NationStates Jolt Archive

It was done here on this board by someone else.
The topic was "How Old Is Everyone".

Which I didn't post in...

So how do you know how old I am?

Did you go through and correlate everyone that had voted on this poll, with persons who had posted in the "How Old Is Everyone" thread? I'd be willing to bet that most people involved in this thread DIDN'T answer the other poll.

It's nothing to DO with FUN! Cetainly not the first time you find yourself doing it... it's about curiousity, and a 'hunger' you are new to... an 'itch' you haven't yet learned to scratch.

Now, they might have sex AGAIN because it was fun....

i have to disagree with you there. my first time was all about fun, but that is mainly because i didn't go from zero to sixty...i had engaged in sex play before, just hadn't "gone all the way," so i already knew that certain things felt really good. i already knew that certain kinds of stimulation in certain parts of my body were a great deal of fun, and sexual intercourse was just another way to have that kind of fun.

The kids are going to have sex anyway because our biology tells us to.

We start having sexual urges whether or not we have been coached on how to deal with them - and those urges will eventually lead us into situations that lead to intercourse.

Or do you think mommy and daddy bunnies read the "where do baby bunnies come from" to all the little bunnies?

No - our biology makes us want sex, and our biology lends itself to the practice of sex.

The ONLY way to subvert biology, is education. If you teach kids about sex, the risks, the truth around it... they are LESS likely to end up having uneducated, exploratory sex - since they will KNOW about the urges they feel - and that gives them SOME capacity to deal with them.
I agree. Unfortunately the prevalent form of education in the UK is from the media which tells all and sundry that multi-partnered sex lives are the norm and that you are abnormal if you don't agree.

This explains the increasing rate of under age sex in the UK. The percentage of kids who had under age sex as recently as ten years ago is far lower than present day. I blame fast food. Fast food makes kids horny.

I'm now going to run away from the MacDonalds Lawyers throwing lawsuits at me.

i have to disagree with you there. my first time was all about fun, but that is mainly because i didn't go from zero to sixty...i had engaged in sex play before, just hadn't "gone all the way," so i already knew that certain things felt really good. i already knew that certain kinds of stimulation in certain parts of my body were a great deal of fun, and sexual intercourse was just another way to have that kind of fun.

You are confusing the 'First Time' with the first time.

The point made was that kids have sex because they are told it is fun.

My argument is that you start having sex because your biology changes... and 'makes you' want to explore....

The first time you started having sexual relations - it was because you were curious, or felt a need. The first time you had 'SEX'... your 'First Time', you had already started having 'sexual relations'.

I agree. Unfortunately the prevalent form of education in the UK is from the media which tells all and sundry that multi-partnered sex lives are the norm and that you are abnormal if you don't agree.

This explains the increasing rate of under age sex in the UK. The percentage of kids who had under age sex as recently as ten years ago is far lower than present day. Lecture time..

I don't believe those statistics.

I think that maybe more kids ADMIT that they are having sex underage... but try asking the generation 10 years older WHEN THEY first had sex... and I think you'll find kids have been having sex at puberty forever, pretty much.

Where is the evidence?

As my soon to be husband put it - I'm straight and marring a man that is Bi-sexual - you don't choose to be gay or striaght anymore then you choose to be striaght. You are either attracted or not attracted to the other sex, it's part of our physical make-up and I really don't see how you can argue it.

And I don't know where it was said somewhere else but ummm marriage is not an institution of Christianity... Christianity hasn't even been around 2000 years yet and marriage has been here much longer.

Marriage started off as agreements, they can have relgion added to them but they are not relgious in their own right. You can make them by promising to God(s) if you beleive in a God(s), but it is not a requirement.

The US government has no right mixing religous beleifs with practicing policy, same-sex marriage should not be an issue because it should be allowed. Banning marriage all together is taking away our freedoms, we should not close them but expand them.

If you don't agree with same-sex marriage but live in the US then the solution is simple <b>don't marry someone of the same sex.</b>

You are confusing the 'First Time' with the first time.

The point made was that kids have sex because they are told it is fun.

My argument is that you start having sex because your biology changes... and 'makes you' want to explore....

The first time you started having sexual relations - it was because you were curious, or felt a need. The first time you had 'SEX'... your 'First Time', you had already started having 'sexual relations'.
ahh, i see what you are saying. fair enough, can't argue with that...i can clearly remember being 11 years old and wondering why on Earth anybody would want to waste time doing something like sex (because EEW! gross!), but then i remember being 13 and realizing that the notion of kissing was no longer quite so icky...in fact, it seemed like it might be kind of...hmm...

i certainly didn't just wake up one morning and decide to be interested in sex, nor did i consciously choose who i would be attracted to, so i have to chalk it up to biology.

By throwing names like bigot, that is what you are attempting to do, dont
deny it either.

Bigot is a word. The definition applies to you. Therefore, it is proper to refer to you using that word. However, my referring to you that way in no way restricts your speech or your opinion.

Point is straight men in most cultures dont , some do, but this is a sign of respect more than anything, and has nothing to do with homosexuality. This is usually a peck on the cheek, where as gay men.. dear oh dear.

Did you miss the part where I said "unless they are making out (which no one should do in public)" are are you intentionally making yourself look stupid?

I think that the Federal Government should stay out of it. Marriage is a state institution presently and should stay that way. Also, why would a gay person want to be in a straight mainsteam ideaology any way. Just call it civil union and give them all their benefits accordingly and go on with our lives.

I think that the Federal Government should stay out of it. Marriage is a state institution presently and should stay that way. Also, why would a gay person want to be in a straight mainsteam ideaology any way. Just call it civil union and give them all their benefits accordingly and go on with our lives.

I know someone who would have somthing to say about that.

http://www.ranting-gryphon.com/Rants/2rant-gay_marriage.mp3

Infact i think other people should lisen to this.

The Federal gov. should stay out of it. Especially in secular states where, when you get right down to it, the have no right not to stay out of it.

Marriage(civil union, whatever) is a Civil right!

I know someone who would have somthing to say about that.

http://www.ranting-gryphon.com/Rants/2rant-gay_marriage.mp3

Infact i think other people should lisen to this.

Hehe...Ranting Gryphon is awesome

Let me preface my next series of responses by saying that I've had a majorly crappy day. So if I'm not up to par, forgive me.

Ah but just calling someone a bigot because they are against gay marriage is too broad a term anyway, in other words you are only looking for a quick end to a debate by calling me a name that initiates ostracisation from fearful people less they be tarred with the same brush.


A bigot is someone who thinks others should be denied equal rights for circumstances beyond their control that do not harm others. You think gays should not get married because we are gay (beyond our control) and we harm no one. Ergo, you are a bigot.


Am I against black people, asians, arabs, because of who they are, no.
Therefore I am not a bigot here, am I against gays marrying by any means
available, yes I am, strongly, now I am, in your eyes anyway, a bigot.
What Im trying to get at is, you arent being very specific, maybe you should

say instead, partly bigoted.


You do not have to be opposed to every minority to be a bigot. Its a boolean indictor. You either are or aren't. It's like pregnancy--one cannot be partially pregnant.


Well they would be a very small minority I think.

You live in a world of your own dreams. While I will admit I have no statistics on this, neither do you. Further, I actually being gay have a little more insight into this than you do.

As if a scientist in this day and age would give a view against homosexuality
and marriage, he/she would be the victim, as has happenned in the past, of a
cowardly and nasty smear campaign.


Oh please. People against homosexuality are in the majority. Those opposed have nothing to fear (unlike those who are pro who are often boycotted, sometimes attacked, occasionally killed). If a scientist can give me a study that shows homosexuality to be a choice or harmful, I will read it critically and objectively. I've never seen such a study that could nto easily be shown to be biased, skewed, or outright a lie.


You call your views educated because they are PC, me disagreeing with them
doesnt make mine any less.


I call my views educated because I have been able to back them up with scientifics studies and statistics. You have not. That is why your's are uneducated.

Again I reiterate to you, I do not select my views because they are PC. To follow something blindly is stupid. I do not follow anything blindly, rather I think for myself and explore the world around me.

If you call me a mindless PC-follower again you will do nothing but prove that you do not listen to my arguements and that you are indeed close-minded and uneducated.


A priest in France was recently jailed for preaching against homosexuality, as
it was seen as a hate crime.

You cannot critisize homosexuality in Sweden either.


I do not know much about the law in either of these countries nor of these specific cases so I would be reticent to say much. I would posit (though without any evidence) that the French case probably had something involved in it that was personal or defamation of character. Homosexuality was involved, but I would bet that there was a personal attack going on. Its just like if I called you a lying crook with no proof in an attempt to harm your reputation, I should be punished for libel. That doesn't mean that I am being punished because I was attacking crooks.

Again however, I do not know the specifics of these cases so all I've just said is speculation.

Yet.

Yet you accused gay people of proposing changes. Get your arguments together before you make them. Gay people have NOT proposed changing the constitution and yet you accused them as a minoirty trying to change it.


In your eyes it would, but I dont believe the founding fathers really
envisioned the country they were creating, would slide one day into such a
morally divided place.


You've read a lot of their writings and know what they intended do you? Oh wait, you likely think that the majority of them were Christians and were out to create a theocracy. I on the other hand have read what they said--we are NOT A Christian nation and we are founded on the principle that EVERYONE should have equal treatment under the law.


A majority of the people in the US see themselves as Christian in some form
or another, so whether your constitution states otherwise, that is what you
are.

Actually, since our entire government is based upon the Constitution, the highest law in the land, our country is exactly what it says it is. A secular land where the religion of one group cannot be affected by another.


And I dont think there are that many radical Christians in the US anyway,

anywhere for that matter.

Id say the only radicals you really have are the demented greens.

You've obviously not met followers of Robertson, Fallwell, or hell the majority of Southern Baptists. Trust me, there are plenty of radicals here. How is it in Australia?

I do not know much about the law in either of these countries nor of these specific cases so I would be reticent to say much. I would posit (though without any evidence) that the French case probably had something involved in it that was personal or defamation of character. Homosexuality was involved, but I would bet that there was a personal attack going on. Its just like if I called you a lying crook with no proof in an attempt to harm your reputation, I should be punished for libel. That doesn't mean that I am being punished because I was attacking crooks.

Actually, France is incredibly anti-religion, so this very well may be true. Of course, it would be due to the anti-religion part, rather than some imaginary PC conspiracy

Showing your true class here. :rolleyes:
How would you like to be fed to a lion, or worse, how would you like to watch
your child get dragged out of your arms first by a lion, and then eaten in
front of you.


How would you like to be toldt hat you cannot get married because it might offend someone else? How would you like to be told that you don't get the rights that everyone else gets in choosing the person they love to spend their life with? How would you like to be treated as a second class citizen and inferior human being?

Gays have been being fed to the proverbial lions for years and its damned well time for it to stop.

First off, I am not a homophobe.

The reason why I condone homosexual "marriage" is not because I disagree with homosexuality, but simply because of the term - marriage.
In my view marriage is an ancient tradition that is based on the union of one man and one woman. I believe that our old definition of the word should be upheld, and that therefore homosexuals should not be allowed to engage in a "marriage"

HOWEVER, I do support homosexual couples, and I believe they should be able to form "civil unions" with all the same benifits that married couples recieve.

Marriage is an ancient tradition that is based upon the husband owning his wife. Should we keep that around too?

You've obviously not met followers of Robertson, Fallwell, or hell the majority of Southern Baptists. Trust me, there are plenty of radicals here. How is it in Australia?

Oooh! Oooh! Oooh! And Jack Chick! A "Christian" so radical that his only use in life is making tracts that we can all MST3K and make fun of!

Well, I can't account for the nuances, loopholes and general stupidities in US law, but in the UK I'm fairly sure I'm accurate here. What's the loophole in the rape law: The rapist must be overage? There was a case here, not so long ago where a bunch of 10-11 year olds raped a 90+ year old woman. How would US law deal with that?


You seem to be missing the difference between rape (physically forcing someone unwilling to have sex with you) and statuatory rape (sleeping with someone underage while you are of age). Often stat rapes are completely conscenting while the regular term "rape" never is.

It was done here on this board by someone else.
The topic was "How Old Is Everyone".

I didn't respond to that and I'm not a child.

WRONG! There have been many news reports that talk about a minor raping another minor and being charged for it. Ever heard of "tried as an adult"?

In which case they would be tried for "rape" not statuatory rape.

Actually, France is incredibly anti-religion, so this very well may be true. Of course, it would be due to the anti-religion part, rather than some imaginary PC conspiracy

I'll by into that. As I said, everything I posted on that topic was conjecture.

Marriage is an agreement between a man and woman that they will live together and raise their children together, caring for each other and their family when they are sick or injured. I know that both of my parents work, both of them do chores, and they are married.

To the extent that marriage is a private agreement between two people, I have no problem with gays declaring they are married to each other, in the same way that I have no problem with someone declaring they are married to their cat: it's a little disgusting, but as long as it doesn't injure me, I don't really care.

However, marriage is also a large part of the glue that holds society together. Look at the netherlands; they passed a gay marriage law that essentially said, "it doesn't matter what two consenting adults do." In the years since then, out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed, as have divorces, prostitution, cheating, and all the negatives associated with a weakening of marriage. Birthrates have also drastically declined, except among the Islamic immigrants, who turn their wives into baby machines. I expect this trend to continue throughout Europe, which will gradually become a more and more islamic continent. It would be a troubling trend if the arabs were any good at fighting.

I am for gay marriages, though I'm not gay. Homosexuals are still people and marriage should be allowed for them. People say "But that's not the way God wanted it!". Well a lot of things aren't the way God wanted it! WHY AREN'T YOU FIGHTING ALL OF THEM?! WHY AREN'T YOU ASKING THE GOVERNMENT FOR HARSH PUNISHMENTS ON RAPISTS?! That's a sin too isn't it?!

I would like to state for the record that I'm not against religious people in fact I myself am religious, but I believe people have rights even if they believe differently than me!

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


Here are some reasons, Chodolo -

1) Marriage is a word which means, for most people, the combining of the complementary sexes of male and female into one greater being, united for life - from which new human life can be produced and where such new human life is best raised. Gay 'marriage' will destroy that meaning for the next generation. It would be like people who have a game with hula-hoops demanding that everyone call such baseball. Hula-hoop games may be what some people want, but could never be baseball. And it would debase the game of baseball to call such such.

2) Gay marriage, for those who are religious (the majority) confuses children about God's loving plan for human sexuality and the complementarity of sexes. The deviant sexual acts in which, say, homosexual men engage (which often involve the feces and rectal tracts of another), are perverse, degraded and disgusting. Very few want their children to believe that such acts are normal, good, healthy or to be promoted. Government sanction of relationships in which such perverse acts are engaged in is not what most people want for their government.

3) Gay marriage will lead to gay adoptions - and the denial of a mother and a father for children. This is an act of unlove toward children - who deserve the love of a father and of a mother (each of whom contributes a different form of love to the upbringing of a child).

4) All the reasons for gay marriage can be applied to any other group of people - 2 men and one woman, 2 sisters and one man, etc. etc. They will all eventually have to be called 'marriage' too. At that point, the whole thing will be meaningless.

5) Homosexuals have the right to call their relationships whatever they want. They have no intrinsic right to have their relationships called marriage.

Best,

The Emperor of Nicod

Here are some reasons, Chodolo -

1) Marriage is a word which means, for most people, the combining of the complementary sexes of male and female into one greater being, united for life - from which new human life can be produced and where such new human life is best raised. Gay 'marriage' will destroy that meaning for the next generation. It would be like people who have a game with hula-hoops demanding that everyone call such baseball. Hula-hoop games may be what some people want, but could never be baseball. And it would debase the game of baseball to call such such.


Denying people rights because most people cannot understand the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage in a country where there is a clear separation of church and state is not acceptable. Further, by your definition, even straight couples that could not reproduce should nto get married.


2) Gay marriage, for those who are religious (the majority) confuses children about God's loving plan for human sexuality and the complementarity of sexes. The deviant sexual acts in which, say, homosexual men engage (which often involve the feces and rectal tracts of another), are perverse, degraded and disgusting. Very few want their children to believe that such acts are normal, good, healthy or to be promoted. Government sanction of relationships in which such perverse acts are engaged in is not what most people want for their government.


We do not live in a theocracy. God's plan is not the basis of our laws. Homosexual sex acts might be disgusting to you, but they are normal for me while many heterosexual acts make me nauseated. I don't propose making them illegal though.

Further, denying people equality because the majority thinks they should be second class citizens is also not acceptable in our country. To do so would be to deny rights to women, african americans, hinduis, left handed people, etc. at some point in our history. If we are a nation of equality then we should be a nation of equality. Tyranny by majority is still tyranny.


3) Gay marriage will lead to gay adoptions - and the denial of a mother and a father for children. This is an act of unlove toward children - who deserve the love of a father and of a mother (each of whom contributes a different form of love to the upbringing of a child).


Educate yourself before speaking. The APA, APedA, AMA, and every other group who has studied this has found that children who grow up in gay homes are just as healthy, happy, well-adjusted, and successful as those who grow up in two parent straight homes. By your logic, we should also take children away from single parents and force them into two parent homes.


4) All the reasons for gay marriage can be applied to any other group of people - 2 men and one woman, 2 sisters and one man, etc. etc. They will all eventually have to be called 'marriage' too. At that point, the whole thing will be meaningless.


We've already discussed the reaons why a slippery slope don't apply here in this thread. Read back on it. Normally I don't like to do that, but I'm low on time. I would liek to point out though that there are religious groups who believe in polygamy--isn't saying that they cannot get married rather like denying them religious freedom?


5) Homosexuals have the right to call their relationships whatever they want. They have no intrinsic right to have their relationships called marriage.


They have an intrinsic right to be treated equally by the government and to get the same rights and responsibilities of all couples who have chosen to make their lives together and to publicly pronounce their union. The government calls this marriage (civil marriage would probably be a better term) therefore homosexuals have a right to marriage. If the government wants to change the title to civil unions for everyone, then so be it. Marriage can be left in the churches.

I should also point out to you that churches to not have a monopoly on marriage. You can get married by a justice-of-the-peace or by a judge. The government shares the privledge of granting the rights of marriage with churches, but does not have to do so. It is simply something that makes things easier. Gay people are not asking that churches before to recognize their unions (you are free to be as close-minded as you like) but we do expect the government--OUR GOVERNMENT as much as yours--to treat us equally as human beings.

Are hermaphrodites allowed to marry anybody in the US?Nope. They are allowed to marry members of the "other" sex. (except in Mass. IIRC). And it's anyone's guess what some dumb-ass judge will decide their gender is.

I think men and women are each others and only each others property, in marriage.Eww, icky!

Let's not. But yes divorce is a step forward in the progress of society; it grants the citizens greater liberty, and better a good divorce than a bad marriage. I do think there are far to many divorces, but I don't see it the place of the government to restrict access.

[QUOTE=Schnappslant]I said condoms have a 95% SUCCESS rate. That means 95% of condoms initally employed correctly will not split or fall off.Cite? I was completely unable to find a success rate per use when I was looking a few years back.

I got that from you saying that people would base their compatibility on whether their sex was good.I got from that that if the sex wasn't good the people involved were incompatible. Personally, I think it isn't necessarily so, but it is a good thing to know.

If the government can realise that the law is being broken so easily they should either amend it or enforce it.And exactly how is the government going to prevent kids from having sex underage? Yes, I absolutely agree that some kids are having sex far too young. But I would not like the sort of society that would be necessary to prevent it.

Why not, that is the correct analysis of the warning label on a box of Trojan condoms, Lifestyles, and Duratex. I have used Trojan condoms well over a hundred times (TMI I know), and I have had none break, and one fall off. Oh, and the warning labels on the boxes have nothing like the 95% statistic.

The impact of living together prior to marriage is a higher divorce rate.Sounds like a post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy. Both living together prior to marriage and divorce might well be effects of a common cause. A correlation between the two doesn't mean that living together prior to marriage leads to/contributes to divorce.

..which could mean those less likely to consider divorce tend not to cohabitate etc., prior to marriage.New Fuglies said it better than I could.

Sheesh, since when was procreation a necessity for marriage?No time as far as I know. But sex (consumation) was a necessity for marriage at one time.

This old chestnut. :rolleyes: There is a certain type of homophobe that pops up now and then that obsesses over what gay men "do", often describing gay sex in pornographic detail.

Its not hatred Grave, its disgust.From what I've heard this is actually accurate. Which doesn't explain why you're here. I find tomatoes disgusting, but you won't find me petitioning Campell's not to sell canned tomatoes.

Because im homophobic and seeing them together gives me bad mental picturesTry not thinking about it.

... you are only looking for a quick end to a debate by calling me a name that initiates ostracisation from fearful people less they be tarred with the same brush.I don't think Pracus is that optimistic.

Another pertinant question is, 'why' would the kids be going to have sex anyway? Because it's fun. Why's it fun?Ask an endocrinologist.

Let me preface my next series of responses by saying that I've had a majorly crappy day.I hope tomorrow's better for you.

Oooh! Oooh! Oooh! And Jack Chick! A "Christian" so radical that his only use in life is making tracts that we can all MST3K and make fun of!I collect them. "Hi There!" has just such a cheerful cover. "Be Eaten First" was a great parody, but it's unfortunately no longer on the web :-(. (Premise: Worship Cthulhu, so when he wakes you will be among the first eaten and will not have to endure the subsequent horror).

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

bisexual?
and by religious do u mean christian?
and to be a quote unquote religous christian you seem to be breaking a majo rule there

ps being a christian is not about being religous it is about a relationship (not romantic mind you that is not possible) with god

I didn't feel like reading all the post but I'm here to say I'm for it because I don't see any reason why gay-marriage should be banned. And this is not a good reason "Because it's disgusting and icky and ewww." That is a lame reason seriously like Dettibok said, people don't go around trying to ban other nasty stuff, I mean why not smoking or McDonalds food. And another reason that is pretty bad in my opinion is to incorperate God into the mixture. Equal rights is equal rights.

However, marriage is also a large part of the glue that holds society together. Look at the netherlands; they passed a gay marriage law that essentially said, "it doesn't matter what two consenting adults do." In the years since then, out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed, as have divorces, prostitution, cheating, and all the negatives associated with a weakening of marriage.

I don't know what propoganda site you got this from, but it is wrong. The Netherlands has had a low marriage rate (and thus plenty of out-of-wedlock births) for quite a while. The reason? The law in the Netherlands actually essentially punishes those who get married - there aren't really benefits to civil marriage there, but there are disincentives.

The divorce rate has also been high for many years, but actually *decreased* after gay marriage was legalized. It is still higher than that in other countries, but per capita divorce decreased.

Birthrates have also drastically declined, except among the Islamic immigrants, who turn their wives into baby machines. I expect this trend to continue throughout Europe, which will gradually become a more and more islamic continent. It would be a troubling trend if the arabs were any good at fighting.

Likewise, birthrates have been declining for decades in Europe. This has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. It has more to do with the simple sociological fact that families in the more industrialized nations tend to have less children. Thus, the more industrialized a nation gets, the lower the birthrate will be. Compare third-world countries to 1st-world and you will see what I mean.

The rest is simply a bigotted diatribe against Islam.

1) Marriage is a word which means, for most people, the combining of the complementary sexes of male and female into one greater being, united for life - from which new human life can be produced and where such new human life is best raised. Gay 'marriage' will destroy that meaning for the next generation. It would be like people who have a game with hula-hoops demanding that everyone call such baseball. Hula-hoop games may be what some people want, but could never be baseball. And it would debase the game of baseball to call such such.

You mean that marriage means this to you. Marriage means something different to everyone. To the vast majority of people I have met, it means a comittment that two people make to live their lives together as one. Children may, but do not have to be, a part of the plan.

2) Gay marriage, for those who are religious (the majority) confuses children about God's loving plan for human sexuality and the complementarity of sexes. The deviant sexual acts in which, say, homosexual men engage (which often involve the feces and rectal tracts of another), are perverse, degraded and disgusting. Very few want their children to believe that such acts are normal, good, healthy or to be promoted. Government sanction of relationships in which such perverse acts are engaged in is not what most people want for their government.

Of course, since homosexuality has been shown time and time again to not be a choice, telling homosexual children that their feelings are "deviant" or unhealthy will just make them more unhealthy.

Meanwhile, your particular church does not rule the government, nor should it.

3) Gay marriage will lead to gay adoptions - and the denial of a mother and a father for children. This is an act of unlove toward children - who deserve the love of a father and of a mother (each of whom contributes a different form of love to the upbringing of a child).

You do realize that the vast majority of children waiting for adoption are already "denied a mother and a father," right? You do realize that most of them will wait until they are 18 and never get adopted?

You also realize, I presume, that simply one male and one female role model are *never* enough to fully raise a child and that *all* parents should provide other role models.

And here's a fun one. Studies have shown that children raised by homosexual couples had no more mental problems than those raised by straight couples or single parents. In addition, the chances of them being homosexual themselves was no higher than that in the general population. In addition to that, the only major difference was that those raised by homosexuals tended to be more tolerant people.

4) All the reasons for gay marriage can be applied to any other group of people - 2 men and one woman, 2 sisters and one man, etc. etc. They will all eventually have to be called 'marriage' too. At that point, the whole thing will be meaningless.

Actually, they can't. Why don't you study the law, the reasoning behind government recognition of marriage, and get back to me.

5) Homosexuals have the right to call their relationships whatever they want. They have no intrinsic right to have their relationships called marriage.

Neither do heterosexuals. There is no intrinsic right to call anything marriage. However, our government calls the legal protections given to those who decide to live as a single entity marriage. Therefore, it must provide those protections equally to all couples that want it, unless it has a damn good reason to deny it that is not based in religion. No such reason has ever been posited that hasn't been promptly disproven by scientific studies.

God's plan is not the basis of our laws.

...and if you listen, very closely, you'll find the chorus of Founding Fathers' ghosts disagreeing with you. ;)

For my own, personal stance:

I voted against it in this poll. I also voted to ban gay marriage on Nov. 2. I will continue to do so until there are no governmentally-granted economic benefits to marriage (which I think there are too much of in the first place, hetero or not). We don't subsidize narcotic or hallucinogen use, and we shouldn't subsidize this either.

Well let's see... separate but equal never worked, gay marriage isn't hurting ANYONE, it could actually help certain aspects of things, the people who argue it's a religious reason... well um, people get married by judges. What about 2 atheists getting married? Gonna ban that too?

...and if you listen, very closely, you'll find the chorus of Founding Fathers' ghosts disagreeing with you. ;)

Yes, because the Founding Fathers never stated that our country isn't based on Christianity....

Oh wait, they did.

For my own, personal stance:

I voted against it in this poll. I also voted to ban gay marriage on Nov. 2. I will continue to do so until there are no governmentally-granted economic benefits to marriage (which I think there are too much of in the first place, hetero or not). We don't subsidize narcotic or hallucinogen use, and we shouldn't subsidize this either.

Are you really so much of an idiot that you would compare a normal biological occurrence to a harmful act such as hard drug usage?

I am not for gay marriages. My personal belief (obviously Christian) is that its wrong and sort of icky. I'm sure this offends many of you, but then again many of you offend me by hating 'homophobes'.

That being said, I WOULD STILL VOTE YES for gay marriages and/or civil unions. For legal and financial reasons, having the marriage/civil union status is very important for couples in such cases as death, divorce and children.

Ideally, the US is supposed to be a non-religious government. Therefore I can't base my vote on religious ideals. Its up to people who belong to my religion, not the state, to say that being gay is wrong. Marriage is based on religious notions and probably shouldn't have any legal meaning behind it. But since it is legal, it needs to be fair and non-discriminative.

yes we are so hounded you guys make it hard on me to even post becasue I know it will provoke your anger... see like right there :p
I'd like to here a single decent argument against gay marriage that leaves out religion

I am not for gay marriages. My personal belief (obviously Christian) is that its wrong and sort of icky. I'm sure this offends many of you, but then again many of you offend me by hating 'homophobes'.

That being said, I WOULD STILL VOTE YES for gay marriages and/or civil unions. For legal and financial reasons, having the marriage/civil union status is very important for couples in such cases as death, divorce and children.

Ideally, the US is supposed to be a non-religious government. Therefore I can't base my vote on religious ideals. Its up to people who belong to my religion, not the state, to say that being gay is wrong. Marriage is based on religious notions and probably shouldn't have any legal meaning behind it. But since it is legal, it needs to be fair and non-discriminative.

You are not a homophobe and none of us will hate you. Thank you for your logic and understanding on the US as a nation. I respect that.

...and you wonder why the people who disagree with you don't post here :rolleyes:

none of us will hate you.

Of course no one here will hate you. You agree with them *laugh*. Just try to post a different opinion. JUST TRY. You'll see their real views on 'tolerance'.

Of course no one here will hate you. You agree with them *laugh*. Just try to post a different opinion. JUST TRY. You'll see their real views on 'tolerance'.

Actually we don't agree. However, we did compromise. I can respect other people's opinions to live their life however they want to. I should be afforded the same respect however and allowed to live mine.

Of course no one here will hate you. You agree with them *laugh*. Just try to post a different opinion. JUST TRY. You'll see their real views on 'tolerance'.

There is a difference between posting an opinion, posting rhetoric that is completely wrong and has been proven as such, and posting something meant to be inflammatory.

You have done the last two, but I don't think I've seen the first one from you yet.

...and if you listen, very closely, you'll find the chorus of Founding Fathers' ghosts disagreeing with you. ;)

Treaty of Tripoli

QED, fucker.

I have no problem with gay marriges... I think that those of us of alternative sexuality should be allowed to get married, or at least have the same benefits as a man/woman relationship, like insurance and hospital visitation rights... We should at least have the same social freedoms that people of "normal" sexuality have.

should be banned

why?

Let me preface my next series of responses by saying that I've had a majorly crappy day. So if I'm not up to par, forgive me.

A bigot is someone who thinks others should be denied equal rights for circumstances beyond their control that do not harm others. You think gays should not get married because we are gay (beyond our control) and we harm no one. Ergo, you are a bigot.

You do not have to be opposed to every minority to be a bigot. Its a boolean indictor. You either are or aren't. It's like pregnancy--one cannot be partially pregnant.

You live in a world of your own dreams. While I will admit I have no statistics on this, neither do you. Further, I actually being gay have a little more insight into this than you do.

Seems fine to me.

Then again, my day was pretty crappy, too... so maybe I am more tolerant?

(Hang about... I'm always LESS tolerant after a crappy day...)

Guess it must have been a good post, then!

Marriage is an agreement between a man and woman that they will live together and raise their children together, caring for each other and their family when they are sick or injured. I know that both of my parents work, both of them do chores, and they are married.

To the extent that marriage is a private agreement between two people, I have no problem with gays declaring they are married to each other, in the same way that I have no problem with someone declaring they are married to their cat: it's a little disgusting, but as long as it doesn't injure me, I don't really care.

However, marriage is also a large part of the glue that holds society together. Look at the netherlands; they passed a gay marriage law that essentially said, "it doesn't matter what two consenting adults do." In the years since then, out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed, as have divorces, prostitution, cheating, and all the negatives associated with a weakening of marriage. Birthrates have also drastically declined, except among the Islamic immigrants, who turn their wives into baby machines. I expect this trend to continue throughout Europe, which will gradually become a more and more islamic continent. It would be a troubling trend if the arabs were any good at fighting.

I think you are maybe looking at factors of a society, rather than something that is the 'cause' of the other 'effects'.

How, pray tell, would a pro-homosexual law increase the number of children?

Marriage, as it stands at the moment, is dead. It is an outmoded institution that no longer meets the requirements of society... but, rather than update it to match society, certain factions would try to retard society.

Divorce is increasing, but that has nothing to do with out-of-wedlock children, and neither of those factors has much to do with adultery.

Do not try to draw a parallel, unless you have some evidence that SUGGESTS a parallel.

Here are some reasons, Chodolo -

1) Marriage is a word which means, for most people, the combining of the complementary sexes of male and female into one greater being, united for life - from which new human life can be produced and where such new human life is best raised. Gay 'marriage' will destroy that meaning for the next generation. It would be like people who have a game with hula-hoops demanding that everyone call such baseball. Hula-hoop games may be what some people want, but could never be baseball. And it would debase the game of baseball to call such such.

2) Gay marriage, for those who are religious (the majority) confuses children about God's loving plan for human sexuality and the complementarity of sexes. The deviant sexual acts in which, say, homosexual men engage (which often involve the feces and rectal tracts of another), are perverse, degraded and disgusting. Very few want their children to believe that such acts are normal, good, healthy or to be promoted. Government sanction of relationships in which such perverse acts are engaged in is not what most people want for their government.

3) Gay marriage will lead to gay adoptions - and the denial of a mother and a father for children. This is an act of unlove toward children - who deserve the love of a father and of a mother (each of whom contributes a different form of love to the upbringing of a child).

4) All the reasons for gay marriage can be applied to any other group of people - 2 men and one woman, 2 sisters and one man, etc. etc. They will all eventually have to be called 'marriage' too. At that point, the whole thing will be meaningless.

5) Homosexuals have the right to call their relationships whatever they want. They have no intrinsic right to have their relationships called marriage.

Best,

The Emperor of Nicod

1) Don't talk 'destroying marriage', when it is already possible to have a drive-through wedding, or get married by elvis. To most people, marriage is just the WORD for the ceremony that unites two (or more) people.

Christians don't own the word 'marriage', do not own the concept of 'marriage', and should learn to keep their prejudices to themselves, rather than trying to inflict their narrow world view on everyone else.

2) You turn gay marriage into a discourse on what you perceive as 'gay-sex'. But, you neglect the fact that anal intercourse is at least as prevalent in heterosexual society as it is in homosexual society, and more prevalent (by far) among straight women, than among gay women... for obvious reasons.

3) The 'unlove of children' is just a really hurtful thing to say, and based on a nonsense. Children with only one parent, for example, may seek guidance of a certain gender in someone other than a parent. Children may have bad parents. Should both of those things lead to a ban on straight marriage?

I have known gay couples, with children. As a rule, I have found those children to be very well adjusted, and no more likely to be 'lacking love' than the children of straight marriages.

Maybe I actually have experience of the gay community. It sounds like you are speaking from pure, unadulterated prejudice.

Do you know any gay parents?

4) Are you saying that gay people shouldn't be able to get married because it will lead to polygamy? People have tried to make polygamy the law before, without gay marriage - but why let a fact get in the way of a perfectly good blind prejudice, eh?

5) Homosexuals have the right to call their union whatever they want - but that is an irrelevence. As long as 'straights' have a different ceremony (regardless of religion), there is no equality.

Straights don't 'own' the word marriage, either... and neither do christians.

...and you wonder why the people who disagree with you don't post here :rolleyes:
Really? Seems plenty of people pop in to decry anal bumfuckery, and then leap to a government's duty to ban gay marriage.

My position is simple: people should be able to live their lives how they want.

...and if you listen, very closely, you'll find the chorus of Founding Fathers' ghosts disagreeing with you. ;)
The founding fathers were NOT Christains (http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/ffnc/)

Anyway:

-Marriage is not a soley religious act anymore. In fact, it didn't start out that way either. Religion just took over marriage in some places.

-If there's no argument against gay marriage other than religion, then gay marriage must be allowed. Unless "serparation of church and state" became voided without anybody noticing.(hint:It didn't.)

-"Gays are icky, so I don't want them married" is not a valid argument. I think that Mcdonalds' food is disgusting. But I'm not crusading to ban their food. I think that owning a gun is a horrid thing. But the only time I'll mention it is if somebody asks me about it. I think that religion is horribly immoral(hey, with it saying crap like: "BAN GAY MARRIAGE BECAUSE...UH...GOD SAYS SO!", "WOMEN ARE WORTHLESS AND MUST BE HOUSEHOLD SLAVES BECAUSE...GOD SAYS SO!", "OTHER RELIGIONS ARE WRONG BECAUSE...OUR GOD SAYS SO! SO THEIR FOLLOWERS MUST BE KILLED!", "INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE IS WRONG BECAUSE...GOD SAYS SO!"(caps are for both emphasis, and because most religous rants sound like what people who TYPE IN ALL CAPS sound like:Idiots), and many, many other atrocious things, it makes perfect sense). But I'm not looking to ban religion.

-IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU. AT ALL. (Unless you're gay. Then it's a good thing for you.)

The founding fathers were NOT Christains (http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/ffnc/)

Anyway:

-Marriage is not a soley religious act anymore. In fact, it didn't start out that way either. Religion just took over marriage in some places.

-If there's no argument against gay marriage other than religion, then gay marriage must be allowed. Unless "serparation of church and state" became voided without anybody noticing.(hint:It didn't.)

-"Gays are icky, so I don't want them married" is not a valid argument. I think that Mcdonalds' food is disgusting. But I'm not crusading to ban their food. I think that owning a gun is a horrid thing. But the only time I'll mention it is if somebody asks me about it. I think that religion is horribly immoral(hey, with it saying crap like: "BAN GAY MARRIAGE BECAUSE...UH...GOD SAYS SO!", "WOMEN ARE WORTHLESS AND MUST BE HOUSEHOLD SLAVES BECAUSE...GOD SAYS SO!", "OTHER RELIGIONS ARE WRONG BECAUSE...OUR GOD SAYS SO! SO THEIR FOLLOWERS MUST BE KILLED!", "INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE IS WRONG BECAUSE...GOD SAYS SO!"(caps are for both emphasis, and because most religous rants sound like what people who TYPE IN ALL CAPS sound like:Idiots), and many, many other atrocious things, it makes perfect sense). But I'm not looking to ban religion.

-IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU. AT ALL. (Unless you're gay. Then it's a good thing for you.)

Couldn't agree more, religion shouldn't play a part in this. MANY marriages have nothing to do with religion, or even "love". Why ban gay marriage? Because its not natural? Well many things aren't natural like guns, McDonalds food, vaccinations, and polution. Hey all those anti gay marriage people, don't get your vacination next year. I don't like gay people as much as the next person but as for rights I believe they should get equal rights to that of hetero. And if you want to call attention to god why not take away women rights because the bible portrait women as evil (ex: Eve, and many others, I don't know the specific names). And for the guy that said "Should be banned plain and simple" That has to be the worse reason I have ever heard.


Oh if anyone can give me a good reason why gay marriages should be banned please tell me.

Couldn't agree more, religion shouldn't play a part in this. MANY marriages have nothing to do with religion, or even "love". Why ban gay marriage? Because its not natural? Well many things aren't natural like guns, McDonalds food, vaccinations, and polution. Hey all those anti gay marriage people, don't get your vacination next year. I don't like gay people as much as the next person but as for rights I believe they should get equal rights to that of hetero. And if you want to call attention to god why not take away women rights because the bible portrait women as evil (ex: Eve, and many others, I don't know the specific names). And for the guy that said "Should be banned plain and simple" That has to be the worse reason I have ever heard.


Oh if anyone can give me a good reason why gay marriages should be banned please tell me.

I can only think of two reasons why gay marriage should be banned:

1) It makes the christian right feel 'icky'.

2) Imagine you were a politician. Imagine you were running the worst war since Vietnam, were the least popular president in decades, had the lowest approval rating in decades, and had about the same popularity in the international community that Sarin gas does.... how would you get re-elected? Well, you look for a blind prejudice that an area of the population has, and you feed it...

I am not going to compare the direct policies or actions of the two regimes... because the scope (so far) has been on a totally different level...

But look at how the Nazi party in pre-ww2 germany got, and maintained power.

They picked a minority (the Jews), who they blamed for the problems of the time (the depressed economy), and they used the government as a mechanism to cure those problems (by removing the rights of Jews), and made their 'manifesto' part of their platform for government, ensuring their sucesses for years to come.

Re-read the above paragraph, but exchange "Jews" for "gays", and replace "depressed economy" for "the loss of sanctity of marriage"...

I don't believe those statistics.

I think that maybe more kids ADMIT that they are having sex underage... but try asking the generation 10 years older WHEN THEY first had sex... and I think you'll find kids have been having sex at puberty forever, pretty much.
I can't help your beliefs. I don't believe George Bush Jr. has more braincells than teeth but I may be wrong.

10 years ago, average first sexual intercourse was (probably. this is informed guesswork) about 15-17. It's now shifting (this is UK) to about 14-16. We have 11 year old mothers and girls having secret abortions when they're 14 but deciding to keep their next child at 15. The huge emphasis placed on sex by just about everything in society is contributing to this. It's not just biological.

But maybe the never-ending "you must have sex" assault on kids is changing their biology and speeding puberty up subconsciously...

But look at how the Nazi party in pre-ww2 germany got, and maintained power.

They picked a minority (the Jews), who they blamed for the problems of the time (the depressed economy), and they used the government as a mechanism to cure those problems (by removing the rights of Jews), and made their 'manifesto' part of their platform for government, ensuring their sucesses for years to come.

Re-read the above paragraph, but exchange "Jews" for "gays", and replace "depressed economy" for "the loss of sanctity of marriage"...
Well I ain't part of the Christian Right (shouldn't that be the Christian Wrong?) but I still maintain that same-sex unions cannot take place in a Christian setting. Just my thoughts though.

However, the sanctity of marriage, if by that you mean "the model of human relationship in the eyes of God", was largely destroyed by non-christian people saying they wanted their relationship to be recognised in a form that in no way reflected their beliefs. So I guess I'm bashing the US christian fundies again then. Hmm.

Right now on BBC Radio 4 is a program called "What's wrong with Gay math?" detailing the abuse of gay students in America and discussing the merits of instigating schools like the Harvey Milk (is that right) school. The issue is not US attitudes towards homosexuals but their general attitude to human rights and how they should treat other human beings I'm afraid.

I can't help your beliefs. I don't believe George Bush Jr. has more braincells than teeth but I may be wrong.

10 years ago, average first sexual intercourse was (probably. this is informed guesswork) about 15-17. It's now shifting (this is UK) to about 14-16. We have 11 year old mothers and girls having secret abortions when they're 14 but deciding to keep thei next child at 15. The huge emphasis placed on sex by just about everything in society is contributing to this. It's not just biological.

But maybe the never-ending "you must have sex" assault on kids is changing their biology and speeding puberty up subconsciously...

It's all guesswork.. that's the problem.

You are using this report to support your theory that exposure to sex education and or contraception, is somehow accelerating the commencement of sexual activity... but the report is flawed... since it is ALL guesswork.

As I said, the most likely reason for an increase in numbers in the poll is greater willingness to ADMIT to sexual activity, now.

Sucks when people do that doesn't it?
How would you like to be mocked and called an abomination every time you walk on the street for being a Christian? How would you like it if, every day, you'd see atheists with signs saying "God hates Christians", "Christians will burn" and "all Christians must die"?
How would you like it if your government banned you from being married, because 'marriage is between two atheists only'? How would you like to be beaten to death, just because some people thought you were a Christian?
How would you like it when people claimed being Christian spreads AIDS? How would you like it when you are not allowed to adopt children because 'studies have shown that adoption by Christians is bad for children'?

Admit it.

Your a christophobe.

A bigot.

It's all guesswork.. that's the problem.

You are using this report to support your theory that exposure to sex education and or contraception, is somehow accelerating the commencement of sexual activity... but the report is flawed... since it is ALL guesswork.

As I said, the most likely reason for an increase in numbers in the poll is greater willingness to ADMIT to sexual activity, now.
No man LISTEN!! Or read.. read works better. Sorry. Anyway. The problematic exposure is to the mass media which portray, more now than ever, sex as the hobby of the famous and the beautiful. Which maybe it is, but look at how many celebrity marriages last longer than the participants' combined attention spans.

Plus I said 'informed' guesswork, meaning that I realised my opinions aren't based in concrete fact, but that I have had the opportunity to observe the media and it's material for over two generations. These are my hurried conclusions, drawn from that observational process.

I'll agree that a 12-year old kid who today admits that he/she has had sex is less likely to be roundly tanned by it's parents. That is, of course, due to a combination of the UK government taking away parents' rights to chastise their child in any way, shape or form more harsh than sending them to their room (to which the offending brat.. er.. child can just say, "no. What are you going to do about it", and sit there looking smug) and the general increase in chavishness, including a penchant for lying, of the average pre-teen of the British Isles.

BRING BACK THE CANE!!!

Sucks when people do that doesn't it?
How would you like to be mocked and called an abomination every time you walk on the street for being a Christian? How would you like it if, every day, you'd see atheists with signs saying "God hates Christians", "Christians will burn" and "all Christians must die"?
How would you like it if your government banned you from being married, because 'marriage is between two atheists only'? How would you like to be beaten to death, just because some people thought you were a Christian?
How would you like it when people claimed being Christian spreads AIDS? How would you like it when you are not allowed to adopt children because 'studies have shown that adoption by Christians is bad for children'?
Welcome to China!!!

And any other predominantly communist country. And most of the hardline Moslem States. Did you know there were well over 70,000 Iraqi Christians when Saddam was in power. Bet they had a nice time...

Welcome to China!!!

And any other predominantly communist country. And most of the hardline Moslem States. Did you know there were well over 70,000 Iraqi Christians when Saddam was in power. Bet they had a nice time...

There has never been a communist country, idiot.

ROFFLE. Hey genius, Iraq WASN'T a muslamic state...until AFTER we invaded. Nice work there.

Do some research, THEN talk.

There has never been a communist country, idiot.

ROFFLE. Hey genius, Iraq WASN'T a muslamic state...until AFTER we invaded. Nice work there.

Do some research, THEN talk.

According to the world fact book, China is a communist state.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html

Don't be a dick.

There has never been a communist country, idiot.

ROFFLE. Hey genius, Iraq WASN'T a muslamic state...until AFTER we invaded. Nice work there.

Do some research, THEN talk.
Heh heh heh. It's so much fun. Cheers for the backup AM.

Goed, I think the word you're looking for is Islamic. And yes, Iraq and much of the middle east is Islamic. See: former ruling Ba'athist party all being Sunni Moslems. At least nominally. I'm nowhere near enough of an expert on Islam to determine whether the Sunni philosophy is traditionally Islamic or not.

Well I ain't part of the Christian Right (shouldn't that be the Christian Wrong?) but I still maintain that same-sex unions cannot take place in a Christian setting. Just my thoughts though.


America is not a Christian country. Our laws are NOT based on Christianity. Period. Christians do not get to violate civil rights because of their religion. In the same way their civil rights do not get violated because of others religions.

Admit it.

Your a christophobe.

A bigot.

He was being facetious term and was reversing the game on you in a hypothetical situation to see if you could put yourself in someone else's shoes. You've failed miserably.

Further, a christophobe would be someone who hates or despises all Christians unreasonably and without evidence. None of us hate or despise all Christians and those we do hate or despise have given us reason as individuals.

Heh heh heh. It's so much fun. Cheers for the backup AM.

Goed, I think the word you're looking for is Islamic. And yes, Iraq and much of the middle east is Islamic. See: former ruling Ba'athist party all being Sunni Moslems. At least nominally. I'm nowhere near enough of an expert on Islam to determine whether the Sunni philosophy is traditionally Islamic or not.

I think what GT was trying to say in his own way was that the government of Iraq was officially secular and not based on the Islamic laws (such as Shariah). That does not mean the government cannot be evil. Its the same thing here--we have Christians in power but our law is not based in Christianity. Also doesn't mean our government cannot do evil things.

He was being facetious term and was reversing the game on you in a hypothetical situation to see if you could put yourself in someone else's shoes. You've failed miserably.

Further, a christophobe would be someone who hates or despises all Christians unreasonably and without evidence. None of us hate or despise all Christians and those we do hate or despise have given us reason as individuals.

Or, of course... someone who was 'scared of Jesus'....

Wandering off now into skewed subjective reality where next years horror-blockbuster is CHRISTOPHOBIA, a film about the world being over-run by little Jesus-figures... who all like like the 'Buddy Christ' from Dogma....

I am totally against gay marriage. Have you people no morals? Homosexuality is a sin and marriages are performed by the church so allowing gay marriage in a christian country is just wrong. Let gays have civil unions, I don't care, just not marriage, it's against God's word.

I think what GT was trying to say in his own way was that the government of Iraq was officially secular and not based on the Islamic laws (such as Shariah). That does not mean the government cannot be evil. Its the same thing here--we have Christians in power but our law is not based in Christianity. Also doesn't mean our government cannot do evil things.

Yeah, pretty much.

...hehe..."in his own way" :D

I am totally against gay marriage. Have you people no morals? Homosexuality is a sin and marriages are performed by the church so allowing gay marriage in a christian country is just wrong. Let gays have civil unions, I don't care, just not marriage, it's against God's word.

A. Not all marriages are performed in churches.
B. We are not a Christian nation. We are a secular nation with a clear separation of church and state.
C. In line with point B, what you consider a sin is not the basis of our law.
D. Morals don't enter into this as gay marriage is not immoral (another good reason morals shouldn't be used as the basis of law but rights should bE).
E. Research before speaking.

A. Not all marriages are performed in churches.
B. We are not a Christian nation. We are a secular nation with a clear separation of church and state.
C. In line with point B, what you consider a sin is not the basis of our law.
D. Morals don't enter into this as gay marriage is not immoral (another good reason morals shouldn't be used as the basis of law but rights should bE).
E. Research before speaking.

I just keep wondering where they heard "the US is a christian nation," and if it's a teacher, their ass is canned.

America is not a Christian country. Our laws are NOT based on Christianity. Period. Christians do not get to violate civil rights because of their religion. In the same way their civil rights do not get violated because of others religions.

*ahem*

No European or European influenced country is more Christian with respect to law than any other. The laws of the US and its legal system are derived directly from English Common Law, not directly from Christianity. To say America is a Christian country would be to say Canada, Germany, France, Russia, Slovakia, Australia, etc. are also Christian countries. The irony in this religious drive to turn the US into a Christian country is in effect turning back the clock on democracy and the rule of law.

Ouch!

*ahem*

No European or European influenced country is more Christian with respect to law than any other. The laws of the US and its legal system are derived directly from English Common Law, not directly from Christianity. To say America is a Christian country would be to say Canada, Germany, France, Russia, Slovakia, Australia, etc. are also Christian countries. The irony in this religious drive to turn the US into a Christian country is in effect turning back the clock on democracy and the rule of law.

Okay, just making sure I'm not confused. You do realize tht I am agreeing with you right?

Okay, just making sure I'm not confused. You do realize tht I am agreeing with you right?

Of course I was just nipping in the bud the arguement of anyone who may disagree with you coz I and most people are sick of this "america is a christian country" idiocy, besides that it gives me the heeby jeebies.

According to the world fact book, China is a communist state.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html

Don't be a dick.

Actually China is a Socialist Nation which is pretty close to Communism anyways. No actual nation is completely 100% communist because well, let just say communism doesn't work so we have socialism.

B. We are not a Christian nation. We are a secular nation with a clear separation of church and state.

I'm guessing you are referring to America where we have the seperation of church and state.

(As an American) We say are secular, and we are more secular than most countries but the truth is that religion still plays apart in our government. I mean look at the elections Bush won because of his "Good Moral Values" which are anti-abortion/stem cell and anti-homosexual marrriages which are Christian beliefs.

I'm guessing you are referring to America where we have the seperation of church and state.

(As an American) We say are secular, and we are more secular than most countries but the truth is that religion still plays apart in our government. I mean look at the elections Bush won because of his "Good Moral Values" which are anti-abortion/stem cell and anti-homosexual marrriages which are Christian beliefs.

Which is precisly why America is so fucked right now.

I'm guessing you are referring to America where we have the seperation of church and state.

(As an American) We say are secular, and we are more secular than most countries but the truth is that religion still plays apart in our government. I mean look at the elections Bush won because of his "Good Moral Values" which are anti-abortion/stem cell and anti-homosexual marrriages which are Christian beliefs.
Well, we got work to do.

This is my first post. Based on the polling statistics, I'm sure that I'm about to make alot of friends...

I am opposed to Gay Marriage for moral and religious reasons. I believe that marriage is between man and woman, and that the traditional family unit (mother, father, children) is a fundamental building block of our society and culture. That being said, I recognize that freedom and the right to live according to our own conscience must be protected, but I cannot approve Government legislation which approves of an act that I feel is humanizing and secularizing a sacred covenant.

This is my first post.
Prepare to have it picked apart ;)

I am opposed to Gay Marriage for moral and religious reasons.
And you're perfectly allowed to do that, just as TT was against interracial marriges for moral and religious reasons. Only understand that there's no difference between you two right now.

I believe that marriage is between man and woman,
Are you sure it's not between a man and his property? Or between a white man and a white woman? Or between two people of the same race?

and that the traditional family unit (mother, father, children) is a fundamental building block of our society and culture.
Why? Society survived long before the advent of the nuclear family.

That being said, I recognize that freedom and the right to live according to our own conscience must be protected,
There's hope for you yet.
but I cannot approve Government legislation which approves of an act that I feel is humanizing and secularizing a sacred covenant.
Only, marrige is *already* secularized. Marrige isn't a sacred covenant. Sorry, but it isn't. So long as the government is involved, it never will be.

In short, your post is wrong. Do try again ;)

This is my first post. Based on the polling statistics, I'm sure that I'm about to make alot of friends...

I am opposed to Gay Marriage for moral and religious reasons. I believe that marriage is between man and woman, and that the traditional family unit (mother, father, children) is a fundamental building block of our society and culture. That being said, I recognize that freedom and the right to live according to our own conscience must be protected, but I cannot approve Government legislation which approves of an act that I feel is humanizing and secularizing a sacred covenant.

...but codifying discrimination is "moral" :rolleyes:

I am opposed to Gay Marriage for moral and religious reasons.

That's beautiful, really, so don't get married to a member of the same gender. However, your religion has nothing whatsoever to do with civil marriage.

I believe that marriage is between man and woman, and that the traditional family unit (mother, father, children) is a fundamental building block of our society and culture.

If you believe the nuclear family is the "building block" of our society and culture, fine, but don't call something that has only been around for about 50 years "traditional." The nuclear family is a new addition and, arguably, a much worse one than homosexual marraige would be.

That being said, I recognize that freedom and the right to live according to our own conscience must be protected, but I cannot approve Government legislation which approves of an act that I feel is humanizing and secularizing a sacred covenant.

And how exactly is civil marriage, which is already secular, a "sacred covenant"?

People like you need to realize that there is a distinct difference between your religious marriage (which no one is trying to make you extend to homosexuals) and civil marriage (which has nothing to do with sacredness, with your church, and is required by the constitution to be provided equally to those who require it).

I knew I was going to stir up the hornets nest with my views. I only posted them because at the beginning of the poll it requested that we post the reasons for our vote. I don't expect anyone else on this board to share my views...but I cannot change my value system. I value a traditional family unit.

Here is a quote from the leadership of my church on the subject:

"The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity....we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets." ("Family: A Proclamation to the World," LDS First Presidency )

These are beliefs that I sustain. I understand that I am mostly alone in this crowd, and that is fine. My object is not to convince anyone to adopt my beliefs, only to stand up for what I believe is true and right, whether it's popular or not.

We are all free agents, and our right to choose what we want to believe or worship and how we want to live is protected by our Constitution. I understand that many would claim my views as Church infringement on the State, but I hold that this nation is bound by moral laws. I reject the notion that Our Founding Fathers ever intended to remove religion from our Government altogether, rather I believe that they were men who reveared God, and who founded this nation upon the principles that they held as "sacred truths."

I will uphold and sustain the laws of this Nation. If it is the will of the people for gay marriage to be legalized, then let the people speak in support of it. I will sustain the will of the people, but I will not sustain the act.

[b]

I knew I was going to stir up the hornets nest with my views. I only posted them because at the beginning of the poll it requested that we post the reasons for our vote. I don't expect anyone else on this board to share my views...but I cannot change my value system. I value a traditional family unit.

Mother, father, children is not a traditional family unit. If you would like to state that you support what is referred to as the nuclear family, this is fine. However, it is far from "traditional."

These are beliefs that I sustain. I understand that I am mostly alone in this crowd, and that is fine. My object is not to convince anyone to adopt my beliefs, only to stand up for what I believe is true and right, whether it's popular or not.

"Standing up for what you believe in" does not include forcing it upon others, which is what you do when you legislate your morality, despite the fact that it has backing in nothing but your particular brand of your particular religion.

II will uphold and sustain the laws of this Nation. If it is the will of the people for gay marriage to be legalized, then let the people speak in support of it. I will sustain the will of the people, but I will not sustain the act.

If it is the will of the people for black people to sit on the back of the bus, then let the people speak in support of it. I will sustain the will of the people.

I knew I was going to stir up the hornets nest with my views. I only posted them because at the beginning of the poll it requested that we post the reasons for our vote. I don't expect anyone else on this board to share my views...but I cannot change my value system. I value a traditional family unit.
And what's the traditional family unit? Did you even read my post? The nuclear family that so many cling to as "traditional" hasn't been around for much time at all. There IS no "traditional family" unit, understand? Furthermore, you'll find my post was MUCH more civil then many others you may see, so don't think of me as athe hornets nest.

Here is a quote from the leadership of my church on the subject:
This aughta be fun...

"The family is ordained of God.
Not in this country it isn't

Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan.
That's great, but what does that have to do with the COUNTRY'S laws?

Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity....
Children come from sex. Don't give nice little language, and don't pretend it only happens to married couples. When a man and a woman fuck, sometimes a kid pops out.

we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets." ("Family: A Proclamation to the World," LDS First Presidency )
Actually, no countries that legalized same-sex marrige have fallen into chaos or the sea. Your prophets are a bit off.

These are beliefs that I sustain. I understand that I am mostly alone in this crowd, and that is fine. My object is not to convince anyone to adopt my beliefs, only to stand up for what I believe is true and right, whether it's popular or not.
Then don't get married to a guy! You given plenty of reasons why you would never have a gay marrige. Give me reasons to refuse them to others.

We are all free agents, and our right to choose what we want to believe or worship and how we want to live is protected by our Constitution.
Good, there's some BASIC understanding there...

I understand that many would claim my views as Church infringement on the State, but I hold that this nation is bound by moral laws. I reject the notion that Our Founding Fathers ever intended to remove religion from our Government altogether, rather I believe that they were men who reveared God, and who founded this nation upon the principles that they held as "sacred truths."

You just lost all credibility.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm#art11

"...the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

QED, bitch.

[QUOTE=Goed Twee]There has never been a communist country, idiot.

Country name: China
conventional long form: People's Republic of China
conventional short form: China
local long form: Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo
local short form: Zhong Guo
abbreviation: PRC
Government type:
Communist state
Capital:
Beijing

idiot.


Do some research, THEN talk.
lol

[QUOTE]

Country name: China
conventional long form: People's Republic of China
conventional short form: China
local long form: Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo
local short form: Zhong Guo
abbreviation: PRC
Government type:
Communist state
Capital:
Beijing

idiot.


lol

The point that he was tryin to make is that true communism--the real thing, the platonic ideal, has never been truly tried. China claims to be communist, as does Cuba as did Russia. But they were never the real thing. Communism relies too much on humans being self-sacrificing and having no presonal ambition. Let's face it, that will never happen.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents]Mother, father, children is not a traditional family unit.

Except for the small fact that it is.


If it is the will of the people for black people to sit on the back of the bus, then let the people speak in support of it. I will sustain the will of the people.

Then your a racist.

[QUOTE]

Except for the small fact that it is.



You would be right except that you are wrong. This concept of mother father and child living together with grandparents half an hour away is relatively new (I'll give it last hundred years though I think it was rather less). Prior to that, you would have multiple generations living in one house--it would be you, your parents, your aunts and uncles and cousins and grandparents. The household would be run by a matriarch or patriarch of the family (depending on culture). When that person died, the next most senior person would rise to fill the void. The Donna Reed concept of a nuclear family started about the same time as or slightly before, well, the Donna Reed show.

Then your a racist.

No s/he isn't. S/he was using satyr to make a point to a previous poster. S/he took their post and replaced the word homosexual with the word black person. The point was that majority rule is NEVER a good reason to deny minorities of rights. When you replace homosexuals with another minority, you begin to see how crazy this is.

Portion of post deleted for pettiness.

If it is the will of the people for black people to sit on the back of the bus, then let the people speak in support of it. I will sustain the will of the people.
Then your a racist.
How is this any different than you advocating the will of the people as an excuse to discriminate against gay people?

The point that he was tryin to make is that true communism--the real thing, the platonic ideal, has never been truly tried. China claims to be communist, as does Cuba as did Russia. But they were never the real thing. Communism relies too much on humans being self-sacrificing and having no presonal ambition. Let's face it, that will never happen.

Then why does this country think of itself and even name itself as a

communist one.

True communism has been tried, millions of people died in the name of it.

Stalin fed 20 million of his own people to wear down and eventually beat the

Nazis to defend it.

Only a communist state, could have achieved this.

This is the true face of communism, the high ideals of Carl Marx were used to

create it in its true form.

A party led dictatorship.

I think the Communism failed in Russia, because too many western ideals

were banned in the country, a whole generation grew up in Russia during the

sixties and missed out on the Beatles and other great stuff, this created wide

spread resentment that finally wore down the Communist Party in Russia.

China however is a totally alien culture that doesnt really need western

culture to feel included in the world, it is its own world, and the Communist

party has compromised with western industry anyway to make the country

wealthy.

I also believe it will be the next world superpower, and its hegemony.

Then why does this country think of itself and even name itself as a

communist one.

True communism has been tried, millions of people died in the name of it.

Stalin fed 20 million of his own people to wear down and eventually beat the

Nazis to defend it.

Only a communist state, could have achieved this.

This is the true face of communism, the high ideals of Carl Marx were used to

create it in its true form.

A party led dictatorship.

I think the Communism failed in Russia, because too many western ideals

were banned in the country, a whole generation grew up in Russia during the

sixties and missed out on the Beatles and other great stuff, this created wide

spread resentment that finally wore down the Communist Party in Russia.

China however is a totally alien culture that doesnt really need western

culture to feel included in the world, it is its own world, and the Communist

party has compromised with western industry anyway to make the country

wealthy.

I also believe it will be the next world superpower, and its hegemony.


Read the communist manefesto and get back to me on whether or not Stalin was a real communist or just an abusive dictator who corrupted communism to attain power.

You would be right except that you are wrong. This concept of mother father and child living together with grandparents half an hour away is relatively new (I'll give it last hundred years though I think it was rather less). Prior to that, you would have multiple generations living in one house--it would be you, your parents, your aunts and uncles and cousins and grandparents. The household would be run by a matriarch or patriarch of the family (depending on culture). When that person died, the next most senior person would rise to fill the void. The Donna Reed concept of a nuclear family started about the same time as or slightly before, well, the Donna Reed show.

Yes but even then with extended households, which incidently are a good

thing, the basic family structure was still a man a woman and kids.

Not a man ten wives many kids, or two men in a relationship looking after

kids, or two women in a relationship looking after kids.

The extended familys with grandparents still there, sisters cousins etc was

usually one purely for survival.

Yes but even then with extended households, which incidently are a good

thing, the basic family structure was still a man a woman and kids.

Not a man ten wives many kids, or two men in a relationship looking after

kids, or two women in a relationship looking after kids.

The extended familys with grandparents still there, sisters cousins etc was

usually one purely for survival.


So what you call the traditional family is no longer needed for survival correct? Why are you still advocating it? Those who cannot change are doomed to extinction.

Read the communist manefesto and get back to me on whether or not Stalin was a real communist or just an abusive dictator who corrupted communism to attain power.

Of course, but that is the nature of communism, its not really designed to

make everyone equal, its designed to keep everyone down, and loyal.

Of course, but that is the nature of communism, its not really designed to

make everyone equal, its designed to keep everyone down, and loyal.

Actually true communism IS designed to make everyone equal. That's why we said *true* communism has never really existed. Thank you for making my point for me.

Of course, but that is the nature of communism, its not really designed to

make everyone equal, its designed to keep everyone down, and loyal.
Communism: A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

Definition provided by http://dictionary.reference.com

So what you call the traditional family is no longer needed for survival correct? Why are you still advocating it? Those who cannot change are doomed to extinction.


Actually I do advocate it, and I would like to see a return to extended familys

helping each other out, maybe not all in the same house, but all in the same

street, that way their would always be someone looking after the old people

and the kids.

I would say this is even more necessary today than before, the isolationism

a lot of people in western cuture are experiencing, is the path to extinction.

Anyway, I have to go eat.

Back after Pracus.

Actually I do advocate it


No really? :rolleyes:


helping each other out, maybe not all in the same house, but all in the same

street, that way their would always be someone looking after the old people

and the kids.


That's basically what I had. I will admit it is nice. Of course my gay cousins were involved in it. Strange that the presence of homosexuals didn't destroy our family.


I would say this is even more necessary today than before, the isolationism
a lot of people in western cuture are experiencing, is the path to extinction.


Still doesn't preclude homosexual extensions of said families.


Back after Pracus.

Do what?

"Back after Pracus" should read as Back after, Pracus. He was in a hurry, because he's having dinner (or maybe lunch, I don't know where in the world he is). He'll be back when he's done eating.

Good feed, I can barely move.

That place didnt know what hit it, I nearly ate the whole salad and seafood

bar, plus all the Chinese.

*unloosens belt a notch

Im starting to look a bit like Jabba lol

Communism: A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Definition provided by http://dictionary.reference.com

I know what it is, but I dont think supporters of communism can disown

Russia or China as practicers of communism, just because they didnt fit the

ideal.

Would you say any Western countrys practice true democracy?

Stalin fed 20 million of his own people to wear down and eventually beat the Nazi to defend it.

I can't say I'm an expert on Russian history but I do luckly have a Russian friend who is. From what I heard from him, Russsia was a socialist country for a long time. They did try a true communism for a short time. Stalin and crew stopped because it wasn't working so they then converted back into socialism therefore socialism is the closest thing we got to communism. Communism is a system that would be awsome but it will never work.

This is for the Anti-Homosexual Marriages.
In the beginning it was all white men were created equal.
Then it became all white men of different religion were created equal.
Then it became all men of different religion and different race were created equal
Finally it was all men and women of different religion and race were created equal.
Look at all the freedom that everyone have in the name of equality.
Will it finally come down to all men and women of different race, religion, and sexual preference? Are the american society finally stopping the equality that we are fighting so hard for and that we are trying to place in other countries?

No s/he isn't. S/he was using satyr to make a point to a previous poster. S/he took their post and replaced the word homosexual with the word black person. The point was that majority rule is NEVER a good reason to deny minorities of rights. When you replace homosexuals with another minority, you begin to see how crazy this is.

Portion of post deleted for pettiness.
I'd hate to see an English teacher look at this site. They might actually become a gibbering shadow of a human being.

Satyr: Mythical creature, composed of the thorax and head of a man and the abdomen and legs of a goat. Usually has horns too.

Satire: A form of humour based on observations of the state of society.

And of course majority is always right. Well, at least when the majority favours the government. See: soon-to-be Ban on Fox-hunting in the UK. Because the majority think it's icky. (seen that argument around here somewhere)


"...the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

QED, bitch.
Cool, does that mean you won't mind if I take all of those little pieces of paper with 'In God We Trust' printed on them? Or would you like them to be reprinted with 'In our own intelligence we trust, because we know best even though we voted a terminally stupid man back into power for another four years'? You'll have A4 sized banknotes!!

I nearly ate the whole salad and seafood

bar, plus all the Chinese.
YOU ATE ALL THE CHINESE?!?! MURDERING BASTARD!! Where am I going to stay for the Beijing Olympics now, huh?!?

Hmmm.... i see...

Well, my side is doomed. All the GOOD debators(myself excluded) are on the pro-gay marriage side(and thats ALOT of people), so i guess im just going to sit down and put on my big orange finger foam thing that says "Go team!"

But before I do...

I would just like to point out a few things. 1, Gays will have marriage rights eventually. I mean, it's obvious! But to those people who think that this is just like the 60's Civil Rights campaigns, you are dead wrong. Gay people arent second class citizens, gay people arent shot on the street for no apparent reason in their hundreds. The police and firemen arent spraying down and shooting gay marches. And last but not least, gay people are allowed to vote, to own GOOD jobs and GOOD houses, to drive cars, to make money, star on T.V. shows, and much more! So to anyone says this is just like the 60's, take this information into account before you spew something totally false and wrong. Not to mention hurtful to the ones on this side who have lived their entire life in the presense of other religions, races, languages, cultures, have lived in many countries, are friends with people of all races, and a pro-civil rights. I'm just not pro gay marriage. Im all for Gay rights though.

and number 2...

If anyone says that only religious people are anti-homosexual marriages, they are wrong. Dead wrong. Take myself for example. I havent been to church in, oh, 2 years. Never got me communion either. Havent been to CCD in god knows how long, and i consider myself "open to influences"(that means im looking for the right religion for me and my beliefs. Im not very fond of christianity...Islam and Buddhism look fine thought. I guess Hinduism would be OK....i guess...)

Cool, does that mean you won't mind if I take all of those little pieces of paper with 'In God We Trust' printed on them? Or would you like them to be reprinted with 'In our own intelligence we trust, because we know best even though we voted a terminally stupid man back into power for another four years'? You'll have A4 sized banknotes!!

Terminally stupid? Thats a sad attempt at dissing a president. Seriously.

Listen, the mans not stupid. It would be IMPOSSIBLE for a stupid person to become president, or get even close. If you think that all the 50 million + americans who voted for him were just religious fanatics, you are wrong.

Besides, you are getting off-topic.

(Oh and in response to the "in god we Trust" on the dollar thing, the nation was NOT founded on christian beliefs. If we were founded on christian beliefs, then we'd be a monarchy witht he pope as our leader, or we'd be ruled by a religious dictatorship that shoots anyone whos not christian. Besides, if you dont remember back then 99.7% of the population was christian, and it was until around 130 or so years ago when the immigrants began to come in.)

I know what it is, but I dont think supporters of communism can disown

Russia or China as practicers of communism, just because they didnt fit the

ideal.

Would you say any Western countrys practice true democracy?

No, I wouldn't say they do--in fact I've pointed that fact out before in this very thread. No intelligent member of western culture would claim it just as we wouldn't claim that true communism has ever existed either.

Terminally stupid? Thats a sad attempt at dissing a president. Seriously.

Listen, the mans not stupid. It would be IMPOSSIBLE for a stupid person to become president, or get even close. If you think that all the 50 million + americans who voted for him were just religious fanatics, you are wrong.

Besides, you are getting off-topic.
I know I'm going off-topic. I get easily bored. Bush IS stupid. He's just about intelligent enough and easily rich enough to buy the loyalty of lots of clever people to do the stuff which requires thought.

Oh and in response to the "in god we Trust" on the dollar thing, the nation was NOT founded on christian beliefs. If we were founded on christian beliefs, then we'd be a monarchy witht he pope as our leader, or we'd be ruled by a religious dictatorship that shoots anyone whos not christian. Besides, if you dont remember back then 99.7% of the population was christian, and it was until around 130 or so years ago when the immigrants began to come in.
Or.. you could be totally wrong. I say that with some attempt at including the concept of possibility... Never mind.

The (british) people who escaped to and colonised America were hardline Protestants running from a Catholic government/monarchy. By the time Washington initiated the constitution Christian Belief wasn't thought of as belief, just as the right way to do things.

130 years ago... immigrants... I suppose you might not include slaves as immigrants. But then there were already Spanish and French types around. Mate, anyone who wanted to get away from their country (oh that's why the French were there) would go to America.

Anyway... topic...

No, I wouldn't say they do--in fact I've pointed that fact out before in this very thread. No intelligent member of western culture would claim it just as we wouldn't claim that true communism has ever existed either.
This subject is most definitely off topic and probably my fault. I was merely in a vindictive mood at the time and Goed's was the first stupid comment I could find.

I'd hate to see an English teacher look at this site. They might actually become a gibbering shadow of a human being.

Satyr: Mythical creature, composed of the thorax and head of a man and the abdomen and legs of a goat. Usually has horns too.

Satire: A form of humour based on observations of the state of society.


Thanks for the correction--it was late. I did something similiar earlier--of course I nearly immediately deleted it for pettiness.


And of course majority is always right. Well, at least when the majority favours the government. See: soon-to-be Ban on Fox-hunting in the UK. Because the majority think it's icky. (seen that argument around here somewhere)


I hope you are being facetious here. It's already been pointed out that fox-hunting is not a right guaranteed in our nation (again, I can't speak for all nations because I'm not as familiar with their systems of government, though I am learning a lot!). However, equality under the law IS a guaranteed right.


Cool, does that mean you won't mind if I take all of those little pieces of paper with 'In God We Trust' printed on them? Or would you like them to be reprinted with 'In our own intelligence we trust, because we know best even though we voted a terminally stupid man back into power for another four years'? You'll have A4 sized banknotes!!


You mean all those little pieces of paper that didn't all have it until the 1950's? You mean the ones that still have our original motto "E Pluribus Unim" on them? There have been some really links posted to sites that carry a lot of historical information about our nation and just when this fad that we are founded on Christian principles began. Why don't you go read in them. While you are at it, pull up a copy of the Constitution, see if it says the word God or Jesus or Christian anywhere in it.

I hope you are being facetious here. It's already been pointed out that fox-hunting is not a right guaranteed in our nation (again, I can't speak for all nations because I'm not as familiar with their systems of government, though I am learning a lot!). However, equality under the law IS a guaranteed right.
Equality for all!! Except to the middle classes because their hobbies which harm no-one and attempt to keep the balance in the countryside are obviously far less good for the country than letting chavs go around beating people up at will and starting 'families' at age 12.

I'm always being facetious. Part of being English.

You mean all those little pieces of paper that didn't all have it until the 1950's? You mean the ones that still have our original motto "E Pluribus Unim" on them? There have been some really links posted to sites that carry a lot of historical information about our nation and just when this fad that we are founded on Christian principles began. Why don't you go read in them. While you are at it, pull up a copy of the Constitution, see if it says the word God or Jesus or Christian anywhere in it.
So I can take them?

I accept your point that comparing the inequality of gays to previous inequality of blacks which led to the 60's civil rights riots is stretching it. But denying the status of marriage to gay couples is still a form of discrimination and still a source of great sorrow and difficulty for those people.

However, this...
I'm just not pro gay marriage. Im all for Gay rights though.
...is a contradiction. Pro-gay marriage is entirely about rights. Marriage confers certain legal rights on a couple which gays are currently denied. The move to allow gay marriage is about allowing gay couples to enjoy these benefits too, irrespective of the religious aspects.

Also,
If anyone says that only religious people are anti-homosexual marriages, they are wrong. Dead wrong. Take myself for example. I havent been to church in, oh, 2 years. Never got me communion either. Havent been to CCD in god knows how long, and i consider myself "open to influences"(that means im looking for the right religion for me and my beliefs. Im not very fond of christianity...Islam and Buddhism look fine thought. I guess Hinduism would be OK....i guess...)
Church attendance isn't the only measure of how religious a person is; it's more a matter of how much one's world view and decisions are influenced by religious beliefs. And two years isn't that long a hiatus. In your latter statements, you sound like a very religious person.

H
Well, my side is doomed. All the GOOD debators(myself excluded) are on the pro-gay marriage side(and thats ALOT of people), so i guess im just going to sit down and put on my big orange finger foam thing that says "Go team!"


Thank you for your kind words. Still, I can't help but point out where you are laughably incorrect:



1, Gays will have marriage rights eventually. I mean, it's obvious! But to those people who think that this is just like the 60's Civil Rights campaigns, you are dead wrong. Gay people arent second class citizens, gay people arent shot on the street for no apparent reason in their hundreds. The police and firemen arent spraying down and shooting gay marches.


Incorrect. We are denied equal rights on civil matters. Therefore this is a civil rights issue because we are being treated as second class citizens by the government. We want and deserve equality. Whilst it has not been as big of a fight recently, that was not always the case. Prior to the Stonewall Riot of 1979 (I believe I have the year) the police often raided gay clubs for no reason except to badger us. Violence against gays? One of my best friends was brutally attacked and put in the hospital a few years ago because, well, he was gay. Further, ever hear of Laramie WY and a young man named Matthew Shephard? There are plenty more. Add in the fact that many gay teens grow up living in fear because of the insults and abuse of their families and peers and really is quite a frightening world Don't you dare pretend that there hasn't been gay suffering just because you dont' want there to be.


And last but not least, gay people are allowed to vote, to own GOOD jobs and GOOD houses, to drive cars, to make money, star on T.V. shows, and much more!


Most of those are true. However, we are not always protected from discrimination--in a lot of states you can be fired for being gay! We cannot shrae insurance. We cannot share property. We cannot adopt children. We do not get next of kin status for our partners. We are deprived of over 800 rights by virtue of not being able to marry alone.


So to anyone says this is just like the 60's, take this information into account before you spew something totally false and wrong. Not to mention hurtful to the ones on this side who have lived their entire life in the presense of other religions, races, languages, cultures, have lived in many countries, are friends with people of all races, and a pro-civil rights. I'm just not pro gay marriage. Im all for Gay rights though.


Ummm, gay marriage IS a civil right. So I guess you aren't as pro-civil rights as you thought. You know they don't just apply to black people. I think you might need to sit down and take a long hard look at yourself and your own prejudices. Gay people only want to be treated equally under the law.

If your hang up is that you are afraid we want the government to force churches to treat us equally, you have something else coming. We don't. We understand the separation of church and state. We just want EQUALITY.


If anyone says that only religious people are anti-homosexual marriages, they are wrong. Dead wrong. Take myself for example. I havent been to church in, oh, 2 years. Never got me communion either. Havent been to CCD in god knows how long, and i consider myself "open to influences"(that means im looking for the right religion for me and my beliefs. Im not very fond of christianity...Islam and Buddhism look fine thought. I guess Hinduism would be OK....i guess...)

No one ever said that. We have pointed out that the people on here seem to have religious leanings that are the root of their hatred/ignorance/stupidity/bigotry. However, that certainly doesn't mean they are the only ones out there. Of course, at least they have an excuse in their religion. What's your's?

I accept your point that comparing the inequality of gays to previous inequality of blacks which led to the 60's civil rights riots is stretching it. But denying the status of marriage to gay couples is still a form of discrimination and still a source of great sorrow and difficulty for those people.


Don't even give him this. To do so is to forget our own history. We have not been on as large of a scale as the movement for African American rights. However, we HAVE had riots and attacks and we face the little everyday prejudices and discriminations and insults.

Equality for all!! Except to the middle classes because their hobbies which harm no-one and attempt to keep the balance in the countryside are obviously far less good for the country than letting chavs go around beating people up at will and starting 'families' at age 12.


The fox hunting ban would affect everyone. It's not inequally being placed. And if the majority want it gone, then I would assume that's a large chunk of the middle class that you are referring to as being harmed by it.


So I can take them?

You're welcome to all of mine as long as you take the loans I have to pay back with them. They amount to about 50k right now.

However, we HAVE had rights and attacks and we face the little everyday prejudices and discriminations and insults.

Of course, you're right. I guess I was trying to sound balanced rather than reactionary.
But I am aware that persecution of gays is a reality.

Of course, you're right. I guess I was trying to sound balanced rather than reactionary.
But I am aware that persecution of gays is a reality.

Then why did you pretend its not? Balanced is not writing one side off because it makes the other look bad.

1.I accept your point that comparing the inequality of gays to previous inequality of blacks which led to the 60's civil rights riots is stretching it. But denying the status of marriage to gay couples is still a form of discrimination and still a source of great sorrow and difficulty for those people.

2.However, this...

...is a contradiction. Pro-gay marriage is entirely about rights. Marriage confers certain legal rights on a couple which gays are currently denied. The move to allow gay marriage is about allowing gay couples to enjoy these benefits too, irrespective of the religious aspects.

3.Also,

Church attendance isn't the only measure of how religious a person is; it's more a matter of how much one's world view and decisions are influenced by religious beliefs. And two years isn't that long a hiatus. In your latter statements, you sound like a very religious person.

1. Point taken.

2. Actually, not exactly. Im exactly for them being treated equally, EXCEPT for when it comes to marriage. It just seems WRONG to me.(Of course, so does Christianity and that i am nothing but a pawn to some old guy sitting on a chair on some clouds in heaven....)

3.

Let me rephrase my statement, I am not a very CATHOLIC/CHRISTIAN person. Besides, i view my world VERY differently than the average christian. When they see a muslim. they go "Lookie! He's doomed to go to hell! BURN INFIDEL BURN!"
When I see a non-christian i go "Hello, what is your name? Are you a muslim, because i know alot of muslim people. Wanna come over to my house for a pizza? Wait! I forgot its Ramadan, silly me!"
I am religious in the point of view that i am SEARCHING for a religion. As of this moment, you could classify me as agnostic or atheist. At least temporarily.
Oh, and in response to the fact that "Not going to church in 2 years isnt a long time", i went because my grandfather died. Where else or WHAT else was i to do, say "Screw you gramps, im going HOME!"?

Thank you for your kind words. Still, I can't help but point out where you are laughably incorrect:





1.Incorrect. We are denied equal rights on civil matters. Therefore this is a civil rights issue because we are being treated as second class citizens by the government. We want and deserve equality. Whilst it has not been as big of a fight recently, that was not always the case. Prior to the Stonewall Riot of 1979 (I believe I have the year) the police often raided gay clubs for no reason except to badger us. Violence against gays? One of my best friends was brutally attacked and put in the hospital a few years ago because, well, he was gay. Further, ever hear of Laramie WY and a young man named Matthew Shephard? There are plenty more. Add in the fact that many gay teens grow up living in fear because of the insults and abuse of their families and peers and really is quite a frightening world Don't you dare pretend that there hasn't been gay suffering just because you dont' want there to be.



2. Most of those are true. However, we are not always protected from discrimination--in a lot of states you can be fired for being gay! We cannot shrae insurance. We cannot share property. We cannot adopt children. We do not get next of kin status for our partners. We are deprived of over 800 rights by virtue of not being able to marry alone.



3.Ummm, gay marriage IS a civil right. So I guess you aren't as pro-civil rights as you thought. You know they don't just apply to black people. I think you might need to sit down and take a long hard look at yourself and your own prejudices. Gay people only want to be treated equally under the law.

If your hang up is that you are afraid we want the government to force churches to treat us equally, you have something else coming. We don't. We understand the separation of church and state. We just want EQUALITY.



4. No one ever said that. We have pointed out that the people on here seem to have religious leanings that are the root of their hatred/ignorance/stupidity/bigotry. However, that certainly doesn't mean they are the only ones out there. Of course, at least they have an excuse in their religion. What's your's?

1. Soooo....

You are telling me that a few people getting beat up and harrased is equal to when an entire RACE of people was enslaved, made second-class citizens for over 300 years, couldnt hold anything of importance, couldnt get rich, couldnt hold ANY high paying job, and were brutally murdered in their HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS.

You are the one who is mistaken.

2. You see, i am against that you can be fired from a job for being gay in some states. Thats racism to the highest degree, and if you dont remember im AGAINST racism.

I'm also for some of the things you said (such as the right to share property or adoption), but im not for others. I'm not going to go too deep in out of fear for being mauled down on the street when no one is looking.

3. Listen, as i said before, im all for being treated equally EXCEPT for on the issue of marriage. It has been defined by EVERY religion, EVERY culture, and EVERY race that marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN.

Trust me, this is NOT a new concept.

4. Oh, so now you are saying that i have to have a religion to be anti gay marriage?

Anyhoo, i can be anti-gay marriage because that is my MORAL BELIEF. That is what I believe, plain and simple. For all time, marriage has been between a man and a woman. Im just all for keeping the world as it is, and i dont want to see the world take a turn south.

Besides, do you know what would happen if the nation did something that angered everyone else in the world(which is what allowing gay-marriage will do)?

I got 1 word: Boycott.

Seems wrong?

Before the emancipation of slaves, racial equality seemed wrong.

Same with interracial relationships prior to, ... actually in places, that still seems wrong to some people.

But what is wrong is legistation that discriminates against people based on gender, race, sexual orientation, or anything else that's as harmless, so in the same way that suspects are innocent untill proven guilty, gay marriage should be considered harmless untill proven harmfull, I suspect that once gay marriage has been allowed for a considerable length of time (say, a couple of decades), those who where against it would have the same trouble justifying such a ban with any credibility as the pope had in justifying a ban on the publication of certain astronomical findings.


Oh, and those of you who are using interreligious or international consensus as an excuse to ban gay marriage: grow up.

Seems wrong?

Before the emancipation of slaves, racial equality seemed wrong.

Same with interracial relationships prior to, ... actually in places, that still seems wrong to some people.

But what is wrong is legistation that discriminates against people based on gender, race, sexual orientation, or anything else that's as harmless, so in the same way that suspects are innocent untill proven guilty, gay marriage should be considered harmless untill proven harmfull, I suspect that once gay marriage has been allowed for a considerable length of time (say, a couple of decades), those who where against it would have the same trouble justifying such a ban with any credibility as the pope had in justifying a ban on the publication of certain astronomical findings.


Oh, and those of you who are using interreligious or international consensus as an excuse to ban gay marriage: grow up.


I can tell this was directed at me...


You see, this is why i dont like this thread alot. I have no chance. Why?

1, like 70% of the people on these forums are liberals(which i am not.)
2. I have no back up(Termanilia....hurts more than helps.)
3, im outclassed by you guys by FAR! Theres too many of you, and you have a better written mastery of the english language(im more of a speaker).

Im going back to the sidelines now.

Where did i put that foam finger...

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

Gay marriage is no different from "regular" marriage: two people who love each other and are devoted to making a happy, healthy life together. I know plenty of straight people who are married and treat each other terribly - why isn't anybody pissed off about the morals behind a man who beats and rapes his wife and kids, but if two men want to share a home and adopt a baby there is (literally) Hell to pay?

I just don't get it at all. I think I'll move to England.

--Tennyson Joy--

:upyours:

Thats not helping the anti-gay side, Michael.

Put a :mp5: instead. Its less extreme.

I think it should be allowed. I just don't see anything wrong with two men or women getting married. The use of religion in a argument against it is just stupid. Marriage is religious if the people getting married want it to be. Basically it is a legal event.
Allegedly we should all be equal, if we are going to follow that idea then the laws on marriage should be the same for heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Then why did you pretend its not?

I didn't. I simply felt that it is a bit simplistic and troublingly sensationalistic to compare the status of gays and lesbians today with that of blacks several decades ago. I said it was a stretch, I didn't say it was unfounded.

Okay, Lightning star, Micheal 02, 'lil advice for you: if you two where to actually use logic, deductive reasoning, an argument that calmly explains why your idea should be carried forth, instead of :mp5: and :upyours: type things, or reverting to "'cos god sed so" or using childish arguments such as "it's gross" or "some of these people have weird fetishes" or "these people spread diseases" (all three can be applied to some hetrosexual activities as well), ... you might possibly, ... dare I say it? ... you might possibly gain some actual respect.

Think about it, Lightning Star and Micheal 02 having the respect of their peers.

That sound nice to either of you?

1. Soooo....

You are telling me that a few people getting beat up and harrased is equal to when an entire RACE of people was enslaved, made second-class citizens for over 300 years, couldnt hold anything of importance, couldnt get rich, couldnt hold ANY high paying job, and were brutally murdered in their HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS.

You are the one who is mistaken.


It's not -that- bad. It is, however, pretty damn bad. People are still insulted for being non-hetero, people are still attacked and killed for being non-hetero, and people are still RAPED for being non-hetero, including MEN. The more unequal the treatment (and that goes both ways; minority rights that go beyond the majority's rights cause just as much strife), the more violence will occur. You'll notice that lynching is a tad less common now that African-Americans have more or less equal rights (and much of the current conflict is because some are trying to get them more rights than other persons - like the bloody morons who want to keep racial questions on government forms).


2. You see, i am against that you can be fired from a job for being gay in some states. Thats racism to the highest degree, and if you dont remember im AGAINST racism.

I'm also for some of the things you said (such as the right to share property or adoption), but im not for others. I'm not going to go too deep in out of fear for being mauled down on the street when no one is looking.



You are, at least, not evil, I'll grant that much.



3. Listen, as i said before, im all for being treated equally EXCEPT for on the issue of marriage. It has been defined by EVERY religion, EVERY culture, and EVERY race that marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN.

Trust me, this is NOT a new concept.




False. Where do you think these people are trying to GO to get married, Mars? There's no gay marriage right now because, gasp, its outlawed! It also happens anyways, just not in a legal precident. Beyond that, murder, rape, torture, hatred, slavery, child abuse, and every other nasty thing has been part of every culture, does that make it RIGHT?



4. Oh, so now you are saying that i have to have a religion to be anti gay marriage?



Nah, there are plenty of atheist homophobes.



Anyhoo, i can be anti-gay marriage because that is my MORAL BELIEF. That is what I believe, plain and simple. For all time, marriage has been between a man and a woman. Im just all for keeping the world as it is, and i dont want to see the world take a turn south.



Do your moral beliefs require legal enforcement? It's my moral belief that organized religion is the greatest evil to ever be brought in to existance, and that, for the world to have even a vague chance at peace, it needs to cease to exist; does that mean I'd vote for people not being allowed form religions? No. As much as I hate what faith has done to this world (suicide bombers and Crusades, for instance), I love freedom more. Call me Un-American.



Besides, do you know what would happen if the nation did something that angered everyone else in the world(which is what allowing gay-marriage will do)?

I got 1 word: Boycott.

Um. 1) Most of the world doesn't give a damn. The part that does is busy trying to kill each other. 2) Most of the world that trades with the US cares more about the money. 3) You think they'll react more strongly to gay marriage than the US flipping the UN off and starting a war that almost everyone was against (Including England, by the way; they just don't want to tick us off).

1.It's not -that- bad. It is, however, pretty damn bad. People are still insulted for being non-hetero, people are still attacked and killed for being non-hetero, and people are still RAPED for being non-hetero, including MEN. The more unequal the treatment (and that goes both ways; minority rights that go beyond the majority's rights cause just as much strife), the more violence will occur. You'll notice that lynching is a tad less common now that African-Americans have more or less equal rights (and much of the current conflict is because some are trying to get them more rights than other persons - like the bloody morons who want to keep racial questions on government forms).



2.You are, at least, not evil, I'll grant that much.




3.False. Where do you think these people are trying to GO to get married, Mars? There's no gay marriage right now because, gasp, its outlawed! It also happens anyways, just not in a legal precident. Beyond that, murder, rape, torture, hatred, slavery, child abuse, and every other nasty thing has been part of every culture, does that make it RIGHT?



4.Nah, there are plenty of atheist homophobes.



5.Do your moral beliefs require legal enforcement? It's my moral belief that organized religion is the greatest evil to ever be brought in to existance, and that, for the world to have even a vague chance at peace, it needs to cease to exist; does that mean I'd vote for people not being allowed form religions? No. As much as I hate what faith has done to this world (suicide bombers and Crusades, for instance), I love freedom more. Call me Un-American.



6.Um. 1) Most of the world doesn't give a damn. The part that does is busy trying to kill each other. 2) Most of the world that trades with the US cares more about the money. 3) You think they'll react more strongly to gay marriage than the US flipping the UN off and starting a war that almost everyone was against (Including England, by the way; they just don't want to tick us off).

1. I know. I said descrimination was bad, but some people are REALLY stretching it.

2. Thank you. At least you are more level-headed than some other people here.

3. Im confused.... can you say that with simpler words? I was talking about races and cultures and you are talking about celestial bodies...

4. Ok, thats good. I thought i was alone ;)

5. I dont believe that moral beliefs require legal enforcement, but i have to disagree with you about religions. But thats for another topic. :)

6. Oh yeah, i forgot....

The world is morally corrupt :/

I'm still a little hazy on how homophobia can be seen as a virtue, or how allowing gay marriage could harm straight marriages.

I knew I was going to stir up the hornets nest with my views. I only posted them because at the beginning of the poll it requested that we post the reasons for our vote. I don't expect anyone else on this board to share my views...but I cannot change my value system. I value a traditional family unit.

Here is a quote from the leadership of my church on the subject:

"The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity....we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets." ("Family: A Proclamation to the World," LDS First Presidency )

These are beliefs that I sustain. I understand that I am mostly alone in this crowd, and that is fine. My object is not to convince anyone to adopt my beliefs, only to stand up for what I believe is true and right, whether it's popular or not.

We are all free agents, and our right to choose what we want to believe or worship and how we want to live is protected by our Constitution. I understand that many would claim my views as Church infringement on the State, but I hold that this nation is bound by moral laws. I reject the notion that Our Founding Fathers ever intended to remove religion from our Government altogether, rather I believe that they were men who reveared God, and who founded this nation upon the principles that they held as "sacred truths."

I will uphold and sustain the laws of this Nation. If it is the will of the people for gay marriage to be legalized, then let the people speak in support of it. I will sustain the will of the people, but I will not sustain the act.

You told us you were going to post YOUR beliefs, but then you posted what your 'church leadership' describes... which is what THEY believe, not what YOU believe.

See, this is the problem I have with most people that call themselves 'christian':

If there is a lesson to be learned from Jesus' life, it is that we don't get our answers from the book. Re-read the bible, and look at all the times he speaks out against blind faith in teaching, against the codified 'knowledge' of the rabbi, against anything that isn't a PURE relationship with divinity.

If there is a lesson to learn from christ, it is make up your OWN mind, and make your OWN path to god.

Read the communist manefesto and get back to me on whether or not Stalin was a real communist or just an abusive dictator who corrupted communism to attain power.

I would like to leap to Terminalia's defence here...


I really would.

"Back after Pracus" should read as Back after, Pracus. He was in a hurry, because he's having dinner (or maybe lunch, I don't know where in the world he is). He'll be back when he's done eating.

Either that or he was planning on having Pracus for lunch...

One wonders if Pracus had been warned in advance?

Equality for all!! Except to the middle classes because their hobbies which harm no-one and attempt to keep the balance in the countryside are obviously far less good for the country than letting chavs go around beating people up at will and starting 'families' at age 12.

I'm always being facetious. Part of being English.


So I can take them?


Regarding fox hunting... the 'hunt' has certain rights of passage through even private property, that CAN prove very harmful.

I once stopped the hunt (in Lincolnshire, we lived on a smallholding equidistant between Lincoln and Boston) with a shotgun, because they were about to ride through our property AGAIN, for the third time that summer.

We lost chickens, geese and a couple of dogs to the hunt 'passing through', and my sister was 'run over' on one occasion... hence, the next time they came, I met them at the gate.

Also - there are insufficient native foxes to feed the hunt. Foxes are now bred in captivity SPECIFICALLY for release at the start of the hunting season.

All of which aside, there is no legal equality between fox-hunting and marriage.

Gay marriages should be alowed they are people just like us they have the right to make there own descicons and we shouldent ban them from getting married

Hey, I'm new here.

I don't really see how people have problems with gay marriage. For example, I was online playing chess (I do that a lot), and on the debate channel, people were talking about gay marriage. Says one guy, "Gay marriage leads to gay sex, and a square peg doesn't fit in a round hole." Or something moronic to that effect. I asked him if he was a Bush supporter. He is, as are most people against gay marriage. And that, my friends, is why I'm a liberal.

Oh, and by the way, I'm prejudiced against people who can't spell. So try not to get on my bad side. ;)

Hey, I'm new here.

I don't really see how people have problems with gay marriage. For example, I was online playing chess (I do that a lot), and on the debate channel, people were talking about gay marriage. Says one guy, "Gay marriage leads to gay sex, and a square peg doesn't fit in a round hole." Or something moronic to that effect. I asked him if he was a Bush supporter. He is, as are most people against gay marriage. And that, my friends, is why I'm a liberal.
What can fit in a female ass, can fit in a male ass.

Nice name, btw. :D

1. Soooo....

You are telling me that a few people getting beat up and harrased is equal to when an entire RACE of people was enslaved, made second-class citizens for over 300 years, couldnt hold anything of importance, couldnt get rich, couldnt hold ANY high paying job, and were brutally murdered in their HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS.

You are the one who is mistaken.


I never said that our discrimination was as severe--though tell that to my friend or to Matthew Shephard's family. I said that our struggle is similiar to what African Americans went through.


3. Listen, as i said before, im all for being treated equally EXCEPT for on the issue of marriage. It has been defined by EVERY religion, EVERY culture, and EVERY race that marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN.

Trust me, this is NOT a new concept.


Really? Because Christianity once performed gay marriages. As did most native american religions. It seems to me that you need to research more. Further, we re not talking about religious marriage. We are talking about civil marriages. For someone who claims to not be religious, you sure use it as a big justification.


4. Oh, so now you are saying that i have to have a religion to be anti gay marriage?


No, I'm just saying at least religious people have an excuse. Of course after reading your arguements, the only excuse you've offered up is religious.


Anyhoo, i can be anti-gay marriage because that is my MORAL BELIEF. That is what I believe, plain and simple. For all time, marriage has been between a man and a woman. Im just all for keeping the world as it is, and i dont want to see the world take a turn south.


Again, incorrect. And if we kept the world as it is, we'd still be living in caves, believing the sun orbits the earth and all that good stuff.


Besides, do you know what would happen if the nation did something that angered everyone else in the world(which is what allowing gay-marriage will do)?

I got 1 word: Boycott.

Didn't happen to Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain or Canada.

Oh, and by the way, I'm prejudiced against people who can't spell. So try not to get on my bad side. ;)

I'm in some deep trouble.

Welcome though.

Yeah me too. Oh well. I tell all that i am bigorty agaisnt imanginary people. I think they all don't exist.

Why would anyone be stupid enough to say people would boycott America if they allowed gay marriage. They would just follow on because everyone has there heads stuck up bushs ass, along with bush himself.

With the arrival of the great and enlightened me, I can clear this issue up. Gay marriage is wrong. Why? Because I say it is. And I like being mean.

With the arrival of the great and enlightened me, I can clear this issue up. Gay marriage is wrong. Why? Because I say it is. And I like being mean.

What is sad is that this is one of the most logical arguements we've had from the con camp.

What is sad is that this is one of the most logical arguements we've had from the con camp.

True. And that person even knows how pathetic it is.

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



i would sign on that bill :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:



:gundge: :gundge:

Okay so i can say Christianity has to be nice and let other people have rights. A women can choose what to do with her body as long as its in the first half of the first trimester. People can se at age 16 if they want to. Prayer must be done voulntary and cannot take place outloud in classrooms where school is in session. Evoultion must be taught in Science calss. And gays can eb in the military and lobbyists and speical intrests groups are banned from Congress and the white house.

Jsut because i said so?

I would like to leap to Terminalia's defence here...


I really would.

But you can't or won't or what?

In my opinion, it is a blatant breach of human rights to deny someone something because they are different, as long as said thing isn't harmful to someone and their "difference" isn't that they're a criminal.

;)

The argument that "Gay marriage is against my beliefs... it would ruin the sanctity of marriage" confounds me. I don't give a damn what you believe in, why can't you see past your own selfishness and see that the world isn't all about straight people.

:headbang:

I think we'll look back on this in fifty years and view it as we do Segregation today -- a moronic issue that should have been solved in five seconds.

:cool:

In my opinion, it is a blatant breach of human rights to deny someone something because they are different, as long as said thing isn't harmful to someone and their "difference" isn't that they're a criminal.

;)

The argument that "Gay marriage is against my beliefs... it would ruin the sanctity of marriage" confounds me. I don't give a damn what you believe in, why can't you see past your own selfishness and see that the world isn't all about straight people.

:headbang:

I think we'll look back on this in fifty years and view it as we do Segregation today -- a moronic issue that should have been solved in five seconds.

:cool:

Word up.

And I'm going to ask some questions to everyone opposed to gay marriage. I'd like real answers

1. How does gay people getting equal legal rights defile your marriage?
2. How does gay people getting equal legal rights take anything away from you?
3. What threat do you think gay people getting equal legal rights poses to society?

Regarding fox hunting... the 'hunt' has certain rights of passage through even private property, that CAN prove very harmful.

I once stopped the hunt (in Lincolnshire, we lived on a smallholding equidistant between Lincoln and Boston) with a shotgun, because they were about to ride through our property AGAIN, for the third time that summer.

We lost chickens, geese and a couple of dogs to the hunt 'passing through', and my sister was 'run over' on one occasion... hence, the next time they came, I met them at the gate.

Also - there are insufficient native foxes to feed the hunt. Foxes are now bred in captivity SPECIFICALLY for release at the start of the hunting season.
Wow, three hunts in two weeks? You are unlucky. Brocklesby hunt? It's a good example against but a very rare one. As to numbers, there are enough foxes. They're just moving into towns. Like the family who have decided it's fun to sit outside my window every night and scream/howl/wail.

All of which aside, there is no legal equality between fox-hunting and marriage.
Marrying foxes? Wonder if they can cross-breed with dogs..

And I'm going to ask some questions to everyone opposed to gay marriage. I'd like real answers

1. How does gay people getting equal legal rights defile your marriage?
In no way
2. How does gay people getting equal legal rights take anything away from you?
In no way
3. What threat do you think gay people getting equal legal rights poses to society
No threat whatsoever.

In the same way that, if i choose, I can
1. completely ignore people committing rape in front of me and pretend it's not happening.
2. not mind if the legal trade union of murderers is set up. As long as it doesn't hurt me.
3. not mind if tax and credit card fraud is legalized.

Extreme examples with meaning.

In the same way that, if i choose, I can
1. completely ignore people committing rape in front of me and pretend it's not happening.
2. not mind if the legal trade union of murderers is set up. As long as it doesn't hurt me.
3. not mind if tax and credit card fraud is legalized.

Extreme examples with meaning.

Apples and oranges. All these examples harm others. All of these examples involve non-consenting parties. Gay relationships and marriage does none of those as long as both parties are consenting adults. It takes no rights away from others. It does not harm to others. It doesn't threaten others. All it does is continue making all men (and women!) equal.

Just a note from the sidelines...

Schnappslant's answers to your questions shouldnt count. Why? Because the question was not directed at him! It was directed at people AGAINST gay marriage. Now even if he is correct, you need to let the opposistion answer.

Where did you learn to debate, boy?

Just a note from the sidelines...

Schnappslant's answers to your questions shouldnt count. Why? Because the question was not directed at him! It was directed at people AGAINST gay marriage. Now even if he is correct, you need to let the opposistion answer.

Where did you learn to debate, boy?

I'm not conducting a formal debate here. He responded to me, so I'm responding back to him. Nothing I have said is preventing anyone else from answering. Nor was my response personal--something I try to avoid and am successful more than I am not.

Apples and oranges. All these examples harm others. All of these examples involve non-consenting parties. Gay relationships and marriage does none of those as long as both parties are consenting adults. It takes no rights away from others. It does not harm to others. It doesn't threaten others. All it does is continue making all men (and women!) equal.
Dammit, I was waiting for someone to flame me. And I just get seemingly reasonable rebuttals. Never mind. I understand precisely what you're saying but unfortunately you fail to see beyond the purely physical and the human in this matter. You do have an ever so slightly biased view (you could say I do and be right) so I'm not surprised. I'm only surprised that I'm actually caring about people's wellbeing at the moment. Very disturbing.

Anyway. Unfocused Idiot Rambling. Apologies. You see, in the example of rape, if it was merely a physical attack the victim would be carted off to hospital, get patched up and go back to their normal lives. Don't see it happening. It's not the full story. Neither is saying that gay relationships are fine because they don't physically harm anyone.

From a purely Christian viewpoint, the demographic of homosexuals does not exist. Like if there was a registered and tolerated group of people who could commit murder because they felt the urge. I'm sure you'll agree that this would be wrong. This viewpoint does not seek to equate the worldly consequences of homosexuality and murder or indeed the feelings behind each. This viewpoint simply regards each urge, the urge to enter into a same gender sexual relationship and the urge to commit murder, as temptations.

Failing to resist these temptations will result in sin and sin will take the sinner away from God. Think of your lifetime on earth as a blink of an eye in comparison to what the rest of your existence will be. If you have attempted to distance yourself from God on earth then being completely away from God will be your fate when you die.

Ok I used my first two numbered points. I can't bring myself to discuss God and credit cards in any depth in a combined setting. ugh.. capital one (shudders)

Schnappslant's answers to your questions shouldnt count. Why? Because the question was not directed at him! It was directed at people AGAINST gay marriage. Now even if he is correct, you need to let the opposition answer.
I'll acknowledge that on the basis that I'm not against gay marriage on the basis of: "ew, it's nasty, it's evil, THEY'RE EVIL, AAAAAAARRRGGHHH". People like that crack me up. They're funny.

I'll acknowledge that on the basis that I'm not against gay marriage on the basis of "ew, it's nasty, it's evil, THEY'RE EVIL, AAAAAAARRRGGHHH". People like that crack me up. They're funny.

...What?

I'm confused...

Have you ever heard of the word "punctuation"? BEcause for the first scentence it looks like you forgot...thus making it confusing.

Wow, this thread has been going on for a little over 2 months O_o

And my side STILL hasnt made any ground(if any, we've lost some.)

Thats why i enjoy sitting on the sidelines most of the time.

*reaches into popcorn bag and finds nothing*

"Dang! I guess i need to go make s'more....

*walks into the kitchen and makes popcorn.*

Anyway. Unfocused Idiot Rambling. Apologies. You see, in the example of rape, if it was merely a physical attack the victim would be carted off to hospital, get patched up and go back to their normal lives. Don't see it happening. It's not the full story. Neither is saying that gay relationships are fine because they don't physically harm anyone.


Fine, I'll go one further on rape. It emotionally and psychologically images the victim. Gay marriage does not--there is no victim.


From a purely Christian viewpoint, the demographic of homosexuals does not exist. Like if there was a registered and tolerated group of people who could commit murder because they felt the urge. I'm sure you'll agree that this would be wrong. This viewpoint does not seek to equate the worldly consequences of homosexuality and murder or indeed the feelings behind each. This viewpoint simply regards each urge, the urge to enter into a same gender sexual relationship and the urge to commit murder, as temptations.


From a purely American standpoint, it doesn't matter what Christians think. Sin is not the basis of what is legal. Rather rights and equality are. Just look at the ten commandments--most of them are not actually illegal. Why is it that I don't see Christians out protesting to make adultery illegal? Or telling white lies? Or being envious--hell, if you look at it, capitalism is based upon being envious of others and wanting what they have. What about having no other gods? Should we forbid members of all other religions and force them to Christianity? I want to know why Christians want to forbid homosexual rights so much but they don't go after others.


Failing to resist these temptations will result in sin and sin will take the sinner away from God. Think of your lifetime on earth as a blink of an eye in comparison to what the rest of your existence will be. If you have attempted to distance yourself from God on earth then being completely away from God will be your fate when you die.


This would be a great arguement--if we were discussing marriage in a religious setting. We are not. We are discussing rights granted by the civil government, not the religious ones.


Ok I used my first two numbered points. I can't bring myself to discuss God and credit cards in any depth in a combined setting. ugh.. capital one (shudders)


Whats rather funny is that I have a Capital One card. When NationStates sent me the email letting me know you had posted this, where did it go? Into my Capital One email folder.

Wow, this thread has been going on for a little over 2 months O_o

And my side STILL hasnt made any ground(if any, we've lost some.)

Thats why i enjoy sitting on the sidelines most of the time.

*reaches into popcorn bag and finds nothing*

"Dang! I guess i need to go make s'more....

*walks into the kitchen and makes popcorn.*

You know, when most people are bested in a debate, their arguements discredited, etc. they usually consider changing their minds instead of just clingy to incorrect information and beliefs.

...What?

I'm confused...

Have you ever heard of the word "punctuation"? BEcause for the first scentence it looks like you forgot...thus making it confusing.
Sorry, yes I left out the comma before the double quote mark. I'll change it now. Or were you referring to something else? Was it a problem of coping with long words? Or maybe a sentence longer than 10 words?

I decided to change it (the comma) to a colon, seeing as there was no explicit subject before the speech. Are we happy?

Sorry, yes I left out the comma before the double quote mark. I'll change it now. Or were you referring to something else? Was it a problem of coping with long words? Or maybe a sentence longer than 10 words?

<giggles>

Whats so different about gay people? The only difference is they dont have the majority sexual orientation, thats it... many people treat them like their some kind of diseased victim

Whats so different about gay people? The only difference is they dont have the majority sexual orientation, thats it... many people treat them like their some kind of diseased victim

I think its because people are scared of what they don't understand. And they don't want to learn about what they are scared about. It's a viscious cycle.
Learning and growing and seriously challenging your beliefs--no matter how unfounded, illogical or just plain hateful they are--is really not an easy process.

Children raised in stable families are more likely to achieve a happy and productive adulthood. Anything the state can do to foster the growth of the stable and happy family unit is to be encouraged.

I do not believe in legalizing gay marriage. Marriage has been for all time between a man and a woman, and there is no need to toss out 5 millenia of history.

However, I DO believe in giving them civil unions, so they can have the same legal benefits as married couples.

Fine, I'll go one further on rape. It emotionally and psychologically images the victim. Gay marriage does not--there is no victim.
You missed the point. It DOES psychologically damage BOTH parties unless they realise that it is not what God wants for them.

From a purely American standpoint, it doesn't matter what Christians think. Sin is not the basis of what is legal. Rather rights and equality are. Just look at the ten commandments--most of them are not actually illegal. Why is it that I don't see Christians out protesting to make adultery illegal? Or telling white lies? Or being envious--hell, if you look at it, capitalism is based upon being envious of others and wanting what they have. What about having no other gods? Should we forbid members of all other religions and force them to Christianity? I want to know why Christians want to forbid homosexual rights so much but they don't go after others.
Did I miss something or did 'christians' affect America quite a lot a little while ago? Heh heh heh. All the rest, absolutely right. Except the rights bit as I explained (badly) in the last long boring post i did, and forced belief. Unfortunately Christians, like the rest of us, are only human, therefore imperfect, therefore will look for the easier target/whatever others are targetting.

This would be a great arguement--if we were discussing marriage in a religious setting. We are not. We are discussing rights granted by the civil government, not the religious ones.
I try not to discuss religion. It brings in notions of humans generally being greedy, stupid and/or both. The earth belongs to God. Think big, not tiny little earthly governments. Blink of an eye, blink of an eye!

Whats rather funny is that I have a Capital One card. When NationStates sent me the email letting me know you had posted this, where did it go? Into my Capital One email folder.
And that, is the definition of irony.

People Who are gay die in my state, that simple, anyone who lives in my state who is gay is found, anyone who knows anything about and tells gets 100 big fat gold chains (the currency), those who dont tell but know about it also get killed :rolleyes: :mp5: :rolleyes: :mp5: :rolleyes: :mp5:

I do not believe in legalizing gay marriage. Marriage has been for all time between a man and a woman, and there is no need to toss out 5 millenia of history.

However, I DO believe in giving them civil unions, so they can have the same legal benefits as married couples.

Separate is not equal.

For the majority of history, marriage has been in a manner that the wife is the property of the husband. Should we keep that around? There were no divorces, no matter how severe the abuse, for most of history. Should we keep that around? For most of history interracial marriage was forbidden. Should we keep that around?

Further there is archaelogical information, as well as written records, that show that the Christian church itself performed gay marriages up until the 1800s. For all practical intents and purposes, gay marriage HAS been around.

Of course I don't think tradition is a reason to do anything. If the tradition is unfair or harmful, you quit doing it. As mankind grows and changes in its knowledge and understanding of its world, its traditions have to do the same.

I also amazes me that people will so willingly state "It's always been this way" when A. We don't really have that good of a history of the world and B. The evidence we do have suggests that they are wrong.

You missed the point. It DOES psychologically damage BOTH parties unless they realise that it is not what God wants for them.


You don't understaned psychology do you. It might damage a gay person's chances in the next world--thats beyond the scope of what I'm talking about--but not in this world. And for that matter, adultery, lying, and envy will hurt you in the next as well. Why aren't Christians protesting to make those illegal?


Did I miss something or did 'christians' affect America quite a lot a little while ago? Heh heh heh. All the rest, absolutely right. Except the rights bit as I explained (badly) in the last long boring post i did, and forced belief. Unfortunately Christians, like the rest of us, are only human, therefore imperfect, therefore will look for the easier target/whatever others are targetting.

We are not supposed to use religion to make laws. Ergo while Christians should vote, they are not supposed to base everything on their religion. And I constnatly hear how Christians are supposed to be better and higher than everyone else (I'm from the Bible elt) so "We're imperfect" and "only human" seems to be a hollow excuse and a cop out.


I try not to discuss religion. It brings in notions of humans generally being greedy, stupid and/or both. The earth belongs to God. Think big, not tiny little earthly governments. Blink of an eye, blink of an eye!


You try not to discuss religion?!? Good! I won't hear any more dribble coming from you concerning homosexuality being psychologically hurtful because it offends God's weak sensibilities.

It amazes me. People are constnatly--you're sinners and going to hell. We sholud take your rights away. We're sinner and not going to hell and we should have more rights than you.

Grow up people.

Was it a problem of coping with long words? Or maybe a sentence longer than 10 words?

I fail to see your "strategy". Insulting me does nothing for your cause, if anything it will hurt you by making it look like all gay people are mean(which they arent, but if every gay person was like you...)

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

I once read that some gay radicals call it a patriarchal institution.

You know, when most people are bested in a debate, their arguements discredited, etc. they usually consider changing their minds instead of just clingy to incorrect information and beliefs.

1, I dont remember any of my arguements being discredited.

2, If someone TRULY believes in something, they will never stop fighting for it.

3, You just expect me to just lay down my arms and say "I give up"? BAH! I wont give up i say, for this is my fight! This affects ME as well, and I want to have my say in it. If someone TRULY believes in a cause, they will never turn their backs on it like cowards and theives and good for nutins.

4, if you dont remember, im on the sidelines right now. Your side is now just using random excuses to launch personal attacks on me. FOR SHAME!

You don't understaned psychology do you. It might damage a gay person's chances in the next world--thats beyond the scope of what I'm talking about--but not in this world. And for that matter, adultery, lying, and envy will hurt you in the next as well. Why aren't Christians protesting to make those illegal?
No, I'm no psychology major. I suppose psychology applied to the earthly human mind won't transcend death. Bugger. But you see my point at least.

I suppose in that way, yes, ye Bible Belt Christians are wrong to try and and outlaw Gay marriage. Turkey outlaws Adultery! So do some Moslem countries. Would kind of take the free will element away. You could say ban all laws; people should be able to work out what'sbest for them... and that worked.

We are not supposed to use religion to make laws. Ergo while Christians should vote, they are not supposed to base everything on their religion. And I constnatly hear how Christians are supposed to be better and higher than everyone else (I'm from the Bible belt) so "We're imperfect" and "only human" seems to be a hollow excuse and a cop out.
So you have Christians around who aren't too modest. That's their failing. God doesn't tell them they're any better than anyone else. That's them failing to resist temptations of pride and arrogance. Therefore they're human because they fall victim to temptation like everybody else. Wouldn't hurt you to point that out to them once in a while. Actually, it probably would hurt you. Not recommended!!

You try not to discuss religion?!? Good! I won't hear any more dribble coming from you concerning homosexuality being psychologically hurtful because it offends God's weak sensibilities.
Hmm.. offensive. I think the word you're looking for is 'drivel'.

It amazes me. People are constnatly--you're sinners and going to hell. We sholud take your rights away. We're sinner and not going to hell and we should have more rights than you.

Grow up people.
A strange viewpoint, but I can see it's origins *cough* TEXAS *cough*. Sorry, bad cold.

I fail to see your "strategy". Insulting me does nothing for your cause, if anything it will hurt you by making it look like all gay people are mean(which they arent, but if every gay person was like you...)
Apologies. I was just feeling mean. I have spelling/grammar related anger outbursts.

You see, if the U.S. was a muslim country we wouldnt HAVE this problem, because in the Koran males are allowed Gay marriage(although i guess with a little tweaking females could be too).

Sorry, yes I left out the comma before the double quote mark. I'll change it now. Or were you referring to something else? Was it a problem of coping with long words? Or maybe a sentence longer than 10 words?

I decided to change it (the comma) to a colon, seeing as there was no explicit subject before the speech. Are we happy?


You got to love Schnappslant, haven't you?

Almost makes you wish he really WAS one of the full-on 'icky-icky team' - just so you could feel they had some decent representation...

1, I dont remember any of my arguements being discredited.

2, If someone TRULY believes in something, they will never stop fighting for it.

3, You just expect me to just lay down my arms and say "I give up"? BAH! I wont give up i say, for this is my fight! This affects ME as well, and I want to have my say in it. If someone TRULY believes in a cause, they will never turn their backs on it like cowards and theives and good for nutins.

4, if you dont remember, im on the sidelines right now. Your side is now just using random excuses to launch personal attacks on me. FOR SHAME!

This affects you?

You realise that if this really DOES affect you, that means you are a homosexual, right?

Because, if you are NOT homosexual.... I can't see how this 'affects you'.

This affects you?

You realise that if this really DOES affect you, that means you are a homosexual, right?

Because, if you are NOT homosexual.... I can't see how this 'affects you'.


Actually, it DOES affect me. Why? Because it is a driving issue in todays politics. It shows who gets elected, how they get elected, and why they get elected. And then the Elected people affect me by making decisions that influence every breathing moment of my life.

I have launched no personal attacks. Nor do I think Schnappsplant is on my side.

1, I dont remember any of my arguements being discredited.


Then perhas you shoudl reread the thread.


2, If someone TRULY believes in something, they will never stop fighting for it.


That's great for matters of faith. For arguements that can be discredited (and I'm not particularly directing this at you but at many many others herE) such as 1. Homosexuality is a choice 2. Homosexuality harms kids 3. Homosexuality is unnatural then blindly following something without challening those bleiefs is just stupid.


3, You just expect me to just lay down my arms and say "I give up"? BAH! I wont give up i say, for this is my fight! This affects ME as well, and I want to have my say in it. If someone TRULY believes in a cause, they will never turn their backs on it like cowards and theives and good for nutins.


How does it affect you?


4, if you dont remember, im on the sidelines right now. Your side is now just using random excuses to launch personal attacks on me. FOR SHAME!

People on the sidelines don't post. Either you are in this discussion or you are out of it and not saying anything. You don't get to jump in when you want and then say "I'm on the sidelines, don't argue with me!"

You know half the time I cannot tell exactly which side of this debate you are on--but you keep it amusing and me on my toes. Thank you!

No, I'm no psychology major. I suppose psychology applied to the earthly human mind won't transcend death. Bugger. But you see my point at least.

I see your point, but fail to see how it applies to Civil Marriage.


Hmm.. offensive. I think the word you're looking for is 'drivel'.


You're probably right on the word I want. You go to med school and things like gramma, spelling, and syntax go out the window. And I didn't mean it to be offensive--I just call it like it is.


A strange viewpoint, but I can see it's origins *cough* TEXAS *cough*. Sorry, bad cold.

Not all that strange--its seems to be the one the majority of Christians around me (whether online or not) who argue against gay marriage hold.

Actually, it DOES affect me. Why? Because it is a driving issue in todays politics. It shows who gets elected, how they get elected, and why they get elected. And then the Elected people affect me by making decisions that influence every breathing moment of my life.

It is only a driving issue in todays politics if someone were ignorant enough to vote for one politician PURELY on the stance relating to homosexual marriage.

If, to that person, banning homosexual marriage is SUCH a major issue that they would be willing to sacrifice economy, security and wellbeing, as viable trades for a gay-ban, that person isn't voting on the issues of government, and is actively harming the political process.

So, in a way you are right - it could affect the positions of power in government... but one has to hope that no nation has that many people who place their religious views on a minority issue ABOVE the nation wellbeing of their state.

Anyone who DID make that choice, would be an anti-patriot.



All that said, you are talking a secondary effect, at best... to a homosexual, this is about infringement of primary rights.

I have launched no personal attacks. Nor do I think Schnappsplant is on my side.



1Then perhas you shoudl reread the thread.


2That's great for matters of faith. For arguements that can be discredited (and I'm not particularly directing this at you but at many many others herE) such as 1. Homosexuality is a choice 2. Homosexuality harms kids 3. Homosexuality is unnatural then blindly following something without challening those bleiefs is just stupid.



3How does it affect you?



4People on the sidelines don't post. Either you are in this discussion or you are out of it and not saying anything. You don't get to jump in when you want and then say "I'm on the sidelines, don't argue with me!"


1. I shall

2.Listen, i believe in my side 100%. I have seen both sides of the argument, and i agree with both on some matters but mostly with the anti-gay marriage.,

3. Read my previous post

4. Ahem. Im switching in and out. I just said something and then i was blatantly attacked on a personal scale. Im just mostly on the sidelines, i say something, i respond, if theres a response to that response i respond,and then i sit out.

1. I shall

2.Listen, i believe in my side 100%. I have seen both sides of the argument, and i agree with both on some matters but mostly with the anti-gay marriage.,

3. Read my previous post

4. Ahem. Im switching in and out. I just said something and then i was blatantly attacked on a personal scale. Im just mostly on the sidelines, i say something, i respond, if theres a response to that response i respond,and then i sit out.

So... why do YOU, personally, oppose gay marriage?

You see, if the U.S. was a muslim country we wouldnt HAVE this problem, because in the Koran males are allowed Gay marriage(although i guess with a little tweaking females could be too).
Hmm. We would also be allowed unlimited abortions and fetal experimentation, since Islam holds that life does NOT begin at conception.

Actually I do advocate it, and I would like to see a return to extended familys helping each other out, maybe not all in the same house, but all in the same street, that way their would always be someone looking after the old people and the kids.

I would say this is even more necessary today than before, the isolationism
a lot of people in western cuture are experiencing, is the path to extinction.
Anyway, I have to go eat.
Back after Pracus.

Of course, when people started moving more towards the nuclear family, those who were older maintained that it was "destroying the family!" and that "children need more role models around!" Incidentally, I agree, not that the whole family has to live on the same land, but that children *should* have more than two role models who are constant in their lives. Of course, in this case, it wouldn't really matter if the parent(s) were a single mom, single dad, mom and dad, two moms, or two dads - as long as multiple role models of both genders were available to the children on a regular basis.

The idea that "a child needs a mother, father, and that's it" has done much more to destroy the idea of the family and lead to mental problems in youth than having homosexual parents ever would.

It has been defined by EVERY religion... that marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN.

Yeah, you know, because the religions that dont/didn't define it that way (Druidic, certain pagan religions, Wicca, certain Christian denominations, the occasional Native American tribe) just don't count.

And never mind that the idea of civil marriage that we have today hasn't been around all that long in the scheme of things.

Yeah, you know, because the religions that dont/didn't define it that way (Druidic, certain pagan religions, Wicca, certain Christian denominations, the occasional Native American tribe) just don't count.

And never mind that the idea of civil marriage that we have today hasn't been around all that long in the scheme of things.

Have you ever noticed that most people who claim "every religion is gainst gay marrige!" actually doesn't know of any religion aside from christianity?

Hmm. We would also be allowed unlimited abortions and fetal experimentation, since Islam holds that life does NOT begin at conception.

Hm... doesn't sound too bad too me!

Have you ever noticed that most people who claim "every religion is gainst gay marrige!" actually doesn't know of any religion aside from christianity?
So true. People inclined to be Christian imperialists usually don't know much about other religious beliefs, and assume everyone else believes in one wrathful god who despises gays and sends them to burn in hell.

Hmm. We would also be allowed unlimited abortions and fetal experimentation, since Islam holds that life does NOT begin at conception.

Of course, our government holds that life does not begin at conception, and we don't have any of that yet. Could it be perhaps because science (and presumably Islam) holds that life begins somewhere along the way? It couldn't possibly be that!

Have you ever noticed that most people who claim "every religion is gainst gay marrige!" actually doesn't know of any religion aside from christianity?

Yes. And isn't it funny that some of us Christians actually take the time to look into other religions, because claiming that 99.9999% of all religions are completely wrong, while one is completely right is just silly and leads to blindly following like a sheep rather than real faith?

Yes. And isn't it funny that some of us Christians actually take the time to look into other religions, because claiming that 99.9999% of all religions are completely wrong, while one is completely right is just silly and leads to blindly following like a sheep rather than real faith?

Read my quote again-I said "the christians that whatever" not "all christians"

I have christian friends and such, and I try to avoid generalization. Now, if this wasn't a repost aimed at me, I'm probebly a bit over defensive, so I apologize in that case in advance :p

Read my quote again-I said "the christians that whatever" not "all christians"

I have christian friends and such, and I try to avoid generalization. Now, if this wasn't a repost aimed at me, I'm probebly a bit over defensive, so I apologize in that case in advance :p

Actually, it wasn't meant as an argument at all. I understood what you were saying, and simply meant to add to it. Sorry if it sounded confrontational, I didn't mean to be.

Actually, it wasn't meant as an argument at all. I understood what you were saying, and simply meant to add to it. Sorry if it sounded confrontational, I didn't mean to be.

Eh, my fault, like I said I can be a bit over defensive at times, especially about religion. Going to a christian high school while adamantly not being christian isn't entertaining :p

I really see no reason other than religious ones to oppose gay marriage, and I'm strongly against religion influencing public policy... although the idea that was proposed about eliminating marriage from public policy altogether in favor of civil unions sounds pretty good to me.

Off to the mountains for Thanksgiving. No internet for five days (and for some reason I am excited about this!?!). So excuse me if I don't respond for a while.

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

i agree with you fully marrige is so overated these days. and no one should be able to decide what others do

You liberals suck.

Anti-gay marriage all the way.

Thou shalt get no intelligent argument from me.

You liberals suck.

Anti-gay marriage all the way.

Thou shalt get no intelligent argument from me.

That was some nicely done satire :p

Inside Nationstates County Hospital(NSCH)

"Sir! Theres another thread dying."

"MEh..."

"Sir! This one hasnt been posted on in more than 3 days!"

"EGADS! HURRY! TO THE OPERATION ROOM!"

/takes out those thingies that go buzz/

"CLEAR!"


*buzz*

"CLEAR!"

*buzz*

"CLEAR!"

*buzz*

"Ok, i think this should work for now."

Inside Nationstates County Hospital(NSCH)

"Sir! Theres another thread dying."

"MEh..."

"Sir! This one hasnt been posted on in more than 3 days!"

"EGADS! HURRY! TO THE OPERATION ROOM!"


Nice font on the signature!! Oh yeah... bump

The idea that "a child needs a mother, father, and that's it" has done much more to destroy the idea of the family and lead to mental problems in youth than having homosexual parents ever would.

Got any proof for that rubbish?

Marriage should be a human rights issue and not a religious issue. The people who wanting to get married are already living and sleeping together and want the other rights for perm. co-habitation such as provided by law to single sex marriages.

I've read before about a couple who'd been together for 20 years and when one of them fell ill his long term companion was not only denied visiting rights by the family, but was only allowed to retreive property known to belong to him from the house they shared before the dead man's family sold it.

This seems grossly unfair.

If same sex couples can adopt then they should also be allowed to marry,

Got any proof for that rubbish?
How about some rationality? Both male and female role models are readily available in other contexts. If a child having homosexual parents meant they never came in contact with members of the opposite sex, then they would be socially maladjusted. However, this simply isn't the case. Children come in close contact with both genders on a daily basis no matter what gender their parents are. It's not like a kid with 2 daddies doesn't know the charateristics of a female. The only thing that you could claim would be "perverted" by having homosexual parents would be the child's concept of gender roles, and the general effect would be to loosen the gender constructs of society in the child's mind, which would be entirely a good thing.

=Deltaepsilon]How about some rationality? Both male and female role models are readily available in other contexts.
Readily?

Not really.

A young child between the ages of 0 and 5 will be in contact with his/her

parents most when it comes to adults.




Children come in close contact with both genders on a daily basis no matter what gender their parents are.

Wrong.

Close daily contact that parents give their young children, such as changing,

bathing feeding, hugging, kissing, playing with, disciplining, teaching etc isnt

a wide spread kind of contact the child will experience with other adults of

either gender for long periods of time.


It's not like a kid with 2 daddies doesn't know the charateristics of a female.

You can only learn so much from TV.


The only thing that you could claim would be "perverted" by having homosexual parents would be the child's concept of gender roles, and the general effect would be to loosen the gender constructs of society in the child's mind, which would be entirely a good thing.

For you maybe, further loosening of gender roles would be anything but good.

Not that it matters much now, the horse has well and trult bolted.

Readily?

Not really.

A young child between the ages of 0 and 5 will be in contact with his/her

parents most when it comes to adults.


sure, parents have the most contact. so what? that doesn't mean there can't be other very strong and very active influences. i had godparents, for instance, who saw and cared for me almost as much as my parents did.


Wrong.

Close daily contact that parents give their young children, such as changing,

bathing feeding, hugging, kissing, playing with, disciplining, teaching etc isnt

a wide spread kind of contact the child will experience with other adults of

either gender for long periods of time.

lol, again, maybe YOU lacked strong role models in your life, but many other people are more fortunate because their parents cared enough to ensure that there would be strong and loving adults in their children's lives. i had godparents, i had relatives that were active parts of my life, and even the workers at my daycare center (who did all those things you describe) were major parts of my life for years. our family is still in touch with a few of them, in fact.


You can only learn so much from TV.

yeah, because you know that a parent can't possibly teach their kids anything. obviously a man cannot know anything about the biology of the female body, and obviously a man cannot teach his children anything about the female body...*eye roll of massive proportions*

you must have had the worst male influences in your life. i am seriously sorry for you. my father taught me as much about women as my mother did, since the male perspective on females and the female body is quite important and valid. also, my father took the time to get to know the female form, since he cared about the female in his life, and thus was very well informed about it.


For you maybe, further loosening of gender roles would be anything but good.

Not that it matters much now, the horse has well and trult bolted.
if you want "traditional" gender roles then i assume you also will support traditional family structure, right? guess what: traditional family structure is NOT the nuclear family...that's a very recent invention, and the traditional family actually involves precisely the outside role models that you claim are either impossible to find or useless in a a child's life.

I voted for...

Someone I spoke to about this raised a good point. He was of the opinion that gay people should be allowed the same legal status as married heterosexual couples, but the church (or whatever religion you follow) should not have to support it.

If the church is against people getting married (and I'm not saying they all are) then they should not be forced to allow it, as that is as bad as telling gay people they can't be married, but there is no reason that gay people should not share the same legal rights as any other married couple.

I voted for...

Someone I spoke to about this raised a good point. He was of the opinion that gay people should be allowed the same legal status as married heterosexual couples, but the church (or whatever religion you follow) should not have to support it.

If the church is against people getting married (and I'm not saying they all are) then they should not be forced to allow it, as that is as bad as telling gay people they can't be married, but there is no reason that gay people should not share the same legal rights as any other married couple.
nobody is proposing passing laws to force churches or other religious organizations to recognize gay marriage.

Meh, New Zealand passed its Civil Unions Bill this week and thank God. The opposition towards it really showed it self to be mostly homophobic (and that's not a word I use often nor really like) in nature, at least in parliament anyway. The conservative MP's really only strengthened the case in my opinion. Most of the arguments revolved around the belief that homosexuality is an evil sin, and this week has been very reminiscent of the legalization of homosexuality in 1986... same faces, same arguments. Very few actually had anything intelligent and worth-hearing to say.

The public wasn’t much better though, defacing MP's offices and calling on gays to be executed (in letters to parliament)...

nobody is proposing passing laws to force churches or other religious organizations to recognize gay marriage.

Indeed churches already have the legal right to refuse to marry ANYBODY they do not want to. This includes divorcees, interracial couples, infertile couples, etc., and it will include homosexual couples once we get equal rights. Gay people do not want special rights people--we want equality.

You know, if all major elections were held online, we'd have such a better country.

You know, if all major elections were held online, we'd have such a better country.

Not Necessarily, larger countries would dominate with their views and that can get in the way with cultural differences.

But anyway, I'm back people!

Readily?

Not really.

A young child between the ages of 0 and 5 will be in contact with his/her

parents most when it comes to adults.



Actually when i was around that age I would go to kindergarten and we were looked after female and some male teachers. Also I would often go to my uncle and aunties place. My life wouldn't have been much different to someone who had gay parents.

[QUOTE=Bottle]sure, parents have the most contact. so what? that doesn't mean there can't be other very strong and very active influences. i had godparents, for instance, who saw and cared for me almost as much as my parents did.

I doupt they put in as much time and effort as your parents did.

lol, again, maybe YOU lacked strong role models in your life,

Excuse me?

What the hell would you know.

Try and keep the personal attacks out of it, if your able.



but many other people are more fortunate because their parents cared enough to ensure that there would be strong and loving adults in their children's lives. i had godparents, i had relatives that were active parts of my life, and even the workers at my daycare center (who did all those things you describe) were major parts of my life for years. our family is still in touch with a few of them, in fact.

I had all that too, but like everyone else, its your own parents who influence

you the most.


yeah, because you know that a parent can't possibly teach their kids anything. obviously a man cannot know anything about the biology of the female body, and obviously a man cannot teach his children anything about the female body...*eye roll of massive proportions*

What are you blithering on about?


you must have had the worst male influences in your life. i am seriously sorry for you.

Grow up you silly little girl, my father is a respected member of Australian

politics, is the Liberal member for the Hunter region of NSW, and holds the

utmost respect of everyone hes worked with and met at three Universitys,

Hunter, Wollongong and Sydney, for the three Doctraits hes earned in

Economics, Commerce and Maths, and also just for being the good guy he is.

He is currently serving in the UN building itself as one of the two Australian

reps sent over each year.

He also has mine and my familys utmost respect for helping bring up six

children through hard times, often working continuous 60 hr weeks, which he

still does, he was and still is a very good father and a very good postive role

model, if Im ever as half as good as him, I'll die happy.

So dont feel sorry for me, feel sorry for yourself, for talking completely out of

your arse.

my father taught me as much about women as my mother did, since the male perspective on females and the female body is quite important and valid. also, my father took the time to get to know the female form, since he cared about the female in his life, and thus was very well informed about it.

My father, and two Uncles I grew up with are also gentlemen, you would

probably see them as old fashioned, but I never saw any of them mistreat

women in any way.

if you want "traditional" gender roles then i assume you also will support traditional family structure, right? guess what: traditional family structure is NOT the nuclear family...that's a very recent invention, and the traditional family actually involves precisely the outside role models that you claim are either impossible to find or useless in a a child's life.

Your just talking lies now, I never said influences on a young child outside

the nuclear family were unimportant or impossible to find, quote it if you can.

As for nuclear familys being a recent invention, thats more to do with

extended familys no longer living together, but regardless the basic family

ie: man, woman and children has always existed within the extended family.

Actually when i was around that age I would go to kindergarten and we were looked after female and some male teachers. Also I would often go to my uncle and aunties place. My life wouldn't have been much different to someone who had gay parents.

Disagree, sorry.

I think it is vital for children to have both and only both sexes as parents, to

grow up well adjusted.

Disagree, sorry.

I think it is vital for children to have both and only both sexes as parents, to

grow up well adjusted.

You can "think it is vital" all you want Term. But the fact remains that there are many many children who grow up out of "traditional homes" who are well adjusted and do just fine in life. Just look at the children in single homes--many of them are doing very well (while many children of two parent homes are entirely fucked up). Hell, you can look at kids raise by gay/lesbian parents and gee whiz, they are okay too!

Raising a child has a lot more to do with the dedication and love of the parent(s) and far less to do with the gender of said parent(s).

(while many children of two parent homes are entirely fucked up).

Got any statistics for that?

Hell, you can look at kids raise by gay/lesbian parents and gee whiz, they are okay too!

Thats debatable.


Raising a child has a lot more to do with the dedication and love of the parent(s) and far less to do with the gender of said parent(s).

I agree that gay people are just as capable of looking after children in some

ways as hetrosexuals, but I dont believe this means that they should.

I agree that gay people are just as capable of looking after children in some

ways as hetrosexuals, but I dont believe this means that they should.

I can't respond to the rest of what you said cause you screwed the quotes up and its 2:30AM and I'm not going back to cut and paste.

However, I can respond to this.

You say that gay people shoudlnt' raise kids because they aren't capable of providing a good home, then say that they are just as capable but that they shouldn't . . . . .why?

<EDITORIAL ADDITION>

Hell, I'm bored so I'm gonna open two windows and reply to your other BS cause I have the time.

1. I don't need statistics to prove that many children raised in heterosexual homes are F'ed up, I'm not tryin gto prove a percentage or even a majority is. Just that some are. It's a fact.

2. It's not debatable that many children raised by gay parents are fine. Why? BECAUSE YOU CAN LOOK AT THEM. I know some. I've read up on the studies (which we have provided you on this very forum previously) and it says that children of gay couples do just as well emotionally, socially, psyhcologically, and mentally as kids from two parent straight homes. Of course, you've ignored that every time and probably will again.

Readily?
Not really.
A young child between the ages of 0 and 5 will be in contact with his/her
parents most when it comes to adults.


Edited for wasted space.

My little girl was raised in an English city. That means, she had to live in the kind of accomodation a big city offers - which was, in this case, a series of apartments with shared facilities.

So - she had a 'mother' and 'father', two 'uncles' and two 'aunts', that effectively lived with her - and a couple of other 'aunt' figures that were occasional.

Yes - her parents were the MOST contact she had, but far from the only contact she had.

The problem with your model, Terminalia, is that it is out of date. Most people no longer live in a shack in the country - they have real lives, with real people in them.

Most people live in cities - and the shortage of space in most cities has forced something of a return to the true family model - which is a non-nuclear family, that extends both 'upwards' and 'sideways' - and, one that isn't entirely delineated by the ties of blood.

I am usually something of a 'friend to ecology' - but on this issue - I can't wait for the day when cities line the surface of the world... and all the parochial anachronisms are finally left behind by a pragmatic species faced with issues of survival - and finding that there isn't time or space for their archaic codes of prejudice.

Grow up you silly little girl, my father is a respected member of Australian
politics, is the Liberal member for the Hunter region of NSW, and holds the
utmost respect of everyone hes worked with and met at three Universitys,
Hunter, Wollongong and Sydney, for the three Doctraits hes earned in
Economics, Commerce and Maths, and also just for being the good guy he is.
He is currently serving in the UN building itself as one of the two Australian
reps sent over each year.
He also has mine and my familys utmost respect for helping bring up six
children through hard times, often working continuous 60 hr weeks, which he
still does, he was and still is a very good father and a very good postive role
model, if Im ever as half as good as him, I'll die happy.
So dont feel sorry for me, feel sorry for yourself, for talking completely out of
your arse.



Aha - it all becomes clear.

Anyone heard of the concept of a "Vicar's Daughter"?

Aha - it all becomes clear.

Anyone heard of the concept of a "Vicar's Daughter"?

Your talking out of your arse too.

Nothing new. :p

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]
The problem with your model, Terminalia, is that it is out of date. Most people no longer live in a shack in the country - they have real lives, with real people in them.

So your saying the people who lived in the little shacks in the country werent

real people, or had real lives?

Most people live in cities - and the shortage of space in most cities has forced something of a return to the true family model - which is a non-nuclear family,

cough er most people living in western citys have very small familys, and

dont get to see their extended family that much, in fact alot of them actively

avoid it, and lets not forget the fastest growing unit in western citys at

present, people living alone.

Perhaps your talking about Mexico City, or some city in Nigeria, I dont know,

be specific.


I am usually something of a 'friend to ecology' - but on this issue - I can't wait for the day when cities line the surface of the world... and all the parochial anachronisms are finally left behind by a pragmatic species faced with issues of survival - and finding that there isn't time or space for their archaic codes of prejudice.

Yeah well, there wont be much Survival Grave, if Citys cover the entire

Earth.

[QUOTE=Pracus]
You say that gay people shoudlnt' raise kids because they aren't capable of providing a good home, then say that they are just as capable but that they shouldn't . . . . .why?

What I mean is, I dont believe its morally right for two people of the same

sex to raise kids in the same house with them, its the sex thing I guess.



Hell, I'm bored so I'm gonna open two windows and reply to your other BS cause I have the time.
Fine, you can call what I believe to be correct BS, and I'll call yours the

same, hell I do anyway lol

1. I don't need statistics to prove that many children raised in heterosexual homes are F'ed up, I'm not tryin gto prove a percentage or even a majority is. Just that some are. It's a fact.

Of course some are, but you said alot.

Dont blame the parents for this, blame interfering government busybodies,

and stupid laws preventing parents from raising children properly like they

should be raised.

If parents were just left alone to do the job right, there wouldnt be half the

problems.


2. It's not debatable that many children raised by gay parents are fine. Why? BECAUSE YOU CAN LOOK AT THEM. I know some. I've read up on the studies (which we have provided you on this very forum previously) and it says that children of gay couples do just as well emotionally, socially, psyhcologically, and mentally as kids from two parent straight homes. Of course, you've ignored that every time and probably will again.

LOL what studies?

You never presented any.

Dear oh dear Pracus. :rolleyes:

Your talking out of your arse too.

Nothing new. :p

A witty comeback, I'm sure.

What was that meaning?

Did it mean you didn't know what a "Vicar's Daughter" is? Didn't understand the contextual link, or disagreed with the metaphor?

But - hey, swearing and obfuscation is the perfect mask for lack of argument, no?

Aha - it all becomes clear.

Anyone heard of the concept of a "Vicar's Daughter"?
ding ding ding!! we have a winner!

seriously, does anybody else feel like Termies little paragraph of sharing puts the rest of his post in perfect focus? suddenly it is all so obvious...

[QUOTE]
So your saying the people who lived in the little shacks in the country werent
real people, or had real lives?


Yessir, that is exactly what I am saying.

I am saying that if you live in a little community, isolated from the rest of the world, and focusing day to day on the non-changing realities that surround your agrarian, humdrum existence - you lose focus on bigger issues, and become destructively introspective. Which is why such communities are always ridiculously conservative in their outlook, and foster intolerance of difference, diversity and the alien.


cough er most people living in western citys have very small familys, and
dont get to see their extended family that much, in fact alot of them actively
avoid it, and lets not forget the fastest growing unit in western citys at
present, people living alone.
Perhaps your talking about Mexico City, or some city in Nigeria, I dont know,
be specific.


Way to miss the point, Term. I know other Australians who aren't nearly so oblique, so it isn't something they put in the water.... how is it you utterly fail to see what I write?

The 'extended family' in my example - if you would care to scroll back a little, and actually read it this time - isn't just blood relatives - and that is both true of the modern version, and the historic version.

My daughter was 'related' to less than a third of the 'relatives' in her extended family - which can actively include 'single people', 'small families', etc.


Yeah well, there wont be much Survival Grave, if Citys cover the entire
Earth.

If cities covered the entire earth, I fail to see why that would limit survival - so long as certain scientific safeguards were in place (like CO2 to O2 production plants, albedo modification, reclamation of water, etc.)

The only GOOD reason not to cover the world with cities is the mutilation of ecological diversity - which is a plenty good enough reason for me - but, unfortunately, I am in the minority, big bucks are winning, and our ecosphere is being aborted.... so, when it forces the end of 'religious' intolerance, bring the day that iron covers earth.

ding ding ding!! we have a winner!

seriously, does anybody else feel like Termies little paragraph of sharing puts the rest of his post in perfect focus? suddenly it is all so obvious...

I almost wish he was famous, or, at least worthy of public mention... because one 'revelation' has just clicked a new filter onto several threads worth of 'material'...

If only there was a fame element... it would be book-material, I'm sure of it.

[QUOTE]

What I mean is, I dont believe its morally right for two people of the same

sex to raise kids in the same house with them, its the sex thing I guess.



Morally right accoriing to who? Twits like you with not backing? Morals are fluid things that change over time (thank goodness) and are based on who is power. Equality and basic rightness and truth are the only static things--it is only our understanding that change.


Fine, you can call what I believe to be correct BS, and I'll call yours the

same, hell I do anyway lol


No, I can call it BS because its only what you believe and you have yet to provide any source to back it up. I on the other hand have provided plenty of sources in the last 140 pages, besides having logic and not changing my mind every twenty two seconds.


Of course some are, but you said alot.

Dont blame the parents for this, blame interfering government busybodies,

and stupid laws preventing parents from raising children properly like they

should be raised.


Yes, I said a lot. Look at the state of our prisons and welfare systems. That's ALOT.

I will blame parents for a lot of the problems (though I blame even more on individual responsibility). PArents ignore or beat their children, they neglect them. That's straight parents, not gay ones. And if people didn't ABUSE their kids, the government wouldn't be interferring.


If parents were just left alone to do the job right, there wouldnt be half the
problems.


If parents had done their jobs the government wouldn't be interferring. Wake up and smell the rotten stink that comes from kids living in over-crowded homes with no running water in urban areas where their mother has already attempted to murder their father twice.

I've smelled it before. Thank goodness for government inteference.



LOL what studies?
You never presented any.
Dear oh dear Pracus. :rolleyes:

As I said, you ignored them every single time they were presented. Go back over the thread.

What I mean is, I dont believe its morally right for two people of the same

sex to raise kids in the same house with them, its the sex thing I guess.


The sex thing? What's the matter with two gay/lezbien parents having sex when they have a child? It's not like they have sex in front of the child or anything, and straight couples have sex as well.
It may even be a good thing though, if the child is aware his/her parents are homosexual they wouldn't grow up being homophobic, and not being homophobic is a good thing term, you should try it one day.

A witty comeback, I'm sure.
What was that meaning?
Did it mean you didn't know what a "Vicar's Daughter" is? Didn't understand the contextual link, or disagreed with the metaphor?
But - hey, swearing and obfuscation is the perfect mask for lack of argument, no?

Uh no, just putting you in the same boat as Bottle, absolutely no idea.

But do me a favour, both of you head that boat towards Niagara falls, the

world would be a better place.

Uh no, just putting you in the same boat as Bottle, absolutely no idea.

But do me a favour, both of you head that boat towards Niagara falls, the

world would be a better place.

Funny term, when I think of people that need to go (or should have gone) over the falls, I come up with people like Hitler and Stalin. You on the other hand seem to think that a couple of people who have taken their time to discuss a very important issue wth you should go over the falls.

Very typical.

Uh no, just putting you in the same boat as Bottle, absolutely no idea.

But do me a favour, both of you head that boat towards Niagara falls, the

world would be a better place.

Amazing.

Your attempt (one assumes) to clear-up the matter, leaves it even more confused than before.

Hats off to you, Terminalia - you've raised the bar again.

(Really must think about getting that cage fixed down, so it doesn't rattle so easily...)

Putting me in the same boat as Bottle? Why, thank you. I can certainly think of people who would be less agreeable company for my (potentially) last voyage... anyone who espouses prejudice as one of the biblical virtues, for a start....

Funny term, when I think of people that need to go (or should have gone) over the falls, I come up with people like Hitler and Stalin. You on the other hand seem to think that a couple of people who have taken their time to discuss a very important issue wth you should go over the falls.

Very typical.

Yes, but, you see - look at Terminalia's arguing style - and his politics of prejudice, and then see if you can't find a pattern as to WHY he might not immediately think of dropping two mind-controlling-diversity-destroying pseudo-men-of-the-people over the falls...

Or maybe I'm just too cynical...

Personally, i think that gays dont need marriage. 'marriage' is designed to assist in the raising of children and gays can't have children, so they should not get the same financial allowences. Granted, they could adopt or whatever, but if they want to put up that money, its their own descision.

So, what, you want to arrest for fraud every hetero married couple who have no intention of having kids when they marry (or ever)?

No, because those are *magically* fine!

I didn't notice that my womb disappeared when I came out as a lesbian....

must be Ok for two women to marry then

Uh no, just putting you in the same boat as Bottle, absolutely no idea.

But do me a favour, both of you head that boat towards Niagara falls, the

world would be a better place.
i've always wanted to try going over Niagara in a barrel, but i don't think i am important enough for the world to be improved by my doing so...thanks for the compliment, any how!

Personally, i think that gays dont need marriage. 'marriage' is designed to assist in the raising of children and gays can't have children, so they should not get the same financial allowences. Granted, they could adopt or whatever, but if they want to put up that money, its their own descision.
oh, i guess then infertile heteros can't marry, right? and any woman who is past menopause can't get married or re-married, right? and any hetero couple (like me and my partner) who don't plan on ever having kids, we shouldn't be allowed to marry, right? and any couple who is generous and loving enough to choose to adopt rather than having their own biological kids, they should be punished by not being allowed to marry, right?

Personally, i think that gays dont need marriage. 'marriage' is designed to assist in the raising of children and gays can't have children, so they should not get the same financial allowences. Granted, they could adopt or whatever, but if they want to put up that money, its their own descision.

Marriage is a lot more than children. A LOT MORE. There are over 800 rights associated with marriage, most of which have nothing to do with kids. Now, religious marriage might focus on kids (funny though, in my church people don't take vows about their children. . .but instead promise to love one another). However, civil marriage certainly is not.

Marriage is a lot more than children. A LOT MORE. There are over 800 rights associated with marriage, most of which have nothing to do with kids. Now, religious marriage might focus on kids (funny though, in my church people don't take vows about their children. . .but instead promise to love one another). However, civil marriage certainly is not.
personally, i am really offended when people tell me marriage is about having children. my favorite aunt has been married for almost 20 years and has no children, for one thing, and i personally don't plan to have any kids but i am certainly hoping to marry my partner sometime in the relatively near future. the idea that our union will somehow be less worthy or less important simply because we don't breed is insulting, and anybody who would presume to make such a judgment is clearly too full of themselves to be allowed any control over other people's lives.

Grow up you silly little girl, my father is a respected member of Australian

politics, is the Liberal member for the Hunter region of NSW, and holds the

utmost respect of everyone hes worked with and met at three Universitys,

Hunter, Wollongong and Sydney, for the three Doctraits hes earned in

Economics, Commerce and Maths, and also just for being the good guy he is.

He is currently serving in the UN building itself as one of the two Australian

reps sent over each year.

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

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

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

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

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

Former American, Now Canadian, now married to a canadian dyke. besides the basic human rights, separation of church and state, common sense, the fact that countries that have marraige for all have NOT being struck down by god, had thier economies go to hell, or thier societies crumbling, those countries that do not regonize it will suffer economically, emotionally and socially from being homophobic bastards.

Case in point. I got my education in the US through student loans. I now have rather decent job and would be paying a good amount to the government, I believe in tithing (10 percent of income goes to chariety) and my wife and I believe stongly in investing in the market and emerging business. Because of the actions of the US government I make sure that we invest in no businesses or stocks that support any groups or people that do not support basic legal equality, any charities are ones that work against the homophobic policies and best of all I personally give no money to the american government.

I'm just one person but when you have the 10 percent that are queer plus the 1/3 of americans that support civil rights for all that can have a negitive affect on the economy.


and besides can my marriage fuck your relationship? I think straight boys should support dykes getting married, then we would spent our time converting thier girlfriends with great lesbo sex.

:rolleyes: I honestly do not have a problem with it.

Hey all you Christians!!!

Don't be putting words in your god's mouth. God didn't come down and write the Bible, you know. And, according to your reasoning and religion, he created gay people, too, so why wouldn't he want them to be happy?

Now I don't believe in god, so I think you should all chill and let people get married, already. What harm does it do to you?

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

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

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

And one third of the population supporting something is nowhere near a majority - if we based laws on minorities alone, where is the democracy?
I'm reminded of the 2000 election...

Hey all you Christians!!!

Don't be putting words in your god's mouth. God didn't come down and write the Bible, you know. And, according to your reasoning and religion, he created gay people, too, so why wouldn't he want them to be happy?

Now I don't believe in god, so I think you should all chill and let people get married, already. What harm does it do to you?

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

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

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

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

I'm reminded of the 2000 election...

indeed...and look what the first four years of George W. Bush led to...

'Four more years!'
There's a damn good reason not to live in America!

indeed...and look what the first four years of George W. Bush led to...

'Four more years!'
There's a damn good reason not to live in America!

I agree, completely.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

From the time of the Fall, men and women were born with the inevitability of sin...

No, it doesn't harm me, but it will seriously harm them in the long-run, so I'm just pointing out their folly.
If we are all born with the inevitability of sin, then... we'll all sin eventually if we haven't sinned yet, so... what's the difference between their sinning and ours? God seems like the kinda guy that all sin is the same to him--just plain sin. So we're all headed for hell in the long run, aren't we?