I'm not entirely convinced of being taught that the States tried to ever do this. I would like to know if the American goverment has had a policy about this before or not.

I personally believe that Gay Marriage is an abomination before God, as well as all Gay activities. That is how I have been raised, and that is what I bleieve.

So when will God come out and say it?

given the current healthcare system, this particular issue of gay rights should not be the focus of so much attention. it has been made to be by republicans who seek to draw their constituencies solidly together. it has been made to be (to a lesser extent) by democrats and libertarians who cannot let challenges stand unanswered. but it is we—the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered Americans who share this great land with you—who stand to gain or lose the most in this fight.

the majority of americans are christian, according to certain polls. and it has irrefutably been the most conservative sections of christian america that have led the drive to ban gay marriage. their context, that it is the duty of our government and, yes, even our Constitution, to protect the sanctity of marriage from us marauding gays who are somehow weakening their own marriages by our desire for legal recognition. ( we already have the right to spiritual recognition in supportive churches—freedom of religion grants us that much.)

yet, the bible does NOT forbid gay marriage. as a matter of fact, the bible doesn't even set aside a rite of marriage in any manner. there is no formula that must be followed, according to the book. jacob and rachel (or jacob and leah, for that matter) were considered to be married because of a feast and the fact that they went into a tent together to "do the deed." heck, jacob even had TWO wives (and more than once slept with his two concubines, as well.)

many marriages (even those in the bible) throughout history have been arranged for such "sacred" reasons as power, money, influence, or convenience. how dare anyone say that marriage is sacred, then wink and nod at those unions while telling me that i cannot marry whom i choose! this issue is not about the "sanctity" of marriage. its about the fear of granting legitimacy to a way of thinking that refutes a very strongly held religious belief. its also about denying legal protections to a group long marginalized by society.

i personally disagree with the jewish faith, but i would never in my wildest dreams walk into a synagouge during Shabbat services disrupt their worship by screaming my faith in their faces and shoving it down their throats. by denying a group of people legal protections that would otherwise be afforded to them were their attractions correct in certain peoples' eyes is wrong. it is discrimination, plain and simple. i can only say how relieved i am that at least one state's supreme court has the courage to say so.

I personally believe that Gay Marriage is an abomination before God, as well as all Gay activities. That is how I have been raised, and that is what I bleieve.

I too was raised in this manner. I was told that The Bible tells us that God will punish homosexuals for their desecrations. I was told that the gays brought AIDS to America. (and that this, too, was foretold by Paul, "and they received in themselves the due penalty for their transgressions.") Like many who were raised in a very conservative Christian home, I had no positive references by which to refute these assertions I was told to accept. So I accepted them.

i am gay. i was raised in a manner which totally and completely contradicted my sexuality. because of the atmosphere of hostility and ignorance towards homosexuality that i grew up in, i learned to repress and hide myself. i knew i couldn't be gay, growing up. after all, fags went to hell, i thought, and i certainly wasn't going there.

all these things i had been told, all these things i thought i knew, and then i did something that changed my world. i actually opened up my Bible and read it. and not just the pieces that supposedly dealt with homosexual offenders. i read all of it , cover to cover. and i discovered something. all that hate, all that hostility, and all that ignorance didn't come from this book. none of it did. it couldn't possibly have. by researching and reading the context (and not just picking a choice sentence or two to support my cause), i was able to discover that the Bible does not once offer an admonition against homosexuality that could be construed as valid for today.

the only part that even comes close is in leviticus, but lesbianism is never once mentioned (and i highly doubt the Almighty forgot about the womenfolk just there). in addition, the very next chapter exhorts against such grave trespasses as blending more than one kind of fiber in the same garment, cooking meat of an animal with blood still in it, and quite a few other things we do on a regular basis today.

i could get into the whole argument in much more depth, but this suffices to show that i believe not simply because someone told me so, but because i looked with my own eyes and saw the truth.

i am gay. i am american. i am christian, above all else. none of these are mutually exclusive. right now, i'm ashamed of one of these things... the one that means i'm part of a country where everyone is not given the same rights.

Not necessarily, alot of children have been molested by Adults they trusted, and given their consent at the time not knowing any better, this comes back to really haunt them later in life, also guilt from experiencing pleasure from the act, the majority of kids are molested this way, the rape scenario, although numerous, is actually a minority of the way victims are molested.

Children are unable to consent. Whether or not they say yes is not the issue.

Also two thirds of childmolesters were found to be homosexual/bisexual, which is a big reason why I am against gays raising children.

Entirely wrong. The only studies that state this are those that ignore the fact that pedophiles are attracted to different genders in children than they are in adults. There are actually different psychological terms (apart from homosexual and heterosexual) that describe a pedophile's gender preference.

Normal adult homosexual behavior is no more related to pedophilia than normal adult heterosexual behavior. So I guess we have to stop letting the heterosexuals raise kids.