NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, I'm really going to bed this time. I hope.

So this means you do like beastiality and molesting then?

How did you come to that conclusion?

Preebles[/B]]Care to share some stats? A sociological study oerhaps?

Well dont you think if most of society approved of gays marrying it would be

already hapenning?

Its really a massive redneck conspiracy thats been going for thousands of

years to prevent this, isnt it.

Okay, I'm really going to bed this time. I hope.

nightynight dont let the termys bite. :)

Pracus[/B]]No, you gave examples of what YOU think are perversions. You gave us no way to identify what is and what isn't a perversion.
If perversions were concrete it wouldn't be hard to give us a way to identify them.

Ifr you cant see anything concrete about having sex with animals, kids, or

people of the same sex as not good examples of what perversion is, then I

have some serious doupts about your perspective on things.

Ifr you cant see anything concrete about having sex with animals, kids, or

people of the same sex as not good examples of what perversion is, then I

have some serious doupts about your perspective on things is.
If you cannot understand the difference between consenting adults and people/creatures who are unable to give informed consent (ie children and animals), I think this "debate" is futile.

How did you come to that conclusion?


'Definition of perversion: Something Terminalia doesn't like'.

You said the above in a previous post.

Are you saying you disagree?

Ifr you cant see anything concrete about having sex with animals, kids, or

people of the same sex as not good examples of what perversion is, then I

have some serious doupts about your perspective on things.

If you cannot see the difference between being asked how you define something and being asked to give examples of something, well...

'Definition of perversion: Something Terminalia doesn't like'.

You said the above in a previous post.

Are you saying you disagree?

Yes, I disagree with the idea that perversion is defined by what you do and do not like.

If you cannot understand the difference between consenting adults and people/creatures who are unable to give informed consent (ie children and animals), I think this "debate" is futile.

And if you can't tell the difference between an example and a definition, then there's nothing we can do to help you.

And if you can't tell the difference between an example and a definition, then there's nothing we can do to help you.
You're talking to Terminalia, right? :p

Well dont you think if most of society approved of gays marrying it would be

already hapenning?

Its really a massive redneck conspiracy thats been going for thousands of

years to prevent this, isnt it.

It is already happenning, Mr "you can't even see outside your own country"

You're talking to Terminalia, right? :p

Yeah, sorry preebles, that comment was directed at him

It is already happenning, Mr "you can't even see outside your own country"

Tell me Terminalia, is hypocrisy fun?

Preebles][/B]If you cannot understand the difference between consenting adults and people/creatures who are unable to give informed consent (ie children and animals), I think this "debate" is futile.

The point was about what is perverted, for me and a lot of others

homosexuality, is in the sameball park as molestation and beastiality.

The only thing that makes it not as bad as the other two, is the consent

between adults generally, this doesnt however lessen it as a perversion.

And isnt the whole point of debate about differences of opinion?

The point was about what is perverted, for me and a lot of others

homosexuality, is in the sameball park as molestation and beastiality.

The only thing that makes it not as bad as the other two, is the consent

between adults generally, this doesnt however lessen it as a perversion.

And isnt the whole point of debate about differences of opinion?


The whole point of a debate is to have differences of opinion WITH LOGICAL REASONING TO SUPPORT YOUR STANCE. So far you have missed out on the second bit.

Hakartopia[/B]]Yes, I disagree with the idea that perversion is defined by what you do and do not like.

I think beastiality, homosexuality and molestation, are perverse acts, are you

saying they are in fact not perverse at all?

Knob Jockey[/B]]The whole point of a debate is to have differences of opinion WITH LOGICAL REASONING TO SUPPORT YOUR STANCE. So far you have missed out on the second bit.

Well I dont support gay 'marriage' because it denigrates the sanctity of

marriage between a man and a woman.

It produces nothing for society either.

I think beastiality, homosexuality and molestation, are perverse acts, are you

saying they are in fact not perverse at all?
This is the final boarding call for Preebles airlines flight 1210 to Debatesville. Would Terminalia please proceed to the Terminal. Ensure that your boarding pass and definition of perverse are ready for inspection. If you do not present them, the flight will leave without you.

[/scenario]

I don't think homosexuality is perverse at all. The other two? yes. Although you've butchered the word perverse so much that I shudder to use it.

If you cannot see the difference between being asked how you define something and being asked to give examples of something, well...

How I define?

perversion n 1 : the action of perverting : the condition of being perverted 2: a perverted form; esp : an aberrant sexual practice esp. when habitual and preferred to normal coitus

[Definitions taken from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1981]

Well I dont support gay 'marriage' because it denigrates the sanctity of

marriage between a man and a woman.

It produces nothing for society either.


Your joking, right. Denying gay marriage denigrates the sancity of marriage.

I don't think homosexuality is perverse at all. The other two? yes. Although you've butchered the word perverse so much that I shudder to use it.

Why, by saying homosexuality is perverse?

"Normal coitus?"
What's that?
Five minutes in the dark under the covers in the missionary position?

And you say gay marriages don't "contribute." Contribute ewhat? Children? So should hetero's who are infertile not be allowed to get married?

Your joking, right. Denying gay marriage denigrates the sancity of marriage.

Protects it.

Its not meant for gay people.

[QUOTE=Terminalia]How I define?

And why are they perversions?

"Normal coitus?"
What's that?
Five minutes in the dark under the covers in the missionary position?

And you say gay marriages don't "contribute." Contribute ewhat? Children? So should hetero's who are infertile not be allowed to get married?


See, while this is an arguement that bigots like Term find hard to refute, i'm beginning to find it a bit boring, mainly because gay couples can and do raise children, and there's no real impediment to infertile couples raising shildren either.

[QUOTE=Preebles]"Normal coitus?"
What's that?
Five minutes in the dark under the covers in the missionary position?

Well if your incredibly ugly or boring yes.

And you say gay marriages don't "contribute." Contribute ewhat? Children?

Exactly.


So should hetero's who are infertile not be allowed to get married?

They can adopt, and no, this doesnt mean gays should be allowed too.

[QUOTE]They can adopt, and no, this doesnt mean gays should be allowed too.

What about people who do not want children?

How I define?



1981?

You're using a dictionary from 1981

Dear lord, can we say 'out-dated notions'?

...
Edited to add possibly the most terrifying site ever...
Webster's 1928 Dictionary (http://www.face.net/Webster's_1828.html)

A Christian group wants us to go back to using dictionaries from 1928, because that was a time "when the American home, church and school were established upon a Biblical and patriotic basis".

Scary, scary stuff here people.

Well if your incredibly ugly or boring yes.
I see you still need to come to terms with the finer points of sarcasm.


They can adopt, and no, this doesnt mean gays should be allowed too.
Why not? Will they turn their kids gay? Because we all know that gay people are out to "turn" everyone right? And what if a child is born into a couple, but a parent later enters into a same-sex relationship. Which parent should the child stay with? I had friends in this situation. They were raised by their mum and her partner. (a woman). Is this ok with you O Moral Authority?

See, while this is an arguement that bigots like Term find hard to refute, i'm beginning to find it a bit boring, mainly because gay couples can and do raise children, and there's no real impediment to infertile couples raising shildren either.

How predictable.

Thats right, hurl an insult when someone doesnt agree with you on gay

marriages, the voice of reason strikes again. :rolleyes:

Gay couples should not be rearing kids anywhere.

What about people who do not want children?

They could change their mind.

Protects it.

Its not meant for gay people.

It does nothing of the sort. Denying gay marriage because traditionally marriage has been between a man and a woman sets this up as the only thing you need. "Bugger any kind of bond of love of companionship - all that matters is where your bits fit" denying loving adults the right to marry each other denies the role that love plays within marriage, and therefore denigrates this "sanctity of marriage you hold so dear. Heterosexuals have already perverted marriage far more than gay people could ever do. And we have seen in countries like Denmark where gay marriage has been legally recognised since 1989 that this has STRENGTHENED the institution of marriage in that country.

1981?

You're using a dictionary from 1981

Dear lord, can we say 'out-dated notions'?

Out dated?

In twenty odd years peoples general perceptions have changed that much?

Hardly.

Out dated?

In twenty odd years peoples general perceptions have changed that much?

Hardly.
You'd be surprised.

How predictable.

Thats right, hurl an insult when someone doesnt agree with you on gay

marriages, the voice of reason strikes again. :rolleyes:

Gay couples should not be rearing kids anywhere.

Oh, Term, don't think that I was insulting you because I called you a bigot. I was just stating a fact. There's no need to be ashamed of who you are.

Oh, and gay couple do raise kids and do it well. Often, they do it was foster carers because the child's heterosexual parents have stuffed it up.

They could change their mind.

So why not deny them marriage until they do?

Out dated?

In twenty odd years peoples general perceptions have changed that much?

Hardly.

You should really go visit Webster's 1928 (http://www.face.net/Webster's_1828.html)

The 1928 version would suit you much better. Seriously, while this is a sardonic jab, I truly believe you WOULD like a copy of the 1928... it defines most things in terms of religion.

Oh, and not just *any* religion (my goodness no). Apparently only Christians existed back then, or something, because they're the only one's mentioned.

Definition of perversion: Something Terminalia doesn't like.

That's worrying.. that means I am a perversion...

As is a rational argument, the use of facts, the discussion of a point being debated...

Whoh, you guys are still arguing with Termy?

Haven't you realized that all he does is stick his fingers in his ears and repeat the same thing over and over again?

[QUOTE=Knob Jockey]
Heterosexuals have already perverted marriage far more than gay people could ever do.
Really, how?

Are you saying Gays wont seek divorces as much as hetrosexual women

would?


And we have seen in countries like Denmark where gay marriage has been legally recognised since 1989 that this has STRENGTHENED the institution of marriage in that country.

I hope you like the taste of your own foot.

The End of Marriage in Scandinavia
The "conservative case" for same-sex marriage collapses.
by Stanley Kurtz
02/02/2004, Volume 009, Issue 20
MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.

More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.

This is not how the situation has been portrayed by prominent gay marriage advocates journalist Andrew Sullivan and Yale law professor William Eskridge Jr. Sullivan and Eskridge have made much of an unpublished study of Danish same-sex registered partnerships by Darren Spedale, an independent researcher with an undergraduate degree who visited Denmark in 1996 on a Fulbright scholarship. In 1989, Denmark had legalized de facto gay marriage (Norway followed in 1993 and Sweden in 1994). Drawing on Spedale, Sullivan and Eskridge cite

evidence that since then, marriage has strengthened. Spedale reported that in the six years following the establishment of registered partnerships in Denmark (1990-1996), heterosexual marriage rates climbed by 10 percent, while heterosexual divorce rates declined by 12 percent. Writing in the McGeorge Law Review, Eskridge claimed that Spedale's study had exposed the "hysteria and irresponsibility" of those who predicted gay marriage would undermine marriage. Andrew Sullivan's Spedale-inspired piece was subtitled, "The case against same-sex marriage crumbles."

Yet the half-page statistical analysis of heterosexual marriage in Darren Spedale's unpublished paper doesn't begin to get at the truth about the decline of marriage in Scandinavia during the nineties. Scandinavian marriage is now so weak that statistics on marriage and divorce no longer mean what they used to. Take divorce. It's true that in Denmark, as elsewhere in Scandinavia, divorce numbers looked better in the nineties. But that's because the pool of married people has been shrinking for some time. You can't divorce without first getting married. Moreover, a closer look at Danish divorce in the post-gay marriage decade reveals disturbing trends. Many Danes have stopped holding off divorce until their kids are grown. And Denmark in the nineties saw a 25 percent increase in cohabiting couples with children. With fewer parents marrying, what used to show up in statistical tables as early divorce is now the unrecorded breakup of a cohabiting couple with children.

What about Spedale's report that the Danish marriage rate increased 10 percent from 1990 to 1996? Again, the news only appears to be good. First, there is no trend. Eurostat's just-released marriage rates for 2001 show declines in Sweden and Denmark (Norway hasn't reported). Second, marriage statistics in societies with very low rates (Sweden registered the lowest marriage rate in recorded history in 1997) must be carefully parsed. In his study of the Norwegian family in the nineties, for example, Christer Hyggen shows that a small increase in Norway's marriage rate over the past decade has more to do with the institution's decline than with any renaissance. Much of the increase in Norway's marriage rate is driven by older couples "catching up." These couples belong to the first generation that accepts rearing the first born child out of wedlock. As they bear second children, some finally get married. (And even this tendency to marry at the birth of a second child is weakening.) As for the rest of the increase in the Norwegian marriage rate, it is largely attributable to remarriage among the large number of divorced.

Whoh, you guys are still arguing with Termy?

Haven't you realized that all he does is stick his fingers in his ears and repeat the same thing over and over again?

Havent you got some toys to play with?

So why not deny them marriage until they do?

Sounds good to me.

You'd be surprised.

No I dont think they have, I'd definitely say that alot of things have been

pushed on people to accept, whether they like or not, by a very loud minority.

Anyone who disagrees is called a bigot, and slandered.

Why should we put up with this loud annoying minority, making everyones

lives miserable?

Oh leave Term alone i agree their arguments...

[QUOTE=Knob Jockey]Oh, Term, don't think that I was insulting you because I called you a bigot. I was just stating a fact. There's no need to be ashamed of who you are.

Im not ashamed, or agree on your pronouncement of me being a bigot.

That is all you have, he doesnt agree on gays marrying or rearing kids,

therefore he is a bigot, your just a PC nazi.

You vill like der gays!


Oh, and gay couple do raise kids and do it well.

Do what well, brainwash them?


Often, they do it was foster carers because the child's heterosexual parents have stuffed it up.

Well maybe if there wasnt so much government interference, parents would

be able to bring kids up properly.

Well maybe if there wasnt so much government interference, parents would

be able to bring kids up properly.

Do what properly? Brainwash them? :D

Let them be.. It is like banning black people to merry white people In my eyes. It's just plain stupid.

I'm so glad Terminalia stopped. He was just embarrassing himself.

PC Nazis? Gay parents brainwashing children...

Someone's feeling like a victim today...

Ifr you cant see anything concrete about having sex with animals, kids, or

people of the same sex as not good examples of what perversion is, then I

have some serious doupts about your perspective on things.

I happen to agree with you on some of those as incredibly wrong(not all). But I do not see them as concrete perversion. In some cultures they are considered perfectly acceptable and normal. In our own culture for instance until last 50 years or so, it wasn't unheard of for a fourteen year old to get married. My own grandmother was married at 14 and one of my aunt at 16. Now, I think this is stupid--but not because they are perversion in the way you think, but because they damage lives.

Homosexuality does no such thing.

The point was about what is perverted, for me and a lot of others

homosexuality, is in the sameball park as molestation and beastiality.



Ah there are those magic words "for me." Even though you probably don't realize it, you just admitted that homosexuality is a relative perversion for you. Its not concrete.


The only thing that makes it not as bad as the other two, is the consent

between adults generally, this doesnt however lessen it as a perversion.

And isnt the whole point of debate about differences of opinion?

Consent makes a big deal as far as legalities go. If you are a consenting adult, the government cannot regulate your sexual behavior (as witness the striking down of every anti-"sodomy" law in the US last year), and they certainly cannot deprive you of your civil rights.

And the point of a debate is to share viewpoints and back them up with logical stances. You have yet to be logical and have been only slightly consistent.

Well I dont support gay 'marriage' because it denigrates the sanctity of

marriage between a man and a woman.

It produces nothing for society either.

How does it change the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman pretail? What does it change in their lives? Does it take rights away from them? Is God going to smile any less on it because of what someone else has done?


And the "it produces nothing for society statement" is the first real point you've almost made in over a hundred pages. However, how can you say it doesn't produce things for society? Besides children, what does heterosexual marriage produce for society? Are you saying again that children are the ONLY reason for straight people to marry?

Gays are a highly productive section of many societies. They deserve the same rights, the same privledges, and the same responsibilities as anyone else.

Protects it.

Its not meant for gay people.

Prove this statement. Back it up with something besides "because I think so!"

Ah there are those magic words "for me." Even though you probably don't realize it, you just admitted that homosexuality is a relative perversion for you. Its not concrete.



Consent makes a big deal as far as legalities go. If you are a consenting adult, the government cannot regulate your sexual behavior (as witness the striking down of every anti-"sodomy" law in the US last year), and they certainly cannot deprive you of your civil rights.

And the point of a debate is to share viewpoints and back them up with logical stances. You have yet to be logical and have been only slightly consistent.

Give it up, anti-gay people! The gay people are just TOO SMART! Hurry, we must run into the caves and hide! They are coming for us with their superior logic and tactics!!!!


/TLS runs into a cave and hides, and while hiding he studies the transcripts VERY carefully so that he can find out the gay peoples weakness'/

(In other words, good job Pracus and all you other pro-gay people. You've kicked the shit outta everyone whos anti-gay and showed their face on this thread(such as myself and Termanalia to name a few...)

How predictable.

Thats right, hurl an insult when someone doesnt agree with you on gay

marriages, the voice of reason strikes again. :rolleyes:

Gay couples should not be rearing kids anywhere.

Why? You've yet to offer a shed of logic or scientific probability that children of gay marriages are in any way hurt by their parents sexuality.

No I dont think they have, I'd definitely say that alot of things have been

pushed on people to accept, whether they like or not, by a very loud minority.

Anyone who disagrees is called a bigot, and slandered.

Why should we put up with this loud annoying minority, making everyones

lives miserable?

Oh those horrible minorities!! How dare they think they should be treated fairly and equally as human beings! Oh wah! We, the poor, poor people of the majority we've been mistreated by people expecting us to be honest and fair and to stand up to the ideals on which free countries are founded. WAH!

Oh leave Term alone i agree their arguments...

And in the above statement you produced about as much logic and support for your aguements as he does.

Im not ashamed, or agree on your pronouncement of me being a bigot.

That is all you have, he doesnt agree on gays marrying or rearing kids,

therefore he is a bigot, your just a PC nazi.

You vill like der gays!



That's right term, go back to form and call someone a PC nazi just because they support equality. And no one has said you must like gays. We've just said that gays should have equal rights. If you cannot accept even this basic point, there is no point in further discussion.




Do what well, brainwash them?


Raise them to be well-adjusted, happy and productive members of society.



Well maybe if there wasnt so much government interference, parents would

be able to bring kids up properly.

Maybe if parents were so busy neglecting, abusing, and molesting their children the government wouldn't have to interfere. The government doesn't just take children away at the drop of a hat you know. Very often they leave children in a bad situation for too long because they are more concerned with "keeping families together" than in getting the child out of the shit-hole they are in. My sister reaches in an inner-city area of extreme poverty and the things that some of those children go through would boggle the mind. But of course living in a home covered with feces, no running water, and a father who gets high on crack and attacks you with razors under his fingernails (true story), of course that's better than being in a loving household where you are loved and cared about. And of course, the government shouldn't have interefered in the first place, after all, the boys father was "just bringing the kids up properly."

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

Asylum Nova


You dumbass... THERE ARE CIVIL UNIONS!!!


Civil Warian

BAN GAY MARRIAGE

I'd like to see the mean age of pro-gay and anti-gay supporters, just out of curiosity, because everyone I know was anti-gay from 12-14 or so, then started to mature into a kind of, 'why should I care what gays do?' attitude, even if they still use sexual preference slurs as insults, but much less than a couple years ago.

And for the record, I am gay, and this wasn't meant as an insult saying that anti-gay people are immature... I've seen a lot of anti-gay adults who can make strong arguments against gay marriage or just gays in general... Not that I agree, because I'd be a hypocrite. It's just that, from my own experiences, most anti-gay people have been X<15. And I say most loosely.

I hope you like the taste of your own foot.
Wow, what a scapegoat argument. Note the "conservative" in the header... of COURSE they're going to try to peg all of society's problems on gay marriage. They never sufficiently state HOW gay marriage is eroding at the difference between marriage and families, as I'm sure that a gay person would consider his partner to be family. So children are then pulled into it, which is perhaps one (of many) of the foolish things they do. Hmm... reality check: GAYS DON'T GIVE BIRTH! It's purely a heterosexual thing, and even then, maybe the fact that many of them aren't rushing to get married helps the sanctity. Are you going to try to tell me that there's ANY sanctity left to marriage? And it has nothing to do with the gays, I'd be more inclined to look at the people who marry for money, or people like Brittany Speares, who was married for less than 24 hours! What about drive-thru weddings? It was long gone before gay marriage came into the picture.

One may even argue that it could help strengthen marriage. Wasn't the original point of it to declare your love for your mate, and to be together forever more, through the thick and the thin? Why not give them the chance to prove that they CAN do it? Allowing it isn't going to change anything about a heterosexual marriage; what do they have to lose from it? Conversely, with how the law has reared its ugly head in marriage (so much for seperation of church and state in the USA), why deny the rights of marriage to them? It would enable hospital visitation rights to filing taxes together, to even property distribution at death. If it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation for things including jobs and housing, why can the government get away with doing it for marriage? Send the decision to the churches, and let them decide. As for the legal benefits, well, the term 'civil union' has been mentioned before, and NO government has the right to tell 2 consenting adults that they are to be denied rights because someone doesn't agree with their lifestyle.

I wonder; if marriage is just about having babies, why don't you hear "Do you, Jane, take Bob as your lawfully wedded husband, and swear to give birth to as many of his babies as you can?" at weddings?

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

Asylum Nova


You dumbass... THERE ARE CIVIL UNIONS!!!


Civil Warian

BAN GAY MARRIAGE

No, there are not civil unions. And civil unions do not carry the rights of marriage. There are over 700 rights that come with marriage, there are about 20 that comes with civil unions. Not all states have civil unions. The federal government doesn't recognize them. They don't transfer across state lines. Gay people are being discriminated against by the government.

There fair and equitable ways to fix this without allowing "gay marriage".

And as far as anyone being a dumb ass, I would say that the dumb person is the one who makes a statement about something concerning which they have absolutely no clue.

One last comment on Terminalia and the majority - if you feel that the majority is so important, then obey the results of this poll and allow gay marraige!

I wonder; if marriage is just about having babies, why don't you hear "Do you, Jane, take Bob as your lawfully wedded husband, and swear to give birth to as many of his babies as you can?" at weddings?
Only Catholic marriages. ;)

I'd like to see the mean age of pro-gay and anti-gay supporters, just out of curiosity, because everyone I know was anti-gay from 12-14 or so, then started to mature into a kind of, 'why should I care what gays do?' attitude, even if they still use sexual preference slurs as insults, but much less than a couple years ago.

And for the record, I am gay, and this wasn't meant as an insult saying that anti-gay people are immature... I've seen a lot of anti-gay adults who can make strong arguments against gay marriage or just gays in general... Not that I agree, because I'd be a hypocrite. It's just that, from my own experiences, most anti-gay people have been X<15. And I say most loosely.
And most people over the age of 40.

The old conservative religious folks are the most anti-gay people around. Really young teens are anti-gay because they're insecure, just over puberty, and it's fun to bash gay people.

How predictable.

Thats right, hurl an insult when someone doesnt agree with you on gay

marriages, the voice of reason strikes again.

--A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

^---the definition of bigot. By the very definition of the word, you are a bigot. It's not an insult, as someone said; it's a fact.

Gay couples should not be rearing kids anywhere.

Do you have any valid reasons as to why they shouldn't be?

Personally, I think that gays are more likely to be good parents than straights are, and it isn't because of some silly notion that gays are better than straights; they aren't. It's simply because, unlike a lot of heterosexuals, if a homosexual wants to have a child, they have to make a firm choice and go through a lot of motions--lesbians have to adopt or be artificially inseminated, gay males have to adopt--whereas a good number of heterosexuals have children by "accident" (because they didn't use protection/birth control, because said protection failed, or for other reasons). If a gay person wants to have a child, they have to put a lot of thought into it and they're more than likely to be ready to provide for it, emotionally and financially.

It's true that the concept of marriage was around before Jesus died and gave rise to Christianity. However the model for human relationship (according to Christians and given in the Bible) was expressed for the first two human beings on earth!

Origins of the word marriage anyone?
the same can be said about every religion! assuminig that only the Bible can be the true story is a tad egotistical. the ancient greeks were very religious and had marriages. Hindus get married as do Wiccans ( often using seremonies dating back to before the first page of the old testament was ever written )

Do you have any valid reasons as to why they shouldn't be?

Because children raised by gay couples turn into giant fire-breathing atomic super-badgers!

[QUOTE=Dunno001]One may even argue that it could help strengthen marriage. Wasn't the original point of it to declare your love for your mate, and to be together forever more, through the thick and the thin? Why not give them the chance to prove that they CAN do it?

Did you even read it?

Since Gay marriage was allowed in this country, heterosexuals are fleeing

the institution of marriage in their droves.

Gay marriage is ruining their society, the full effect will not be seen for

another twenty years or so however.

[QUOTE]

Did you even read it?

Since Gay marriage was allowed in this country, heterosexuals are fleeing

the institution of marriage in their droves.

Gay marriage is ruining their society, the full effect will not be seen for

another twenty years or so however.

Oh yeah cause such a large number of marriages to start with worked out :-P people have been leaving the institution of marriage for centuries

[QUOTE]

Did you even read it?

Since Gay marriage was allowed in this country, heterosexuals are fleeing

the institution of marriage in their droves.

Gay marriage is ruining their society, the full effect will not be seen for

another twenty years or so however.

That's not what everyone thinks. I don't have time to summarize right now as I am running out of time to study for this last exam (last one woohoo!). And I will admit that this is not a scientific site, but the artical seems to be very well written and researched--by an Associate Professor at U Mass Amherst.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2100884/

That's not what everyone thinks. I don't have time to summarize right now as I am running out of time to study for this last exam (last one woohoo!). And I will admit that this is not a scientific site, but the artical seems to be very well written and researched--by an Associate Professor at U Mass Amherst.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2100884/


Good point … so far his evidence of the fleeing is purely anecdotal

That's not what everyone thinks. I don't have time to summarize right now as I am running out of time to study for this last exam (last one woohoo!). And I will admit that this is not a scientific site, but the artical seems to be very well written and researched--by an Associate Professor at U Mass Amherst.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2100884/
It still amazes me that people try to pin divorce, pre-marital sex, and unmarried childbirths on homosexuals.

It still amazes me that people try to pin divorce, pre-marital sex, and unmarried childbirths on homosexuals.

They are held in such high regard as to be responsible for other's misdeeds. :D

Oh yeah cause such a large number of marriages to start with worked out :-P people have been leaving the institution of marriage for centuries

Believe it or not they actually did, divorce has only been steadily increasing

since the seventies.

Wonder why that is...

[QUOTE]

Did you even read it?

Since Gay marriage was allowed in this country, heterosexuals are fleeing

the institution of marriage in their droves.

Gay marriage is ruining their society, the full effect will not be seen for

another twenty years or so however.

Didn't you say the world was going to end in 10 years anyway?

Good point … so far his evidence of the fleeing is purely anecdotal

Yes any research, that points out faults with gay marriage, and its effect on

society, is of course to be instantly dismissed. :rolleyes:

You vill like der gay marriages!

Or else!

Believe it or not they actually did, divorce has only been steadily increasing

since the seventies.

Wonder why that is...

The increase in "apaprent" i.e. visible homosexuality and the rise in divorce rates have the SAME cause, it's not that one caused the other as you are trying to imply. Society become more socially liberated in the 60's and 70's. BOTH divorce and homosexuality became more socially acceptable. The relationship here is parallel, not linear.

Yes any research, that points out faults with gay marriage, and its effect on

society, is of course to be instantly dismissed.
Well, if it's not a scientifically researched study, it can well be dismissed. That's what any journal or academic will tell you.

You vill like der gay marriages
You don't have to like them, just tolerate.

And seek medical help for that paranoia...

Didn't you say the world was going to end in 10 years anyway?

No I think this society, civilisation as in western will be overthrown.

Nothing as rotten as what western society has degraded itself to, and further

can be allowed to last for much longer, I believe gay marriage and similar

issues will be what really drives a wedge between western countrys and the

rest of the world.

The world will carry on, but Im not sure or would even like to envision the

state it would be in.

2012 actually Haka, not 2014.

I believe gay marriage and similar

issues will be what really drives a wedge between western countrys and the

rest of the world.
I think it's more to do with neo-imperialism, debt, unfair trade practices and war, but maybe that's just me. :rolleyes:

I think it's more to do with neo-imperialism, debt, unfair trade practices and war, but maybe that's just me. :rolleyes:

Stop being logical, you're scaring the children.

gay "marriages" should not be allowed seeing how homosexuality is a sin. the government should have nothing to do with marriages, it should only concern itself with civil unions. marriage is religious, if you believe in god or not marriage was established from religion. so a religion should allow people to get married and government should allow people to recieve civil unions. so from this if you dont get married in a church you have a civil union not a marrriage and if go through a church you have a marriage. it is then up to the religion and the church to accept who they will allow to be married. the government can still put some restrictions on marriage such as polygamy.

the government should have nothing to do with marriages, it should only concern itself with civil unions. marriage is religious
What about atheists?
And not all religions have a "church." For example, in Hinduism and Buddhism there isn't a real unifying body at all.
I hate this elitism that Christians have, thinking of themselves as the only important faith.

athiest obviously will have to have a civil union because they dont believe in god or any other faith. for groups without a church will also have to recieve a civil union but that doesnt cut into their faith at all because they can still do their own marriage ceremonies

I think it's more to do with neo-imperialism, debt, unfair trade practices and war, but maybe that's just me. :rolleyes:

Those factors has been going on for centurys, that although divided the

West from the rest of the world, hardly spelt the end for it(the west) this is

more of a huge social divide that alot of countrys will find hard and are

probably having difficulty at the moment to stomach.

The West like the Ottoman Empire before has become the sick old man of the

world.

Declining birth rates, feminism, gay issues will end it.

in response to christians thinking they are the only important faith. guess what?, all faiths believe they are the only important faith. it is part of faith, you believe this is the way it happened and you believe that, all other faiths dont believe in the same thing so they are wrong, they are not important to your salvation

athiest obviously will have to have a civil union because they dont believe in god or any other faith.
Are you aware that civil unions don't have the same privileges as marriage?
for groups without a church will also have to recieve a civil union but that doesnt cut into their faith at all because they can still do their own marriage ceremonies
Oh, they can can they? How lovely of you to grant them that privilege. And will they be recognised as marriage? Because letting Christians have a monopoly on marriage is just insane.

in response to christians thinking they are the only important faith. guess what?, all faiths believe they are the only important faith. it is part of faith, you believe this is the way it happened and you believe that, all other faiths dont believe in the same thing so they are wrong, they are not important to your salvation
Actually, Hinduism and Buddhism respect all religions as equally valid ways to the truth.

i never said it would just be christians that can have a marriage, so that is not a monopoly on marriage. any faith that has an established church that is recognized by the government can perform a religion, certain restrictions must apply because the government can not allow any redneck form a religion and use that religion to get them tax breaks and bend the law. once the government only concerns itself with civil marriages then it will be equal. the government will see only civil unions and not the marriage part at all, marriage will be pure religion not government. the married couple can then use that marriage to gain a civil union from the government, they are still married through the church.

So you want to deprive atheists of marriage too? Niiice.

if atheist dont have an established system that is recognized by the government then yes

that is recognized by the government then yes
I thought you wanted the government to stay out of this?

Bah, I have better things to do, like go study neuroscience.

the government will stay out of who the church is allowed to marry but the government must control what it recognizes as established religion. should we allow a religion that says to kill everyone in sight that isnt part of that religion. if you say yes you are a dumbass and should maybe go back to grade school

Terminalia is right.

gay "marriages" should not be allowed seeing how homosexuality is a sin.
No, homosexuality is a religious sin according to some religions, it is a moral sin according to some people, no one yet has ever presented me with a valid sound arguement that supports either opinion.....not surprising, your post has not changed this fact.

the government should have nothing to do with marriages, it should only concern itself with civil unions. marriage is religious, if you believe in god or not marriage was established from religion.
I disagree with your opinion re the government and marraige, and I note that the premise you provide is one that you have not substantiated, furthermore it is my sincere belief that you cannot substantiate the claim that marraige was established from religion.

so a religion should allow people to get married and government should allow people to recieve civil unions.
Er, because you think so....because so far that is the only thing you have established .

so from this if you dont get married in a church you have a civil union not a marrriage and if go through a church you have a marriage. it is then up to the religion and the church to accept who they will allow to be married. the government can still put some restrictions on marriage such as polygamy.
Er hang on what part of your unsubstantiated and frankly fanciful opinions substantiates that some groups in society should be able to exclude others from and take control of a common birthright? I definately missed that bit (although mostly because I suspect it's not there).

To say that all religious people (and not just Christians) can exclude everyone else from what belongs equally to us all is no more justified, or rational than suggesting Christian's monopolise marraige. I suspect that the material premise on which you base your reasoning is wrong; in my opinion you have somehow gotten an idea that because religion is as common as marraige, this dennotes some sort of ownership of marraige by religion, and therefore some sort of right to restrict and or control marraige and its forms.

Terminalia is right.
And you are wrong. :)

one useless statement deserves another

the same can be said about every religion! assuming that only the Bible can be the true story is a tad egotistical. the ancient greeks were very religious and had marriages. Hindus get married as do Wiccans ( often using ceremonies dating back to before the first page of the old testament was ever written )
No not egotistical but I know what you mean. However, if you believe something is true, and other people's beliefs contradict that then one is led to assume that the others are wrong. Eg. the creationism vs evolution thing. Where in the Bible does it say 'God created animals which all had their own genetic coding and were not able to evolve.'? I believe God looked around the animals, found one which looked vaguely similar to the design that he wanted and gave it a bit of a jumpstart thus moulding it into what he wanted.

The ancient greeks worshipped gods dedicated to anything they could lay eyes on and attributed any events which happened to the relevant god. And they thought the world was flat. Which it is (of course). I think their marriages/unions (that's why I asked if anyone knew the origin of the word 'marriage') were based on their three words for love which may have been fairly close to God's ideals. Hindus' probably similar. Christians would just say they're lucky because God showed them his way!

I wouldn't debate the starting point of Wicca as it's hinted at in the Bible. You know? all the things which the Israelites were against? Where's my sword, I'm comin' to getcha!!

Gay marriages should be allowed. They already are allowed in Holland for example and I can't find a reason why it shouldn't be.

Marriages are about love, in my opinion. It's not about other things like sex or so. Just about love. And why should a love between two men or two women be forbidden?

This is my opinion. I don't care about religious cases and so on.

Believe it or not they actually did, divorce has only been steadily increasing

since the seventies.

Wonder why that is...

Many, many factors term. Though I'm sure you'd love to pin it on homosexuality and marriage not being solely about children. The fact is, it probably has a lot to do with A. The women's rights movement and the females who won't put up with straight men's BS anymore. B. The free love movement. C. The natural course of social evolution.

Yes any research, that points out faults with gay marriage, and its effect on

society, is of course to be instantly dismissed. :rolleyes:

You vill like der gay marriages!

Or else!

No term, you are the one who instantly dismissed any info. that is pro gay marriage. We on the other hand read your sources and then dismiss them because they are clearly written by bias sources or they are anecdotal. Just so you know, in science anecdotes are good for making a point, but they are not good as evidence of correlation or causation.

Yes any research, that points out faults with gay marriage, and its effect on

society, is of course to be instantly dismissed. :rolleyes:

You vill like der gay marriages!

Or else!

Oh, and I assume you are trying to call us Nazis/Facists with your imitation of a German accent. Facism is a conservative idealogy. Communism is the liberal end of things.

gay "marriages" should not be allowed seeing how homosexuality is a sin. the government should have nothing to do with marriages, it should only concern itself with civil unions. marriage is religious, if you believe in god or not marriage was established from religion. so a religion should allow people to get married and government should allow people to recieve civil unions. so from this if you dont get married in a church you have a civil union not a marrriage and if go through a church you have a marriage. it is then up to the religion and the church to accept who they will allow to be married. the government can still put some restrictions on marriage such as polygamy.

I could have bought your arguement right up until you said the government could still put restrictions on marriage. If marriage is a purely religious institution and the government will only recognize Civil Unions, then NO the government could not put those restrictions on polygamy. It woudl be upt ot he churches to do.

What about atheists?
And not all religions have a "church." For example, in Hinduism and Buddhism there isn't a real unifying body at all.
I hate this elitism that Christians have, thinking of themselves as the only important faith.

Just on record, when I say "Church" (I usually try to say religious organization) I mean it inclusively. My apologies if its offensive.

Declining birth rates, feminism, gay issues will end it.

Freedom, equality and human rights, OH MY!

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

in response to christians thinking they are the only important faith. guess what?, all faiths believe they are the only important faith. it is part of faith, you believe this is the way it happened and you believe that, all other faiths dont believe in the same thing so they are wrong, they are not important to your salvation

You are obviously not familiar with many Eastern faiths such as Buddhism and Hinduism which are HIGHLY inclusive of other religious thoughts and idealogies. They don't think of others are necessarily wrong. It's the Judeo-Christian-Islamic axis of religions that are that self-righteous.

i never said it would just be christians that can have a marriage, so that is not a monopoly on marriage. any faith that has an established church that is recognized by the government can perform a religion, certain restrictions must apply because the government can not allow any redneck form a religion and use that religion to get them tax breaks and bend the law. once the government only concerns itself with civil marriages then it will be equal. the government will see only civil unions and not the marriage part at all, marriage will be pure religion not government. the married couple can then use that marriage to gain a civil union from the government, they are still married through the church.

No, no, no my friend. A marriage should not automatically equate to Civil Union status if marriage is purely religious and civil union is purely civil. You should have to jump through the same hoops to get your rights as couples who aren't "married."

I'd be curious to see how you would feel about religious organizations who are willing to marry homosexuals as well.

Terminalia is right.

Now there's some words you don't often hear.

Just on record, when I say "Church" (I usually try to say religious organization) I mean it inclusively. My apologies if its offensive.
That's ok, whether I'm annoyed or not depends very much on the context in which it was said. :p


Quote:
Originally Posted by Terminalia
Declining birth rates, feminism, gay issues will end it.


Freedom, equality and human rights, OH MY!

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
Ooh, I missed the bit about feminism the first time round. Now that's touching a raw nerve for me, being a woman and all. I'd love to hear exactly WHY feminism is bringing about the downfall of western society...

Freedom, equality and human rights, OH MY!

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

The skies shall rain fire, and the seas shall become as blood! The rightious shall far before the wicked, and all of creation shall tremble beneath the burning standards of hell!

Ooh, I missed the bit about feminism the first time round. Now that's touching a raw nerve for me, being a woman and all. I'd love to hear exactly WHY feminism is bringing about the downfall of western society...

Well isn't that obvious? Women aren't barefoot, pregnant and in the home raising the children anymore. They no longer act at slaves/chattel for their husbands. They've started to think for themselves and have the right to vote. And oh my goodness, they might vote liberal!

Freedom, Equality, and Human Rights!! OH MY!

The skies shall rain fire, and the seas shall be as blood! The rightious shall far before the wicked, and all of creation shall tremble before the legions of hell!

Did you not catch that I was making reference to Henny Penny?

Well isn't that obvious? Women aren't barefoot, pregnant and in the home raising the children anymore. They no longer act at slaves/chattel for their husbands. They've started to think for themselves and have the right to vote. And oh my goodness, they might vote liberal!
Damn Emily Pankhurst. Those riders should have run her over then come back for another go not just left it at a once over.

Personally I'm all for women being made to go barefoot again. 'Look dear, I got my paycheck today,' 'That's great, hey it almost covers these Blahniks and Choos I bought today' !!!

Did you not catch that I was making reference to Henny Penny?

Yeah I did, and I was continuing it by referencing to Diablo II. ;)

Wow after 108 pages the arguement really thins out if we're quoting Henny Penny & Diablo! :P

I've already posted (somewhere) my views on gay marrage (for) and while I like reapting myself (thats why I still play NS :P) I'm to tired to do so now.

Also feminism is ruining the western world. :P Now I have nothing against equal rights and oppertunities for women but come on! Shaving and acting/dressing in ways that are pleasing to men wouldn't hurt you know :P a little quid pro quo. You give the 36-24-36 (only if she's 5'3", So your girlfriend rolls a Honda, Playin' workout tapes by Fonda... sorry I love that song :P) you get the V-shaped torso and 6-pack.

Is it so wrong to want another person as a sex object? Does such a want prevent you from noticing their other quailities? I don't think so.

Also feminism is ruining the western world. :P Now I have nothing against equal rights and oppertunities for women but come on! Shaving and acting/dressing in ways that are pleasing to men wouldn't hurt you know :P a little quid pro quo. You give the 36-24-36 (only if she's 5'3", So your girlfriend rolls a Honda, Playin' workout tapes by Fonda... sorry I love that song :P) you get the V-shaped torso and 6-pack.

Um... feminism doesn't mean letting yourself go...

I'd consider myself a feminist and yes, I do shave my legs and have a motor in the back of my Honda. :p Although I don't want to be a "sex object" for anyone. I'll content myself with being sexy!

Um... feminism doesn't mean letting yourself go...

I'd consider myself a feminist and yes, I do shave my legs and have a motor in the back of my Honda. :p Although I don't want to be a "sex object" for anyone. I'll content myself with being sexy!
You have a rear-engined honda? Does it handle better than a 2-ton accord stationwagon/tank?

You have a rear-engined honda? Does it handle better than a 2-ton accord stationwagon/tank?
It handles quite well thank you very much. Or so I'm told... :p

It handles quite well thank you very much. Or so I'm told... :p
aw come on.. you're an aussie.. you should know a bit more about cars than that!! Could you kick ass round Bathurst in it? Didn't know honda made cars with non-front engines, apart from NSX/acura.

and back to the topic...

Could you kick ass round Bathurst in it?
Better than Bathurst, Albert Park. (It's a BAR) :p
But yes.. the topic...

I believe that everyone should have the chance to have their relationship recognized by law as a marriage if that is what they want. Whether or not a gay couple is married does not effect anyone but the couple and any children they might have, so why does anyone else get a say? :confused:

Also feminism is ruining the western world. :P Now I have nothing against equal rights and oppertunities for women but come on! Shaving and acting/dressing in ways that are pleasing to men wouldn't hurt you know :P a little quid pro quo. You give the 36-24-36 (only if she's 5'3", So your girlfriend rolls a Honda, Playin' workout tapes by Fonda... sorry I love that song :P) you get the V-shaped torso and 6-pack.

just to warn you: virtually every single female in America is a feminist, even the really really hot ones. feminism means belief in the social and political equality of the sexes, and if you can find a modern gal who doesn't believe in those things then she's probably an emotional basketcase that you really don't want to be involved with anyhow.


Is it so wrong to want another person as a sex object? Does such a want prevent you from noticing their other quailities? I don't think so.
well, biologically speaking, women are the ones who should be objectifying men. so y'all better start waxing those hairy backs, pulling up those sagging pants, and getting a decent damn haircut for once. ;P

well, biologically speaking, women are the ones who should be objectifying men. so y'all better start waxing those hairy backs, pulling up those sagging pants, and getting a decent damn haircut for once. ;P

Should I get barefoot too? :P

Should I get barefoot too? :P
no, it's WOMEN who should be barefoot in the kitchen. men should be mowing the lawn.

just to warn you: virtually every single female in America is a feminist, even the really really hot ones. feminism means belief in the social and political equality of the sexes, and if you can find a modern gal who doesn't believe in those things then she's probably an emotional basketcase that you really don't want to be involved with anyhow.
What would you say to the large number of Mormon women who believe that it is their duty to dote on their husband's? I think it's Mormon belief that a women has to be married to enter heaven, no? Little bit strange but I'd find it a little harsh if you then class them as emotional basket-cases!!

Anyway, men can't win with women. If we get decent haircuts and properly fitting clothes, you'll say we're boring, have no adventurous nature etc. I say, go for whatever's cheaper, then shall thy bank account not get too hammered by her latest spree.

no, it's WOMEN who should be barefoot in the kitchen. men should be mowing the lawn.

But I don't have a lawn? Am I not a man now?

But I don't have a lawn? Am I not a man now?
You could take out the trash and fix stuff, though a lawn does add to your masculinity (how the hell do you write that?!)

You could take out the trash and fix stuff, though a lawn does add to your masculinity
And commandeer an area of your house and fill it with old electric junk. Bits of radio that don't work anymore, computers, lamps and various electrical tools. Every other day just move everything around, solder something (makes the 'electrical' smell) and say 'I'm working on it'.

And commandeer an area of your house and fill it with old electric junk. Bits of radio that don't work anymore, computers, lamps and various electrical tools. Every other day just move everything around, solder something (makes the 'electrical' smell) and say 'I'm working on it'.

Oh I already do that, shew. :)

Oh I already do that, shew. :)
There is still your lack of lawn... Nothing you can grow a bit of grass in? how about buying some extra long, green carpet?

Terminalia is right.

Just in general? Like, whatever he says? That is bordering on a god-complex, methinks?

Or were you responding to a specific random rant... if so, please let me know, so I can discredit the ridiculous claims in question.

There is still your lack of lawn... Nothing you can grow a bit of grass in? how about buying some extra long, green carpet?

I do have several hundred acres of forest surrounding my house, does that count?

I do have several hundred acres of forest surrounding my house, does that count?

Only if you mow it?

Dammit, there's always a catch.

Dammit, there's always a catch.

Maybe you could mow a bit of it... but do more electronics stuff, or put up a wonky shelf.

How many shoes do you have? Maybe you could overcome the lack of mowing by trimming your shoe collection down a few pairs?

I still find it hard to believe that 431 people here believe gay marriages should be banned.

I have 2 pairs of shoes, which is twice the number I normally have.

I have 2 pairs of shoes, which is twice the number I normally have.

Hmmm, well two does leave some room.... so, you mow PART of the wooded area... put up a wonky shelf, and get rid of one pair of shoes....

I think, if you can add a sweaty t-shirt that you already put in the laundry (area of the bedroom floor) TWICE, but keep dragging it back out because it isn't TOO bad yet... you might be able to get a break!

:)

What if I promise to get rid of the shoes and mow the grass, but 'forget' to do it, don't bother with the plank and put the junk on the floor, and attempt to use deo to make 2-week old underwear bearable?

What if I promise to get rid of the shoes and mow the grass, but 'forget' to do it, don't bother with the plank and put the junk on the floor, and attempt to use deo to make 2-week old underwear bearable?

You could be onto a winner with the 'promise' then 'forget' motif... that's a gold standard, never fails.

And if you had a coffee cup that you washed in 1986, and may have had SOME water in since then, that'd probably be perfect.

If all else fails... use the standby... leave the toilet seat up, and squeeze the toothpaste from the middle.

:)

You could be onto a winner with the 'promise' then 'forget' motif... that's a gold standard, never fails.

And if you had a coffee cup that you washed in 1986, and may have had SOME water in since then, that'd probably be perfect.

If all else fails... use the standby... leave the toilet seat up, and squeeze the toothpaste from the middle.

:)

Ugh, I hate coffee, and I always leave the seat down.
I do have several picture of (almost) naked vixens in my room, how about that?

Ugh, I hate coffee, and I always leave the seat down.
I do have several picture of (almost) naked vixens in my room, how about that?

Hmmm, well, you're hurting yourself with the coffee thing, since you are writing off easy points there... I guess if the half naked vixens are draped over motorbikes... or, even better, carrying GUNS.... then you might be able to save it yet....

If you can bring yourself to tolerate it.. a Brittany Spears or Hillary Duff album would really add to the ambience... although you never actually have to listen to it, you just have to 'admit' that you 'like her'...

Or, if you can't stomach that... there's always the potential to leave copies of "Tango and Cash" and "First Blood" lying around...

Well, one of the vixens has a sword...

And I have half a dozen pizza-boxes lying around. And fantasy miniatures.

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

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

without making either argument, isn't the point of a poll to get an unbiased perspective on an issue? That being said, I find it at least intriguing that you posted your feelings in the same paragraph that you pressumably initiated an unbiased answer to your question.

just an observation

without making either argument, isn't the point of a poll to get an unbiased perspective on an issue? That being said, I find it at least intriguing that you posted your feelings in the same paragraph that you pressumably initiated an unbiased answer to your question.

just an observation
You're looking too far into it. ;)

We just wanna argue that's all. :p

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

I know two gay men in the Catholic church who are vehemently opposed to gay marriage. One is openly gay, the other recognises his feelings toward men but does not act upon them because he feels that this is a stepping stone God has wanted him to overcome in his spiritual walk.Both say that it is against God and the church, and that it is a big part of the downfall of society. One is openly gay, the other recognises his feelings toward men but does not act upon them because he feels that this is a stepping stone God has wanted him to overcome in his spiritual walk.

Before I get attacked:

These are the opinions of other people in answer to the question Chodolo asked. I do not necessarily agree with them.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/10/31/walking_the_walk_on_family_values/

Dammit, there's always a catch.

Dont you mean catcher? :p

Sick pun I know.

that's ok, whether I'm annoyed or not depends very much on the context in which it was said. :p
0oh, I missed the bit about feminism the first time round. Now that's touching a raw nerve for me, being a woman and all. I'd love to hear exactly WHY feminism is bringing about the downfall of western society...

I believe feminism has totally wrecked the family unit, this is the building

block of society.

I find it hard to believe that 1279 of the people here think gay marriages should be permitted.

Personally, I don't even think that the state should do marriages. It's a religious thing.

Civil unions, maybe...

I believe feminism has totally wrecked the family unit, this is the building

block of society.
So women should have stayed downtrodden? Subservient to their husbands. Why is wanting an equal partnership wrong? I can think of far more destructive things, like domestic violence, poverty, alcoholism etc.
URGH. As I woman I find that point of view REALLY offensive.
And just annoy you I may start using "womyn" instead...

I find it hard to believe that 1279 of the people here think gay marriages should be permitted.

Personally, I don't even think that the state should do marriages. It's a religious thing.

Civil unions, maybe...

Theres no law saying that you have to get married. If you want you can stay single, have a boyfriend/girlfriend, or get a civil union. But it's unfair for you to take away someones right to get married if that's the way they want to do it, fine you may think it's stupid but theres no harm caused by marriages and it's their own choice.

So women should have stayed downtrodden? Subservient to their husbands. Why is wanting an equal partnership wrong? I can think of far more destructive things, like domestic violence, poverty, alcoholism etc.
URGH. As I woman I find that point of view REALLY offensive.
And just annoy you I may start using "womyn" instead...

Eh, don't bother. We're talking about Termy here.

So women should have stayed downtrodden? Subservient to their husbands. Why is wanting an equal partnership wrong? I can think of far more destructive things, like domestic violence, poverty, alcoholism etc.
URGH. As I woman I find that point of view REALLY offensive.
And just annoy you I may start using "womyn" instead...

Of course, the ultimate irony would be that Terminalia claims a golden age of the 'family unit' for feminism to destroy... ignoring the fact that the 'nuclear family' is a relatively new invention - of the ballpark figure of half a century, and feminism actually predates, and, arguably, helped CREATE that nuclear family model, by granting females a degree of autonomy from the FAMILY of the husband.

If the evolution of 'feminism' carries the model away from the nuclear family, then that is fine... since the 'nuclear family' was one of 'feminisms' victories anyway.

If Terminalia really wants to know about family groups he should check his history as to what 'western' family structure was for the average person a hundred years ago.

But of course, he won't... because he doesn't really want to know.

After all, why let a fact get in the way of a really good prejudice?

Of course, the ultimate irony would be that Terminalia claims a golden age of the 'family unit' for feminism to destroy... ignoring the fact that the 'nuclear family' is a relatively new invention - of the ballpark figure of half a century, and feminism actually predates, and, arguably, helped CREATE that nuclear family model, by granting females a degree of autonomy from the FAMILY of the husband.

If the evolution of 'feminism' carries the model away from the nuclear family, then that is fine... since the 'nuclear family' was one of 'feminisms' victories anyway.

If Terminalia really wants to know about family groups he should check his history as to what 'western' family structure was for the average person a hundred years ago.

That just reminded me of the traditional Indian family structure. The bride goes off the live with the husband and his family. Often she gets treated like a servant. *shudders* I know a woman who had a semi-arranged marriage like that, and she was separated within a month or so. So yeah, the notion of "family" is one that's constantly evolving.

See, that's where I don't get conservatives. Things change, why do you want them to stay the same? Or even sillier, to return to some "golden age" where men were men and women knew their place...

That just reminded me of the traditional Indian family structure. The bride goes off the live with the husband and his family. Often she gets treated like a servant. *shudders* I know a woman who had a semi-arranged marriage like that, and she was separated within a month or so. So yeah, the notion of "family" is one that's constantly evolving.

See, that's where I don't get conservatives. Things change, why do you want them to stay the same? Or even sillier, to return to some "golden age" where men were men and women knew their place...

Conservatives want thing to stay the same because it is comfortable. If you don't change the balance of power... if you don't redefine the lines of acceptability, then you never have to 'adjust' to something new. It's comfortable.

Unfortunately, the average conservative perspective is based on nostalgia for a past that never really happened. One hundred years ago, there were almost NO families that could be recognised as our 'nuclear family' unit model that conservatives yearn for the return of.... except in one small sub-culture... that being the independantly wealthy, who defined their own family unti - much AGAINST the conservatives of their day.

Similarly, this fabled 'back-to-basics' or 'return-to-values' argument... which posits a golden age where there was no adultery, where children were the centre of the family, and the man supported a supportive wife. It's all fiction... pornography was just as rampant one hundred years ago, just not as slickly and openly produced, but actually far MORE openly exchanged. The average moderately wealthy man had a wife at home, who may have 'watched' the house, but who had someone else take care of the children, who were basically insulated from the 'family' until they were adults. The man also had at least one mistress with whom he would be 'seen' in socil events... one didn't take one's wife to such things.

And, for the poorer classes, life a hundred years ago was much the same as it was a thousand years ago, and it is today. Largely a matter of survival, far too much reliance on alcohol and drugs, little or no healthcare or education, little or no 'marriage', and large helpings of disease, hunger and suffering.

The problem with the conservative view of the past, is that it is unrealistic. It is based on ideas of a society that never existed.

I, personally, would be conservative, IF we had a utopian society. But, we don't. Our society NEEDS change, and so I can't see how one could be truly conservative, and STILL hold that one was acting in the interest of society.

Another thought: why are so many conservatives so eager to CHANGE society 'back to how it was'? Surely, that 'change' is anathema to all that conservatism stands for?

Preconcieved notions... like not accepting homosexuality as a normal

behaviour?

That is a natural reaction for most people, then and now, not a preconcieved

one.

There are two kinds of preconceived notions - one by time period, one by ignorance. The founding fathers lived in a different era, where many things hadn't been thought of. Once again, inter-racial marriages come to mind...no laws allowing those. No laws governing the colonization of mars, for that matter, either. That's because such things hadn't occured to them, and perhaps, just perhaps, they left things flexible so such things could be dealt with as society advanced. I don't recall them making laws against gay marriage either.

Now, your kind of preconceived notions, that made in ignorance, is different. While the founding fathers couldn't have conceived of society today, you can. You have access to the science, legal precedent, and other information that exist today; and as you've proven here, choose to ignore all of it and hold an opinion that you can't defend.

Political correctness, or Perverted Culture lol

PC accepts homosexuality.

I dont.

Sorry, some of us don't base our opinions on social pressure and dogma - we actually think out our positions. We've proven this on this very thread (thusly, calling us PC every time you get mad shows you're just throwing around buzzwords), while you have not.

I know he got trounced long ago for this post, but I wanted to tie up my loose strings.

I find it hard to believe that 1279 of the people here think gay marriages should be permitted.

Personally, I don't even think that the state should do marriages. It's a religious thing.

Civil unions, maybe...

So...do you have a position on gay state marriages (what the issue is really about)? If not, then why would it be hard to believe that people here vote as they do? I also believe that the government should be out of marriage and only have civil unions, but that's not the way things are, and extending rights equally is the next best thing.

I believe feminism has totally wrecked the family unit, this is the building

block of society.

Perhaps you'd care to explain it? Both halves, please. How feminism has done so, and how the family unit is the building block of society.

Noticing all this hate in the forums at the moment about george bush, I've decided that this would be a good time to divert all that anger into this thread. Anger makes thread interesting, and the anger here has died down a little bit recently.

On another note, what is with all these people only wanting civil unions? If they want they can have a civil union themselves then do so but I see no point in making it the only option availble when people want to express their love for each other. Don't start denying rights for religious people now.

Noticing all this hate in the forums at the moment about george bush, I've decided that this would be a good time to divert all that anger into this thread. Anger makes thread interesting, and the anger here has died down a little bit recently.

On another note, what is with all these people only wanting civil unions? If they want they can have a civil union themselves then do so but I see no point in making it the only option availble when people want to express their love for each other. Don't start denying rights for religious people now.
I'll go for some Bush bashing! Mind you, if these forums are a good representation of the American people (apologies to non-US, just trying to make a point) I'd ask them to hesitate in their apparent thirst for change and evolution and reflect on why they're electing to stay with a leader who values his pride and bank balance over the lives of his people.

You guys realise that this actually makes the rest of the world wish that Hilary Clinton had stood for the Demos!! Yah, enough election crap.

What would other options be then:
1) Religious marriage for anyone
2) Civil Union as it stands
3) Civil Union upgraded to standard tax laws of conventional (you know what I mean!) marriage
4) downgrade all unions in terms of dispensations and return to basic human rights

Any more?


Many religions oppose the instigation of homosexual marriages because of the beliefs they hold. Technically people belonging to those religions should realise that if they go against those beliefs then they will incur questioning and very probably the wrath of other believers.

It is strange that governments seem fit to award concessions to people who get married. work permits, tax breaks etc. It's like they're giving out cookies but they don't know why..

Noticing all this hate in the forums at the moment about george bush, I've decided that this would be a good time to divert all that anger into this thread. Anger makes thread interesting, and the anger here has died down a little bit recently.

On another note, what is with all these people only wanting civil unions? If they want they can have a civil union themselves then do so but I see no point in making it the only option availble when people want to express their love for each other. Don't start denying rights for religious people now.

People who are proposing only civil unions aren't denying religious people their rights. Everyone would have the same rights they have now, but under a different name. In addition, those rights could be extended to same sex couples.

The difference would be that religious people would not have to feel that the government is forcing something onto them that they think should be under their control. Many religious people believe that the word marriage is reserved for churches (I use that inclusive of mosques, temples, etc.) and churches only. They do not think the government should regulate marriage.

And I say that's fine. The government shouldn't. But the government should also not grant ones to one group that it does not grant to others. Therefore, have a system of Civil Unions for everyone and leave marriage up to religious organizations.

Of course I'm not sure exactly what fundamentalists would accomplish because there are going to be some religious groups that are going to marry same sex couples. Heck, there already are!

Still, it would assure them that they would never have to perform one or be forced to recognize one. Of course, they still wouldn't have to do that because religious organizations can already refuse to perform marriage ceremonies they don't believe in.

Still, the name and the semantics is important to some people. I say its a good compromise for me to give on the name and for them to give on the rights.

Oh and interestingly? Did anyone pay attention to the exit polls (which I do realize were rather flawed in predicting the presidential outcome) which showed that approx. 70% of Americans polled were for some form of legal recognition for homosexual relationships (marriage or civil unions with the majority for civil unions) while only 30% were for NO recognition whatsoever. Just an interesting observation.

I disagree with the notion of marraiges being reserved to religion. The fact that religious people may choose to believe that they have some form of ownership over marraiges doesnt change the historical facts of marraige. Marraige is a social institution that is a civil union which may or may not coincidently have religious conotations and/or be a religious union. If religious people want to have thier own thing, they are welcome to have 'religious unions' but they have no right to try to take over marraige.

It is linguistic imperialism to tell me that I have to invent a new word for a form of union that our ancestors have bequethed as much to me as to any one. Marraige is a social institution and that is why it has significance before the eyes of social organisational institutions such as governments. If people want to get together with like-minded people and perform rituals in association with marraige, I have no problem with that, but that doesnt mean I should call my marraige something else. I'm not trying to exclude anyone from our shared birth right, religious people can perform whatever rituals they like and they can call them marraiges if they want. If they wish to be legally married as well that is fine, I'm not going to suggest that they should be excluded from the societal institution of marraige simply because they choose to also partake in a religious union.

It comes down to this, marraige is not owned by any one group, neither is the government bound by anyone group. Marraige belongs to society and it has been deemed beneficial for the government to recognise this in certain ways, in order for the government to recognise your marraige you must do certain things (register the marraige for instance) none of this has anything to do with religion. I dont intend to be 'civil unioned' rather than married just because some religious people want to be linguistic imperalists, they can call my and their own marraiges whatever they like, perform whatever rituals take their fancy (within the limits of the law), and that shouldnt effect me anymore than homosexual couples getting married effects them.

I disagree with the notion of marraiges being reserved to religion. The fact that religious people may choose to believe that they have some form of ownership over marraiges doesnt change the historical facts of marraige. Marraige is a social institution that is a civil union which may or may not coincidently have religious conotations and/or be a religious union. If religious people want to have thier own thing, they are welcome to have 'religious unions' but they have no right to try to take over marraige.

It is linguistic imperialism to tell me that I have to invent a new word for a form of union that our ancestors have bequethed as much to me as to any one. Marraige is a social institution and that is why it has significance before the eyes of social organisational institutions such as governments. If people want to get together with like-minded people and perform rituals in association with marraige, I have no problem with that, but that doesnt mean I should call my marraige something else. I'm not trying to exclude anyone from our shared birth right, religious people can perform whatever rituals they like and they can call them marraiges if they want. If they wish to be legally married as well that is fine, I'm not going to suggest that they should be excluded from the societal institution of marraige simply because they choose to also partake in a religious union.

It comes down to this, marraige is not owned by any one group, neither is the government bound by anyone group. Marraige belongs to society and it has been deemed beneficial for the government to recognise this in certain ways, in order for the government to recognise your marraige you must do certain things (register the marraige for instance) none of this has anything to do with religion. I dont intend to be 'civil unioned' rather than married just because some religious people want to be linguistic imperalists, they can call my and their own marraiges whatever they like, perform whatever rituals take their fancy (within the limits of the law), and that shouldnt effect me anymore than homosexual couples getting married effects them.

I know you are right. In my heart of hearts I believe you. What you say is the ideal and true and right thing.

But people are not ready for that. For some reason in many minds the word marriage is (unjustly) wrapped up with religion. I'm willing to forgo the word (if everyone is as far as the government is concerned) to get the rights and privledges and to be treated equally. Maybe its because I know that I'm still going ot be able to get married because of the churches that perform such unions as well though.

You're all thinking way too hard. gay marriage should be a different kind of legal union which should be recognized separately by the government and insurance companies, etc. :sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :headbang:

You're all thinking way too hard. gay marriage should be a different kind of legal union which should be recognized separately by the government and insurance companies, etc. :

Marriage or Civil Union, whatever the title of it, it shoudl be the same thing as straight unions have--where teh government is concerned. If you are from the USA, perhaps you are familiar with a court ruling from the Civil Rights era that said "separate is NOT equal."

People keep saying leave this marriage business to the churches. That's fine by me since the church isn't only one group. Most likely there are churches willing to do gay marriages, and if there aren't then some churches would be formed allowing gay marriages. This also goes for other religions apart from christianity.

I say if they want a marriage let them have it, if they want a civil union let them have it.

People who are proposing only civil unions aren't denying religious people their rights. Everyone would have the same rights they have now, but under a different name. In addition, those rights could be extended to same sex couples.

The difference would be that religious people would not have to feel that the government is forcing something onto them that they think should be under their control. Many religious people believe that the word marriage is reserved for churches (I use that inclusive of mosques, temples, etc.) and churches only. They do not think the government should regulate marriage.

And I say that's fine. The government shouldn't. But the government should also not grant ones to one group that it does not grant to others. Therefore, have a system of Civil Unions for everyone and leave marriage up to religious organizations.

Of course I'm not sure exactly what fundamentalists would accomplish because there are going to be some religious groups that are going to marry same sex couples. Heck, there already are!

Still, it would assure them that they would never have to perform one or be forced to recognize one. Of course, they still wouldn't have to do that because religious organizations can already refuse to perform marriage ceremonies they don't believe in.

Still, the name and the semantics is important to some people. I say its a good compromise for me to give on the name and for them to give on the rights.

Oh and interestingly? Did anyone pay attention to the exit polls (which I do realize were rather flawed in predicting the presidential outcome) which showed that approx. 70% of Americans polled were for some form of legal recognition for homosexual relationships (marriage or civil unions with the majority for civil unions) while only 30% were for NO recognition whatsoever. Just an interesting observation.
We should point our world leaders in the direction of these forums and see if they can a learn a little about diplomacy!!

From Christianity's PoV the word 'marriage' is literally just a word we've nicked from wherever it came from to mean the sanctification of two people's love in the sight of, and to honour, God. This view of marriage/union is necessarily different from the secular union/marriage/shackling in that secular unions are instigated primarily for the gain of the two or more individuals, be it tax, salary or just to please the partner.

I'm guessing the average Bush voter would have difficulty getting their head round that. If you take excessive amounts of offense at this rather superior anti-establishment view then, don't worry; you're not the average bush-voter (see: long words used) :D

Exit polls, schmexit polls. You should have heard the guy on BBC radio 4 after Kerry conceded: 'Str Kerry was a candidate standing for an intelligent, reasoned approach to governement...'

People keep saying leave this marriage business to the churches. That's fine by me since the church isn't only one group. Most likely there are churches willing to do gay marriages, and if there aren't then some churches would be formed allowing gay marriages. This also goes for other religions apart from christianity.

I say if they want a marriage let them have it, if they want a civil union let them have it.
This is still removing what belongs to us all and placing it in the hands of a small group. Ignoring same sex marraige momentarily, marraige is a governmentally recognised social institution that some people choose to bring their religious beliefs to. Fine by me, but to put things in perspective (re you're only married if some religious group will agree to that) the fact is if you want to be married legally and you go off to a church and perform all the rites and rituals and dont perform the legal proceedures, you are not married so far as the government (and wider society) is concerned, where as if you do follow legal proceedures and go get 'hitched' in a registery office you are married before the law, government and wider society. Why the heck should any of that change now? Same sex marraiges require no change or disruption to this generalised scheme whatsoever, and I frankly resent the implication that I should give over ownership of a commonly owned property (marraige) to one group or set of groups. It's as much mine as anyone's and the fact is the legal marraige and religious rituals though they may from time to time, according to the preferences of the individuals concerned, coincide, they are not the same thing.

If religious people are concerned that their religious unions will somehow 'suffer' by being know by the same name as same sex marraiges, they are welcome to call their unions something else, for instance what they are 'religious unions'.

If religious people are concerned that their religious unions will somehow 'suffer' by being know by the same name as same sex marraiges, they are welcome to call their unions something else, for instance what they are 'religious unions'.

But what's the difference between a "religious union" and a "marriage". To me they seem both the same except the marriage has a ceremony and unions don't. And if you make a union with a ceremony than you may as well call it a marriage, theres no difference apart from the name.

[QUOTE=Preebles]So women should have stayed downtrodden? Subservient to their husbands.

Downtrodden, like in current muslim countrys, India etc China, hell lets just

say the whole world except for the west.

Why is wanting an equal partnership wrong?

Because it doesnt recognise inadequecies in both sexes that the other sex is

better at, and no, I dont think it all evens out in the end.

Men have no role in this new 'family' except as a wallet.

Admittedly he has always been that, but at least he was assigned an

important position in the family structure as its protecter, now he doesnt

have that.


I can think of far more destructive things, like domestic violence, poverty, alcoholism etc.

lol thats still happenning and more than ever, your great 'golden age' of

feminism has probably increased the problem if anything.

URGH. As I woman I find that point of view REALLY offensive.
And just annoy you I may start using "womyn" instead...

As a feminist you mean, I hate to burst your bubble, but most women do not

identify themselves as feminists or particularly want to.

You using womyn instead of woman, only shows your insecurity.

Feminism, is an ideology based more on hatred of men, than support for

women.

Eh, don't bother. We're talking about Termy here.

So why did you?

Run along now.

Ooh, the Terminalia show is back on!

*Grabs popcorn*

Explain your signature's meaning, please.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Of course, the ultimate irony would be that Terminalia claims a golden age of the 'family unit' for feminism to destroy... ignoring the fact that the 'nuclear family' is a relatively new invention - of the ballpark figure of half a century, and feminism actually predates, and, arguably, helped CREATE that nuclear family model, by granting females a degree of autonomy from the FAMILY of the husband.
If the evolution of 'feminism' carries the model away from the nuclear family, then that is fine... since the 'nuclear family' was one of 'feminisms' victories anyway.
If Terminalia really wants to know about family groups he should check his history as to what 'western' family structure was for the average person a hundred years ago.
But of course, he won't... because he doesn't really want to know.
After all, why let a fact get in the way of a really good prejudice?

Your talking nonsense, and abstracts.

I never mentioned nuclear familys, which are a product of western societys

greed and consumerism.

A hundred years ago, men were considered the head of the family, and

women were considered the head of the house, but dont let those little

details get in your way.

I voted for gay marriages not just because I am gay. I fail to see how my marrying my partner threatens anyone else's marriage or their morality. But more importantly, all of us are guaranteed the same rights. Those states banning gay marriage obviously saw a need to take away rights that already exist. I know this country [USA], as well as other places in the world, has a ways to go with this concept since racism sexism are still alive and thriving here. We are all created equal in the eyes of God, or Buudha, or Allah, or whatever deity or higher power you acknowledge.

Ooh, the Terminalia show is back on!

*Grabs popcorn*

Explain your signature's meaning, please.

No chance.

[QUOTE]

As a feminist you mean, I hate to burst your bubble, but most women do not

identify themselves as feminists or particularly want to.

You using womyn instead of woman, only shows your insecurity.

Feminism, is an ideology based more on hatred of men, than support for

women.

Most women may not "identify" themselves as feminists because the word has been tainted by politicians and male chauvenists (sp?). If you go out and ask women their stance on feminist issues, without identify them as such, the overwhelming majority will be in full support of them. I even think most men would be as well.

And while there are some militant branches of feminism, most of the feminists I have met have been very wonderful people who harbour no inherant hatred of men but instead expect to be treating equally and are not willing to sit back and be mistreated.

[QUOTE]

Downtrodden, like in current muslim countrys, India etc China, hell lets just

say the whole world except for the west.



Because it doesnt recognise inadequecies in both sexes that the other sex is

better at, and no, I dont think it all evens out in the end.

Men have no role in this new 'family' except as a wallet.

Admittedly he has always been that, but at least he was assigned an

important position in the family structure as its protecter, now he doesnt

have that.




lol thats still happenning and more than ever, your great 'golden age' of

feminism has probably increased the problem if anything.



As a feminist you mean, I hate to burst your bubble, but most women do not

identify themselves as feminists or particularly want to.

You using womyn instead of woman, only shows your insecurity.

Feminism, is an ideology based more on hatred of men, than support for

women.

Most women may or may not identify themselves as feminists, but in their actions they most certainly are: they work (or not), they have families (or not), they are political (or not) and they are consumers (or not). Women have many more choices open to them than they did even just 20 years ago; this all happened because of feminists and feminist-thinking men fighting to change things.

Feminism, to correct your misconception, is not based on hatred of men, but of women having equal rights across the board as men--earning 100 cents rather than 79 cents on the dollar, having a place at the board room and the oval office, having the same academic and athletic opportunities as boys and men, etc.

[QUOTE=Anbar]
and as you've proven here, choose to ignore all of it and hold an opinion that you can't defend.

Sheer arrogance. :rolleyes:

My position on gay marriage in society is mine to make, not yours.

Sorry, some of us don't base our opinions on social pressure and dogma - we actually think out our positions.

Sure, if you believe that, then your truly brainwashed by PC.

Your position is to accept whatever PC tells you too, and to hate anyone who

disagrees with it, yep, you have really thought it out, or have you?

Adolf would love you alot more than me, because your easy to manipulate.

Face it, whether you realise it or not, you have been brainwashed.

Not reading any of the previous posts in this thread, many people will say how it is dangerous to the economy, to the so-called "Traditional Family", and various other bouts of nonsense, trying to keep people distracted against their true motive - religion and the varying degree of morals and ethics that come with that. Putting religious and "moral" reasons aside, homosexual marriages would actually help the economy, so says many thinktanks - both conservative and liberal alike. Mreh

Sheer arrogance. :rolleyes:

My position on gay marriage in society is mine to make, not yours.


I agree. But what good is a position that cannot hold up to logic and is only held by sheer stubborness?



Sure, if you believe that, then your truly brainwashed by PC.

Your position is to accept whatever PC tells you too,and to hate anyone who

disagrees with it, yep, you have really thought it out, or have you?


Whereas your position is truly brainwashed into you by your religion and the close-minded people who brought you up. You accept what they've told you and don't think about it.

At least PC encourages people to think. . . .of course since I'm more of an academic than a PC followered, it really doesn't apply to me.

Face it, whether you realise it or not, you have been brainwashed.[/QUOTE]

Let's make intolerance LEGAL! Take a couple more rights from them like voting, or owning property. It's funny how businesses here -especially the Equal Employment Opportunity ones- can get sued for not hiring gay/lesbians , and then most people go out and vote against those rights for all Americans to be treated equally. I could rant more on the hypocrisy in this country and the 50% divorce rate which will be threatened by gay marriage but I'll spare you all. Good day!

Of course they should be allowed to marry! Why not? I mean, they are humans, capable of love, so what's the problem? If a man and a woman who love each other can get married to make it final and show the world that they do, why shouldn't a man and a man or a woman and a woman? I see nothing wrong with it. As l,ong as they love each other, it doesn't really matter what gender they are or what gender they tend to like.

Sheer arrogance. :rolleyes:

My position on gay marriage in society is mine to make, not yours.

Of course I'm arrogant...it took you 112 pages to figure that out?!

Oh dear, how dare I try to cloud your opinionizing with facts? You may be right, in that you are perfectly within your rights to make a decision in ignorance, but don't think that I'm not going to belittle and ridicule you for it.

Sure, if you believe that, then your truly brainwashed by PC.

You still have no idea what political correctness is, do you?

Your position is to accept whatever PC tells you too, and to hate anyone who

disagrees with it, yep, you have really thought it out, or have you?

Adolf would love you alot more than me, because your easy to manipulate.

Face it, whether you realise it or not, you have been brainwashed.

A PC person condemns something by kneejerk reaction, having no real thought-out stance on an issue. Everyone in this thread who's argued against you has gone to great lengths to outline their logical thought processes in the hope that maybe you'll learn something. You keep ignoring them whilst slinging around buzzwords like "PC." No one who looks at this thread and arguments made here could possibly conclude that we haven;t thought our positions out. You, on the other hand, just keep resorting to repeating your positions, as if their very existence makes them right.

And actually, Hitler preyed upon preconceived notions and prejudices...so I think we know which of us he'd favor. ;)

You are a fool, and from now on, I'll watch your idiocy from the sidelines, lest I be contaminated. I've already wasted more time pouring intelligent arguments into your intellectual vacuum than I care to think about. Exist in ignorance, that's not my problem.

I agree. But what good is a position that cannot hold up to logic and is only held by sheer stubborness?

And here is the question of the thread, folks!

And here is the question of the thread, folks!

Was that a compliment?

After 113 pages, I am rather certain that every stance and opinion has been expressed, but I might as well voice my two cents. I am sure it is repeating someone else, but.. alright.


I personally believe the government has no right whatsoever to dictate what gender two persons must be for a marriage to be allowed. As far as the government is concerned, there isn't any difference. The person living down the street from me, or living across the state for that matter, should not be able to tell me if I can marry my lover. That is ludicrous, and is not the definition of a free country. Separation of Church and State? Everyone knows the attacks on gays is a religious idea.

The government has too much power as it is. The last thing we need is giving this power to it. We need to be cutting government back, not adding to it. I am not gay, nor to I necessarily like the idea of gay people living together, but I am not going to try and tell them they cannot. If they want to, fine. It affects me none.

After 113 pages, I am rather certain that every stance and opinion has been expressed, but I might as well voice my two cents. I am sure it is repeating someone else, but.. alright.


I personally believe the government has no right whatsoever to dictate what gender two persons must be for a marriage to be allowed. As far as the government is concerned, there isn't any difference. The person living down the street from me, or living across the state for that matter, should not be able to tell me if I can marry my lover. That is ludicrous, and is not the definition of a free country. Separation of Church and State? Everyone knows the attacks on gays is a religious idea.

The government has too much power as it is. The last thing we need is giving this power to it. We need to be cutting government back, not adding to it. I am not gay, nor to I necessarily like the idea of gay people living together, but I am not going to try and tell them they cannot. If they want to, fine. It affects me none.


You're probably right about repeating someone elses view but that doesn't matter, you expressed your opinion fairly well.

No chance.

Hah! No chance that you will, or no chance that you can? Somehow, I expect the latter. :p

Was that a compliment?

Indeed, it was. It sums up what's wrong with Term's thought positions in a nutshell.

Hah! No chance that you will, or no chance that you can? Somehow, I expect the latter. :p

I can, I just choose not to.

I can, I just choose not to.

I expect, then, that you realize that you have a typo in there?

I personally believe the government has no right whatsoever to dictate what gender two persons must be for a marriage to be allowed. As far as the government is concerned, there isn't any difference.
Actually, it does pertain to the government. Marriages give certain rights to married couples, such as tax benefits. That's why my mother is against it, because she doesn't want to pay for homosexuals living together. I personally support it--we should all be more tolerant of how other people are, no matter how much the Bible tells you not to or some such nonsense. Hell, if nothing else, at least it may help with population control, which is in dire need of attention if you ask me...ecologists do have something with biodiversity.

Terminalia
Quote:

As a feminist you mean, I hate to burst your bubble, but most women do not

identify themselves as feminists or particularly want to.

You using womyn instead of woman, only shows your insecurity.

Feminism, is an ideology based more on hatred of men, than support for

women.


Most women may not "identify" themselves as feminists because the word has been tainted by politicians and male chauvenists (sp?). If you go out and ask women their stance on feminist issues, without identify them as such, the overwhelming majority will be in full support of them. I even think most men would be as well.

And while there are some militant branches of feminism, most of the feminists I have met have been very wonderful people who harbour no inherant hatred of men but instead expect to be treating equally and are not willing to sit back and be mistreated.
You're right on there Pracus. I mean, it's people like Term who assume that "feminism" means hating men and making women "better than men" that make women shy away from identifying themselves as feminists. (Much like people who are against rights for any minority or vulnerable group will claim that they are asking for special treatment- look at indigenous people in Australia)That doesn't stop most women that I know from feeling passionate about things.

And guess what Term, I don't hate men! I'm in love with a man! :eek:
There's soft power Term, and then there's hard power. I never claimed that The Western world was worse than anywhere else, it's just that the status quo is maintained by the use of soft power, like earning power and such.

The government has too much power as it is. The last thing we need is giving this power to it. We need to be cutting government back, not adding to it. I am not gay, nor to I necessarily like the idea of gay people living together, but I am not going to try and tell them they cannot. If they want to, fine. It affects me none.Heh, yeah, that's a good middle ground to find. No one wants to make you like gays, but it's good to recognize that it's no more of your business than if your neighbor happens to own a dog. I don't like dogs, but I'm not going to the government asking it to ban them...

(Ludicrous example, I know, because it's not like the majority of people dislike dogs, but that's because it's supposed to convery how ridiculous banning gay marriage really is.)

politically, im the opposite of a libertarian, but i agree. if joe and jon want to marry, it doesnt affect me. true US patriots believethat all people are created equal, regardless of sexual orientation.

politically, im the opposite of a libertarian, but i agree. if joe and jon want to marry, it doesnt affect me. true US patriots believethat all people are created equal, regardless of sexual orientation.

Bravo. Very well said, this fellow Libertarian applauds you.

Actually, it does pertain to the government. Marriages give certain rights to married couples, such as tax benefits. That's why my mother is against it, because she doesn't want to pay for homosexuals living together. I personally support it--we should all be more tolerant of how other people are, no matter how much the Bible tells you not to or some such nonsense. Hell, if nothing else, at least it may help with population control, which is in dire need of attention if you ask me...ecologists do have something with biodiversity.

It's already been addressed that married couple end up paying more in taxes because of the way the tax brackets are set up. And how pretell would your mother pay for two homosexuals living together? If its true we are paying for married people, then I'm afraid I must insist that all marriages cease because I do not want to pay for them.

I know this isn't your view, just poking holes wherever I can. It's so much fun!

But what's the difference between a "religious union" and a "marriage". To me they seem both the same except the marriage has a ceremony and unions don't. And if you make a union with a ceremony than you may as well call it a marriage, theres no difference apart from the name.
A religious union is a union that people enter into in accordance with thier relgious practises. The ceremony isnt what makes marraige. Not all marraige forms even include a ceremony as such. Marraige is a social institution, if you go to a church and have a religious ceremony you are not married according to most societies by virtue of that ceremony. If you have not followed certain legal proceedures for instance you are not married (where as if you follow those legal proceedures, even if you never step foot in a church, you are married).

Many forms of marraige include some kind of payment (goods/labour) that may in part take place after ceremonial/social celebrations, and if the payment doesnt occur, the marraige will be invalidated, regardless of any ceremony or rituals that have occured. The degree to which religious/ritualised elements occur with regards to marraige practises varies. Marraige is not a religious institution, it is a social institution, the fact that people involve their religious beliefs with their marraiges shouldnt cause anymore confusion than the fact that people say grace when they eat, but for some reason it does.

[QUOTE=Preebles]You're right on there Pracus. I mean, it's people like Term who assume that "feminism" means hating men and making women "better than men" that make women shy away from identifying themselves as feminists.

I wouldnt say its an assumption, the media is overwhelmingly patented to

feminism, men are depicted in adds and shows now( particularly fathers) as

bumbling idiots, the theme seems to revolve around making women out to be

super creatures who can do no wrong, and having men portrayed nonstop as

pandering doormats, weakens this inevitably.

And guess what Term, I don't hate men! I'm in love with a man! :eek:

If you say so.

Im sure hes a nice guy, but I think we would probably differ a lot on what a

man is however.


There's soft power Term, and then there's hard power. I never claimed that The Western world was worse than anywhere else, it's just that the status quo is maintained by the use of soft power, like earning power and such.
Soft power, a contradiction in terms.

Any power, in social terms, has to be backed up by something hard, or it

collapses quickly for the lie that it is.

Your 'soft power' is just the old 'speak softly but carry a big stick'.

[QUOTE=Pracus]I agree. But what good is a position that cannot hold up to logic and is only held by sheer stubborness?

Your logic, not mine.


Whereas your position is truly brainwashed into you by your religion and the close-minded people who brought you up.

Ah cheap shot merchant. :rolleyes:

My parents never really talked to me about gays in any way.

Please dont mention them Pracus, just you talking about them, people you

have never met, dishonours them.


Also, I havent had any priests roar hatred of gays to me from the pulprit

either.

You accept what they've told you and don't think about it.

Yep, keep on stabbing in the dark with all your prepared PC mantra.

At least PC encourages people to think. . . .of course since I'm more of an academic than a PC followered, it really doesn't apply to me.

It encourages them to think the PC way, and only this way, or else.


Face it, whether you realise it or not, you have been brainwashed.

No, I came to this final conclusion by myself.

I expect, then, that you realize that you have a typo in there?

Whoopie.

I not olny think gay marriagres should be allowed they should be expected. Expected in the same way that a marriage between a straight couple who have been together and lived together for a certain amount of time seem to be expected. I think that homosexuals as well as heterosexuals should constantly have to answer the question " So, when are you two getting married?". And then there is actual marriage, that's no bed of roses either. I say we spread the burden and ease everyones suffering.

If you say so.

Im sure hes a nice guy, but I think we would probably differ a lot on what a

man is however.

:rolleyes: Whatever Term, whatever. I was going to respond to the rest of your post, but this is IT. You insulted the person I love most in the world. I have nothing more to say to you except this, I'm GLAD he doesn't fit your notion of "manhood." What is that by the way? Being buff, having a crewcut and not taking shit from the missus?

Whoopie.

Just seems pretty stupid is all...seeing as it's attached to everything you post.

You should have heard the guy on BBC radio 4 after Kerry conceded: 'Str Kerry was a candidate standing for an intelligent, reasoned approach to governement...'What about the Mirror's front page (http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/docs/Mirror/0007ACB8-ADCE-118B-9E4F80C328EC0000.pdf)? Ouch.
Men have no role in this new 'family' except as a wallet....
Feminism, is an ideology based more on hatred of men, than support for women.Uh huh. Doesn't sound like any feminism I know of, and I've run across some farly wacky varieties.
Most women may not "identify" themselves as feminists because the word has been tainted by politicians and male chauvenists (sp?).Probably where Terminalia is getting his "information".
If you go out and ask women their stance on feminist issues, without identify them as such, the overwhelming majority will be in full support of them. I even think most men would be as well.Wouldn't surprise me. Heck, I'd describe myself as a feminist and :upyours: the chauvenists and their definitions.
I wouldnt say its an assumption, the media is overwhelmingly patented to feminism, men are depicted in adds and shows now( particularly fathers) as bumbling idiots, the theme seems to revolve around making women out to be super creatures who can do no wrong, and having men portrayed nonstop as pandering doormats, weakens this inevitably.Advertising in North America is horribly sexist and doesn't do either sex any favours. That's a big reason I avoid it like the plague. It's amazing just how increadibly insulting and annoying ads are after spending a year or two away from them (university: too busy for tv).
I have nothing more to say to you except this, I'm GLAD he doesn't fit your notion of "manhood."I'm glad I don't fit Term's notion of manhood. I'm not a good fit for either "woman" or "man", and I am fortunate to live in a society that gives me the space to be myself. It's a stronger society for it.

[QUOTE]

Your logic, not mine.



Actually logic is rather universal, like mathematics. Now our preconceptions can affect how we view logic of course.


[QUOTE]
My parents never really talked to me about gays in any way.

Please dont mention them Pracus, just you talking about them, people you

have never met, dishonours them.


You'll have to forgive me if I'm going to give you that honor when you've already denied it to me by claiming to know how I will act :rolleyes:


[QUOTE]
Yep, keep on stabbing in the dark with all your prepared PC mantra.


Can you give me a definition of PC? Not what it stands for but what it means.

And as has been pointed out to you, PC is mindless (like some other people I know) while my viewpoints are thought out. I do get angry from time to time and I apologize for that, its one of my faults I need to work out. However, I can defend my viewpoints in other ways than just repeating them over and over.

And so what if my views agree with what PC says? That's like saying that just because a Buddhist thinks murder is wrong he must be a follower of the Bible.

[QUOTE]
It encourages them to think the PC way, and only this way, or else.


Yet again, I don't blindly follow PC. I don't blindly follow anything.

[QUOTE]
No, I came to this final conclusion by myself.

Then defend it in ways besides saying I'm a mindless PC drone and using actual facts/research/something!

This is not an issue of "Well, if gays can marry, then incest and bestiality and pedophilia can be legal, too!" No, that's quite stupid, and highly reactionary. It's about the ability of two consenting un-related adults to enter into a bond that they are quite mature enough to be able to handle of their own accord.

To say homosexual love is immoral is to say that many other kinds of love are immoral. Love between the infertile. Love between the sexually incapable. Love between the sterile. Love between those who choose not to have children. All these couplings are against the apparent restrictions the judeo-christian god has put forth. Utterly inane. But now, for those who must know, here is a list of rights denied to homosexual couples.

The list:
-Accidental death benefit for the surviving spouse of a government employee
-Appointment as guardian of a minor
-Award of child custody in divorce proceedings;
-Beneficial owner status of corporate securities;
-Bill of Rights benefits for victims and witnesses;
-Burial of service member's dependents;
-Certificates of occupation;
-Consent to postmortem examination;
-Continuation of rights under existing homestead leases;
-Control, division, acquisition, and disposition of community property
-Criminal injuries compensation;
-Death benefit for surviving spouse for government employee
-Disclosure of vital statistics records;
-Division of property after dissolution of marriage;
-Eligibility for housing opportunity allowance program of the Housing,
-Finance and Development Corporation;
-Exemption from claims of Department of Human Services for social services payments, financial assistance, or burial payments;
-Exemption from conveyance tax; Exemption from regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants;
-Funeral leave for government employees;
-Homes of totally disabled veterans exempt from property taxes;
-Income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates;
-Inheritance of land patents;
-Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society;
-Legal status with partner's children;
-Making, revoking, and objecting to anatomical gifts;
-Making partner medical decisions;
-Nonresident tuition deferential waiver;
-Notice of guardian ad litem proceedings;
-Notice of probate proceedings;
-Payment of wages to a relative of deceased employee;
-Payment of worker's compensation benefits after death;
-Permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation;
-Proof of business partnership;
-Public assistance from the Department of Human Services;
-Qualification at a facility for the elderly;
-Right of survivorship to custodial trust;
-Real property exemption from attachment or execution;
-Right to be notified of parole or escape of inmate;
-Right to change names;
-Right to enter into premarital agreement;
-Right to file action for nonsupport;
-Right to inherit property;
-Right to purchase leases and cash freehold agreements concerning the management and disposition of public land;
-Right to sue for tort and death by wrongful act;
-Right to support after divorce;
-Right to support from spouse;
-Rights and proceedings for involuntary hospitalization and treatment;
-Rights by way of dour [dower?] or courtesy;
-Rights to notice, protection, benefits, and inheritance under the uniform probate code;
-Sole interest in property;
-Spousal privilege and confidential marriage communications;
-Spousal immigration benefits;
-Status of children;
-Support payments in divorce action;
-Tax relief for natural disaster losses;
-Vacation allowance on termination of public employment by death;
-Veterans' preference to spouse in public employment;
-In vitro fertilization coverage;
-Waiver of fees for certified copies and searches of vital statistics

Here is some examples were marriage is unjustly denied to gay couples:

- Lisa Stewart of South Carolina has terminal cancer. She worries what will happen to her 5-year-old daughter Emily if she dies. Will her ten-year partner Lynn be able to maintain custody in a state that is considering an anti-gay adoption ban? Being able to marry would ease Lisa and Lynn's minds, and protect the integrity of their family. How could anyone construe Lisa and Lynn's desire to maintain their family's security as a threat to other families?

- Bill Randolph lost his partner of 26 years when the World Trade Center was attacked on September 11, 2001, but is not eligible for Social Security survivor benefits-benefits that would automatically be given to the surviving spouse in a heterosexual marriage. "If you're straight and have a marriage license, it's one, two, three," said Randolph. "We're clawing at it just to be acknowledged."

- Jeanne Newland left her job in Rochester N.Y. to go with her life partner, Natasha Doty, to Virginia where Doty had accepted a new job. Newland expected to find a job in short order, but after six months of trying unsuccessfully to find work, she applied for unemployment benefits-benefits that would have been granted automatically if she had been married to her partner. New York state denied her claim, stating that following her partner was not a "good cause" to leave a job. This situation "just didn't seem fair" to Newland.

- Bill Flanigan was prevented from visiting his life partner, Robert Daniel, when Daniel was dying in a Baltimore hospital in October 2000. Hospital personnel refused to acknowledge that Flanigan and Daniel were family. "Bill and Bobby were soulmates and one of the best couples I've known," said Grace Daniel, Robert's mother. "They loved each other, took care of each other, came to family holidays as a couple and Bill still babysits for my grandson. If that isn't family, then something is very wrong. When someone is dying, hospitals should be bringing families together rather than keeping them apart."

- When Linda Rodrigues Ramos died tragically in a car accident, her partner, Lydia Ramos, did not expect that she was about to lose their daughter also. After the funeral, Linda's sister held a memorial gathering and asked that the daughter be present. However, Linda's sister never returned the girl as she had promised, refusing Lydia's pleas and not even allowing Lydia to visit her daughter. Not understanding Lydia's relationship to her daughter, a court refused to grant her emergency guardianship. The girl was completely cut off from her only surviving mother, her siblings and her grandparents on that side. Only after going to court, with representation from Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, was Lydia able to gain permanent guardianship and be reunited with her daughter

This is not an issue of "Well, if gays can marry, then incest and bestiality and pedophilia can be legal, too!" No, that's quite stupid, and highly reactionary. It's about the ability of two consenting un-related adults to enter into a bond that they are quite mature enough to be able to handle of their own accord.

At best/worst, allowing same-sex marriage will open up the way to *discuss* other forms of marriage. In no way will the make them somehow inevitable.

At best/worst, allowing same-sex marriage will open up the way to *discuss* other forms of marriage. In no way will the make them somehow inevitable.

Exactly, and this is probably a good thing.

Exactly, and this is probably a good thing.

I agree, so which one do we start with?

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

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


Thank u Krikaroo Im living in the netherlands and its Legal out there :D :D :D :fluffle:

[QUOTE=Preebles]:rolleyes: Whatever Term, whatever. I was going to respond to the rest of your post, but this is IT. You insulted the person I love most in the world.

By calling him a nice guy?

Your childishly over reacting, and deliberately so.

I have nothing more to say to you except this, I'm GLAD he doesn't fit your notion of "manhood." What is that by the way? Being buff, having a crewcut and not taking shit from the missus?

No, Ive never liked crewcuts much.

Buff... muscles right?

Men should be strong physically, but not in the revolting way gym junkies

portray themselves, thats too overdone, and also slows you down.

I like going to the gym myself, but I go to build my strength and stamina up,

not to try to look like Mr Universe.

As for not taking shit from the missus, I dont see why I should,( please dont

interpret this as some extreme caveman vision you would like me to fit into)

Do you take 'shit' from your boyfriend?

Hell no!

Your 'empowered' now, arent you.

My notion of a man is somebody who makes his own decisions, and lives by

them.

If he makes a wrong move, he admits the mistake, if he makes a right one, he

takes no credit for it.

[QUOTE=Dettibok]
Uh huh. Doesn't sound like any feminism I know of, and I've run across some farly wacky varieties.

I think your telling porkys dear.

[QUOTE=Pracus]Actually logic is rather universal, like mathematics. Now our preconceptions can affect how we view logic of course.

Exactly.



Can you give me a definition of PC? Not what it stands for but what it means.

http://www10.overture.com/d/sr/?xargs=05u3hs9yoaj1VvPSDDhhBK%2FzKWIFpkQgYGYhdDKQ8jOllXRSTqYKcPcErc9f2%2BdfbU23TPPXp7%2F6dpYY8iGJ9DM BTB8K8v6LMkbKdUuOtSCFp%2Fqdbfrsrbbc60yjbbPX724dkb0Bl%2BrzFu0tQlhZrgWbKMvBGa5s2VDShzxgNJDzLFMeMPURNL7 3PsjF5gKQ9B5YE3TVU7iV0lVZyWQHVCMwjm0SUd%2Funy6A1ZVjrcD3fxd5En4cHBgAFBwTN0k3dbevw12ft8Kv0A2O504YscP1t A1Q%3D%3D&yargs=www.ourcivilisation.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

And as has been pointed out to you, PC is mindless (like some other people I know) while my viewpoints are thought out. I do get angry from time to time and I apologize for that, its one of my faults I need to work out. However, I can defend my viewpoints in other ways than just repeating them over and over.

Like saying gay marriage not being allowed is discriminating against gays?

Thats your belief, and your entitled to it, so theres nothing wrong with

repeating it over and over again.


And so what if my views agree with what PC says? That's like saying that just because a Buddhist thinks murder is wrong he must be a follower of the Bible.

PC isnt really something you can pick and choose from, you either accept it

wholey, or reject it wholey.


Then defend it in ways besides saying I'm a mindless PC drone and using actual facts/research/something!

See above links on the mindlessnes of PC.

politically correct

Also, PC or p.c. Showing an effort to make broad social and political changes to redress injustices caused by prejudice. It often involves changing or avoiding language that might offend anyone, especially with respect to gender, race, or ethnic background. For example, Editors of major papers have sent out numerous directives concerning politically correct language. This expression was born in the late 1900s, and excesses in trying to conform to its philosophy gave rise to humorous parodies.


That's a version from an unbiased source. Correcting injustices caused by prejudice is such a horrible thing. [/QUOTE]





Like saying gay marriage not being allowed is discriminating against gays?

Thats your belief, and your entitled to it, so theres nothing wrong with

repeating it over and over again.





discrimination

n 1: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice


Making gay marriage illegal IS discriminatory. You have offered nothign that is not prejudiced to say that it should be illegal. My views are researched and thought out, your's are just repeated. . . over. . . and over . . .. and over.



PC isnt really something you can pick and choose from, you either accept it

wholey, or reject it wholey.


Actually, like any and all philsophy you can agree with parts of it without having to agree with the whole, if you do not understand such a basic concept, I see no point in continuing this conversation.



See above link on the evil of PC.

The link you provided was hardly an impartial definition. Indeed, it was a treatise. Again, I reiterate to you--while I agree with some of the things that PC says, I am hardly a disciple of the philsophy. I believe more in thinking things out for yourself and cold logic.

Yes I think gays and lesbians should be able to get married. Heterosexuals have been messing up the institution of marriage for centuries (look at America's divorce rate!). It's about time we got our turn to screw things up!

No, seriously...I think anything that promotes long-term dedicated relationships in our society is a wonderful thing. Times have changed and today's "family values" come in all different shapes, sizes, and orientations.

Pracus[/B]]That's a version from an unbiased source. Correcting injustices caused by prejudice is such a horrible thing.

Labeling people as predjudiced for not supporting your views, shows you dont

believe in free speech.


Making gay marriage illegal IS discriminatory.


Its only discriminatory, because PC has labeled it thus.


You have offered nothign that is not prejudiced to say that it should be illegal.

Is this your game plan, just deny all my observations, and quotes I put up as

never been on here, calling evidence that is contary to your

opinion 'predjudiced', does not discount its relevance in any way to the

subject.

My views are researched and thought out, your's are just repeated. . . over. . . and over . . .. and over.

Because I believe in them, so why should I change them?

Heres some more researched views you say I dont have, enjoy.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/pc.htm




Actually, like any and all philsophy you can agree with parts of it without having to agree with the whole, if you do not understand such a basic concept, I see no point in continuing this conversation.

But you agree with its underlying princible Pracus.

The link you provided was hardly an impartial definition. Indeed, it was a treatise. Again, I reiterate to you--while I agree with some of the things that PC says, I am hardly a disciple of the philsophy. I believe more in thinking things out for yourself and cold logic.

Then you should hate PC then, because theres nothing logical in it, and it

discourages free speech by the individual.

Labeling people as predjudiced for not supporting your views, shows you dont

believe in free speech.


I label people are prejudiced when they do not listen to reason and just repeat themselves over and over.



Its only discriminatory, because PC has labeled it thus.


No, its discriminatory because it takes rights away from other people for no justifiable reason. Did you read the definition?




Is this your game plan, just deny all my observations, and quotes I put up as

never been on here, calling evidence that is contary to your

opinion 'predjudiced', does not discount its relevance in any way to the

subject.


Actually term, this is your game plan. The few times you offered "scientific" evidence, I was about to give you a reason why it was wrong/biased/prejudiced. You on the other hand simply said "I don't believed that" or "They just being PC."


Because I believe in them, so why should I change them?


Because they don't hold up to scientific scrutiny? Like your thought that gays can raise kids, or that its a choice, or that its a mental disease?



Heres some more researched views you say I dont have, enjoy.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml


That would be an editorial. By definition they are biased. Dictionaries and encyclopedias are good places to start for unbiased sources.



But you agree with its underlying princible Pracus.


If by that you think I believe that we shouldn't take rights away from people for no justifiable reason, then you are right. If you think I believe that discrimination is any form is wrong, you are right. If you think I believe that intolerance is the only thing that shouldn't be tolerated, you are also right.

However, if you believe that I just think "Gee, what would PC say" then you are wrong.


Then you should hate PC then, because theres nothing logical in it, and it

discourages free speech by the individual.


A. I try not to hate anything, no matter how much I might disagree.
B. I never claimed to be a proponent of it. You are the one who accused me of that.

Enjoy Terminalia. I may respond again, I may not. However, I think it probably best if we just agree to disagree.

PC isnt really something you can pick and choose from, you either accept it

wholey, or reject it wholey.

What the hell are you talking about? Political correctness is not a belief system, it's merely the practice of avoiding what you know to be offensive and generalizing terminology.

What people know of what is considered offensive, and what they consider to actually be offensive, vary considerably. It's not a doctrine. You can't take the most extreme and least well thought out examples of something and offer that as the definition.
It's like saying all muslims are fundamentalist extremists and terrorists.

From that newsmax website term gave us, I was shocked to find out how much hate and personal opinion was in the article. This wasn't news, this was what the reporter thought. I had heard about these problems in america's media but they are worse then I had thought. The media seems to be desinged to anger or sadden it's viewers, which, for some reason, is what the public want at the moment.

You are a fool, and from now on, I'll watch your idiocy from the sidelines, lest I be contaminated. I've already wasted more time pouring intelligent arguments into your intellectual vacuum than I care to think about. Exist in ignorance, that's not my problem.

Welcome to the club!

This is not an issue of "Well, if gays can marry, then incest and bestiality and pedophilia can be legal, too!" No, that's quite stupid, and highly reactionary. It's about the ability of two consenting un-related adults to enter into a bond that they are quite mature enough to be able to handle of their own accord.

To say homosexual love is immoral is to say that many other kinds of love are immoral. Love between the infertile. Love between the sexually incapable. Love between the sterile. Love between those who choose not to have children. All these couplings are against the apparent restrictions the judeo-christian god has put forth. Utterly inane. But now, for those who must know, here is a list of rights denied to homosexual couples.

The list:
-Accidental death benefit for the surviving spouse of a government employee
-Appointment as guardian of a minor
-Award of child custody in divorce proceedings;
-Beneficial owner status of corporate securities;
-Bill of Rights benefits for victims and witnesses;
-Burial of service member's dependents;
-Certificates of occupation;
-Consent to postmortem examination;
-Continuation of rights under existing homestead leases;
-Control, division, acquisition, and disposition of community property
-Criminal injuries compensation;
-Death benefit for surviving spouse for government employee
-Disclosure of vital statistics records;
-Division of property after dissolution of marriage;
-Eligibility for housing opportunity allowance program of the Housing,
-Finance and Development Corporation;
-Exemption from claims of Department of Human Services for social services payments, financial assistance, or burial payments;
-Exemption from conveyance tax; Exemption from regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants;
-Funeral leave for government employees;
-Homes of totally disabled veterans exempt from property taxes;
-Income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates;
-Inheritance of land patents;
-Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society;
-Legal status with partner's children;
-Making, revoking, and objecting to anatomical gifts;
-Making partner medical decisions;
-Nonresident tuition deferential waiver;
-Notice of guardian ad litem proceedings;
-Notice of probate proceedings;
-Payment of wages to a relative of deceased employee;
-Payment of worker's compensation benefits after death;
-Permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation;
-Proof of business partnership;
-Public assistance from the Department of Human Services;
-Qualification at a facility for the elderly;
-Right of survivorship to custodial trust;
-Real property exemption from attachment or execution;
-Right to be notified of parole or escape of inmate;
-Right to change names;
-Right to enter into premarital agreement;
-Right to file action for nonsupport;
-Right to inherit property;
-Right to purchase leases and cash freehold agreements concerning the management and disposition of public land;
-Right to sue for tort and death by wrongful act;
-Right to support after divorce;
-Right to support from spouse;
-Rights and proceedings for involuntary hospitalization and treatment;
-Rights by way of dour [dower?] or courtesy;
-Rights to notice, protection, benefits, and inheritance under the uniform probate code;
-Sole interest in property;
-Spousal privilege and confidential marriage communications;
-Spousal immigration benefits;
-Status of children;
-Support payments in divorce action;
-Tax relief for natural disaster losses;
-Vacation allowance on termination of public employment by death;
-Veterans' preference to spouse in public employment;
-In vitro fertilization coverage;
-Waiver of fees for certified copies and searches of vital statistics

Here is some examples were marriage is unjustly denied to gay couples:

- Lisa Stewart of South Carolina has terminal cancer. She worries what will happen to her 5-year-old daughter Emily if she dies. Will her ten-year partner Lynn be able to maintain custody in a state that is considering an anti-gay adoption ban? Being able to marry would ease Lisa and Lynn's minds, and protect the integrity of their family. How could anyone construe Lisa and Lynn's desire to maintain their family's security as a threat to other families?

- Bill Randolph lost his partner of 26 years when the World Trade Center was attacked on September 11, 2001, but is not eligible for Social Security survivor benefits-benefits that would automatically be given to the surviving spouse in a heterosexual marriage. "If you're straight and have a marriage license, it's one, two, three," said Randolph. "We're clawing at it just to be acknowledged."

- Jeanne Newland left her job in Rochester N.Y. to go with her life partner, Natasha Doty, to Virginia where Doty had accepted a new job. Newland expected to find a job in short order, but after six months of trying unsuccessfully to find work, she applied for unemployment benefits-benefits that would have been granted automatically if she had been married to her partner. New York state denied her claim, stating that following her partner was not a "good cause" to leave a job. This situation "just didn't seem fair" to Newland.

- Bill Flanigan was prevented from visiting his life partner, Robert Daniel, when Daniel was dying in a Baltimore hospital in October 2000. Hospital personnel refused to acknowledge that Flanigan and Daniel were family. "Bill and Bobby were soulmates and one of the best couples I've known," said Grace Daniel, Robert's mother. "They loved each other, took care of each other, came to family holidays as a couple and Bill still babysits for my grandson. If that isn't family, then something is very wrong. When someone is dying, hospitals should be bringing families together rather than keeping them apart."

- When Linda Rodrigues Ramos died tragically in a car accident, her partner, Lydia Ramos, did not expect that she was about to lose their daughter also. After the funeral, Linda's sister held a memorial gathering and asked that the daughter be present. However, Linda's sister never returned the girl as she had promised, refusing Lydia's pleas and not even allowing Lydia to visit her daughter. Not understanding Lydia's relationship to her daughter, a court refused to grant her emergency guardianship. The girl was completely cut off from her only surviving mother, her siblings and her grandparents on that side. Only after going to court, with representation from Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, was Lydia able to gain permanent guardianship and be reunited with her daughter

Excellent. Top quality post.

Take a bow, Doujin. *Round of applause*.

Unfortunately - you are preaching to a) the converted; and b) those who will not listen to any amount of facts.

When same-sex marriages are not allowed, I am being discriminated against.
Simply because I am a man, I am not allowed to marry a man. Unlike a woman, who can marry all the men she wants. (one at a time though)
And a woman cannot marry another woman, simply because she is a woman. It's sexism, pure and simple.

When same-sex marriages are not allowed, I am being discriminated against.
Simply because I am a man, I am not allowed to marry a man. Unlike a woman, who can marry all the men she wants. (one at a time though)
And a woman cannot marry another woman, simply because she is a woman. It's sexism, pure and simple.


Though at least it is fair :-P both men and women discriminated against

If marriage is SO sacred, why when you go to these 'sin filled' cities like Las Vegas for example, are there wedding chapels on each corner? Marriage is really sacred. People get married to pets, material items, anything they can on the net or in Vegas and yet two people who love each other can't marry?10burgandy

If marriage is SO sacred, why when you go to these 'sin filled' cities like Las Vegas for example, are there wedding chapels on each corner? Marriage is really sacred. People get married to pets, material items, anything they can on the net or in Vegas and yet two people who love each other can't marry?10burgandy
Marriage is sacred if it's in the eyes of God. I doubt Vegas comes under that heading. Doubt Britney got married to whatsisface (55 hour marriage thing) in the sight of God. Dammit she was so wasted she probably didn't have all that much vision.

Marriage is sacred if it's in the eyes of God. I doubt Vegas comes under that heading. Doubt Britney got married to whatsisface (55 hour marriage thing) in the sight of God. Dammit she was so wasted she probably didn't have all that much vision.

So if two men don't get married in the sight of God, it's a-ok?

So if two men don't get married in the sight of God, it's a-ok?
Guess so, if they don't mind their marriage not being recognised by any religion which doesn't allow homosexual marriage or a government which doesn't grant it the same benefits as it would a heterosexual marriage. Knock yourself out.

So if two men don't get married in the sight of God, it's a-ok?


yup they just need a god proof umbrella

yup they just need a god proof umbrella
try eBay

Guess so, if they don't mind their marriage not being recognised by any religion which doesn't allow homosexual marriage or a government which doesn't grant it the same benefits as it would a heterosexual marriage. Knock yourself out.

So why are Christians so up in arms about same-sex marriages then? They don't need to have anything to do with them.

try eBay


no go

http://search.ebay.com/god-proof-umbrella_W0QQsokeywordredirectZ1QQfromZR8

no go

http://search.ebay.com/god-proof-umbrella_W0QQsokeywordredirectZ1QQfromZR8
Wha.. drat.. useless umbrella engineers. What do we pay them for. Windproof, rainproof.. but not God-proof. Losers. Hang on.. try "generic deity proof covers"

So why are Christians so up in arms about same-sex marriages then? They don't need to have anything to do with them.
Christians like myself have this wacky idea that people would prefer being in heaven than hell when the world falls apart and everyone dies (2 years, 87 days, 7 hours if you're interested...... kidding). This would demand that society in general knows how to get to heaven. This society would try to follow God's laws. I'd say the majority of Christians believe that homosexual relations go against the model that God has for us. Thus the interference.

And when you have a Christian (apparently) leading your country then it kind of gets difficult to change things. Although I see he's not done much against most of the other commandment breakers that plague the US and he even likes to kill innocent people in other countries to improve the state of his bank balance.

i tend to think of marriage as religious. if a church wants to say that they won't allow gay marriages, fine. if they want to say no straight marriages, also fine. but i don't think the government should have anything to do with marriage at all. i think it should all be civil unions in the eyes of the law. when people site religious reasons for the government to not allow gay marriage it give me the heebie-geebies. church and state NEED to remain seperate.

..church and state NEED to remain seperate.
but then George Bush and any position of power should stay sepArate, and that's not gonna happen for at least 4 years. You don't always get what you want. And you don't always get Christmas presents from your auntie.

Christians like myself have this wacky idea that people would prefer being in heaven than hell when the world falls apart and everyone dies (2 years, 87 days, 7 hours if you're interested...... kidding). This would demand that society in general knows how to get to heaven. This society would try to follow God's laws. I'd say the majority of Christians believe that homosexual relations go against the model that God has for us. Thus the interference.

How nice of you. Too bad I don't believe in God.

Equal rights!
Go gay people :)

If church and state should remain seperate, then the government should not recognize marriage at all. Let religions regulate marrige how they want, on the legal side have nothing but civil unions for everyone (which regulate property during the breakup of relationships, taxes, and legal rights implied by such relationships). Clearly, the way the government regulates marriage now is entanglement of state and religion, and therefore unconstitutional.

Of course, the conservatives would oppose this idea as well. They claim they support the sanctity of marriage, but they would not want the government to get out of it (allowing them to keep marriage as "sacred" as they damn well please). In reality, the issue is that they support the sanctity of the government. They want the government to continue to deal with marriage because they want the government to enforce their standards of morality.

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

Actually, funny you should mention it, I do know a gay person against gay marriage. He thinks it's all about money and property rights, which is true to some extent, but I personally think there is more to it. This gay person said this just after turning 50 though, and I know he's a lonely guy, I think he wishes he has someone to marry. You have to admit, ageing must be rough when you're gay, it's such a youth culture in the media.

http://mediar1.gpb.org/ramgen/leg/2004/sv021604.rm?usehostname

Skip to 2:12:24

Senator Fort from Fulton County, GA is my hero.

The lady after him rocks too.

Bottom line... if heterosexual people can marry (and divorce, and remarry, and re-divorce, and remarry again) homosexual couples should be able to as well. Why should we be the only ones to have that hanging over the head of any and all our relationships? Why should our unions be any different from theirs. If we can date for a year and have one or the other party start to get antsy and grouchy about "where we're going" and "when we're going to get married" so should they. *nods*

But then, I think heterosexual couples should have better nonmarriage options as well. Some people I know would rather have done a contracted "this person has these rights with respect to my well-being and property" type arrangement. My current husband and I would much rather have done things that way. We finally broke down and got married after ten years of relationship. Why? Because I teach and my healthcare is better. We would rather had the ability to keep things as they were and just have the option for me to add him to my healthcare without some kind of ceremony ('though we did a court wedding and kept it small). *shrug*

Marriage is sacred if it's in the eyes of God. I doubt Vegas comes under that heading. Doubt Britney got married to whatsisface (55 hour marriage thing) in the sight of God. Dammit she was so wasted she probably didn't have all that much vision.

Whose God? Which one(s)?

i tend to think of marriage as religious. if a church wants to say that they won't allow gay marriages, fine. if they want to say no straight marriages, also fine. but i don't think the government should have anything to do with marriage at all. i think it should all be civil unions in the eyes of the law. when people site religious reasons for the government to not allow gay marriage it give me the heebie-geebies. church and state NEED to remain seperate.

Hear, hear!!

i think that gay marriages should be allowed as if it is not then its surely an infringement of rights?
Mikey

ALLOW ALLOW ALLOW ALLOW ALLOW ALLOW ALLOW
ooo the advertisment is nice, londinium :headbang:

Bottom line... if heterosexual people can marry (and divorce, and remarry, and re-divorce, and remarry again) homosexual couples should be able to as well. Why should we be the only ones to have that hanging over the head of any and all our relationships? Why should our unions be any different from theirs. If we can date for a year and have one or the other party start to get antsy and grouchy about "where we're going" and "when we're going to get married" so should they. *nods*

But then, I think heterosexual couples should have better nonmarriage options as well. Some people I know would rather have done a contracted "this person has these rights with respect to my well-being and property" type arrangement. My current husband and I would much rather have done things that way. We finally broke down and got married after ten years of relationship. Why? Because I teach and my healthcare is better. We would rather had the ability to keep things as they were and just have the option for me to add him to my healthcare without some kind of ceremony ('though we did a court wedding and kept it small). *shrug*

I think that it is ridiculous that one of the biggest arguments so far used, has been the 'sanctity of marriage' argument.

As you pointed out, divorce and remarriage are pretty much facts-of-life for many people.

How can you argue 'sanctity' of marriage in America? You can get a drive-through wedding (if you are straight, obviously, because being gay would DEMEAN what a drive-through wedding stands for).

You can get married by Elvis! (Once again, only if you are straight, of course - because homosexuality really crimps the sanctity of Elvis conducting the ceremony)....

I think that it is ridiculous that one of the biggest arguments so far used, has been the 'sanctity of marriage' argument.

As you pointed out, divorce and remarriage are pretty much facts-of-life for many people.

How can you argue 'sanctity' of marriage in America? You can get a drive-through wedding (if you are straight, obviously, because being gay would DEMEAN what a drive-through wedding stands for).

You can get married by Elvis! (Once again, only if you are straight, of course - because homosexuality really crimps the sanctity of Elvis conducting the ceremony)....

*LMAO* I just got a priceless image of a couple dressed as Klingons getting married IN Klingon by a star fleet minister... Thanks for that. I'll take it with me to my meeting this afternoon.

*LMAO* I just got a priceless image of a couple dressed as Klingons getting married IN Klingon by a star fleet minister... Thanks for that. I'll take it with me to my meeting this afternoon.

That rocks! I wish I'd done that!

I have links to a Klingon bible project somewhere - I wonder if they've translated marriage vows, yet?