NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been trying to think of a lengthy topic, on how i can represent the religious people against Gay Marriage........ here is what i came up with.

Marriage...traditionally has been the union of a man and a woman in pretty much all religions. Yes i am well aware of polygamy in religion, but they still have the basic idea, that you Marry under G-d, and with this tends to come Moral/Social and Religious obligations......

I say, why should we stop this? Just because there are many people that don't care about religion, should we re-write things for them?

Just because the only way they would get married is by going to a church, should we eliminate this process?

To make this blunt.... people should realize marriage is a more religious thing.... I say, that Gay's should not be married.... but on the other hand, to be fair (Note: No matter what i am against gays even exisiting) Anyways, to be fair, i think we should find a middle ground, instead of marriage.... just let them have the bonuses of what typically married people get.

It's so simple.... It'll end the discussions on Gay marriaged... why? We still ban them from getting married...but recognize that they wish to share things, and split property, as what is generally done.



This is the best i can think of, when typing..i am a much better debater in person on this issue, when people talk to me. If you wanna TG me on what i'm trying to say, you are free to do so. For those of you who know, what i'm basically saying, i'm sure you can at least agree to this, right?

And to those who are too lazy to read the whole thing, and think i'm bashing Gays in this topic...i shall be kind and give you a quick summary.




Give Homosexuals the same benefits of a married couple, without the religious stuff, that way no-one could tell the difference if they're married or not, but at least they can put eachother in their wills... and whatever else Married Couples get. The same thing should technically apply to Atheists/Agnostics...



Thoughts? Comments? Questions?

Do not flame me once again...hopefully you'll get the gist of what i'm saying.

Marriage is now two things, a religious and governmental institution. The religious aspect confers legitimacy to your sexual relations, and gives you a moral ground to sue your spouse for adultery. The governmental institution, like all others, exists to encourage something. Tax breaks on your mortgage to encourage home-ownership, for example. But what is the government encouraging? I think the only think two people can do better than one person that would matter to the government would be for them to raise children. To that end, I say marriage should be strictly a religious issue, with incentives given only to people who raise kids.

I've been trying to think of a lengthy topic, on how i can represent the religious people against Gay Marriage........ here is what i came up with.

Marriage...traditionally has been the union of a man and a woman in pretty much all religions. Yes i am well aware of polygamy in religion, but they still have the basic idea, that you Marry under G-d, and with this tends to come Moral/Social and Religious obligations......

I say, why should we stop this? Just because there are many people that don't care about religion, should we re-write things for them?

Just because the only way they would get married is by going to a church, should we eliminate this process?

To make this blunt.... people should realize marriage is a more religious thing.... I say, that Gay's should not be married.... but on the other hand, to be fair (Note: No matter what i am against gays even exisiting) Anyways, to be fair, i think we should find a middle ground, instead of marriage.... just let them have the bonuses of what typically married people get.

It's so simple.... It'll end the discussions on Gay marriaged... why? We still ban them from getting married...but recognize that they wish to share things, and split property, as what is generally done.



This is the best i can think of, when typing..i am a much better debater in person on this issue, when people talk to me. If you wanna TG me on what i'm trying to say, you are free to do so. For those of you who know, what i'm basically saying, i'm sure you can at least agree to this, right?

And to those who are too lazy to read the whole thing, and think i'm bashing Gays in this topic...i shall be kind and give you a quick summary.




Give Homosexuals the same benefits of a married couple, without the religious stuff, that way no-one could tell the difference if they're married or not, but at least they can put eachother in their wills... and whatever else Married Couples get. The same thing should technically apply to Atheists/Agnostics...



Thoughts? Comments? Questions?

Do not flame me once again...hopefully you'll get the gist of what i'm saying.

So the gist of what you're saying is that gays aren't allowed to be religious?

So the gist of what you're saying is that gays aren't allowed to be religious?
According to most religions, no they are not.

So the gist of what you're saying is that gays aren't allowed to be religious?

:mad: no....... I'm saying is, they should be able to get the same benefits of a married couple, without the hassle and legal recognition of them being "married" They would be more... Legal Partners.... I dunno best thing i can think up at the moment.

:mad: no....... I'm saying is, they should be able to get the same benefits of a married couple, without the hassle and legal recognition of them being "married" They would be more... Legal Partners.... I dunno best thing i can think up at the moment.

So a happy gay MARRIED couple is worse than a straight MARRIED couple with an abusive husband and the wife addicted to alcohol?

So a happy gay MARRIED couple is worse than a straight MARRIED couple with an abusive husband and the wife addicted to alcohol?

Read the whole thread...please... do not even post one more thing on this thread, until you know what i was saying... and can make an actual comment that was relevant to the discussion.

"Note: No matter what i am against gays even exisiting)"

Why? Because they'll poison our minds and kill us all with their fashion sense?

So a happy gay MARRIED couple is worse than a straight MARRIED couple with an abusive husband and the wife addicted to alcohol?

Yes, a gay MARRIED couple where one man/woman beats the other is worse than a straight MARRIED couple. Quit trying to over-simplify the arguments.

"Note: No matter what i am against gays even exisiting)"

Why? Because they'll poison our minds and kill us all with their fashion sense?

Well i can see being pro-gay in you case, has turned you into an idiot....

How about... having both a *legal* marriage, and a religious one? You'd need to do the legal one to get the legal benefits(and ANYONE could do it, as long as it's between 2 consenting adults(that includes gays)), and the religous one would be a ceremony in accordance to the church's belief system, nothing more. That way, people can get the legal benefits, even if they can't(in the case of gays, since christianity & some other religions forbid it)/don't want to(in the case of atheists, since they don't believe in the existance of any god(s)) have a church ceremony.

At any rate, it's unfair to deny gays the rights given by marriage. There is no harm in allowing them to marry. If anything, it does harm by preventing loving couples from taking the step of marrying, since they're the same gender.

"Note: No matter what i am against gays even exisiting)"

Why? Because they'll poison our minds and kill us all with their fashion sense?

No, I think it's more along the lines of this: gay is not natural. Period. The sex organs are there to allow them to have children. Anything but intercourse between a (married, for the religious) man and a woman is an abuse of God's gift to us.

Marriage is the religious act...that is the problem!

To me, if the government just called them Legal Life-Partners... or something like that, probably wouldn;t be so much of a problem.

No, I think it's more along the lines of this: gay is not natural. Period. The sex organs are there to allow them to have children. Anything but intercourse between a (married, for the religious) man and a woman is an abuse of God's gift to us.

As much as i agree with you, i ask about comments and questions to my topic... i do not want another gay-bashing thread.... Neither side will win, and at the end my thread will probably be locked my moderators.

So a happy gay MARRIED couple is worse than a straight MARRIED couple with an abusive husband and the wife addicted to alcohol?
I think the problem isn't gay/straight, regardless of addictions or abuse. I think the problem is every nancy under the sun (gay or straight) having a feeling of entitlement to things that they should not.

My friend Oz owns a snazzy BMW.. well.. I want one! What, I need money? Well, I dont have it, and there's legally no way for me to get that money.. I don't care! Legislate it so *I CAN HAVE A BMW*. It's my right, afterall.

:rolleyes:

It *should* be enough that the two people give two shits about each other enough to be happy with each other. Of course, that's not enough. They need some f'ing sanctioned announcement to make them feel better. It's pretty damned sad that it has to be an issue at all.


For the record, I say "let them", just to get people to STFU and move on. I don't care who you're sticking it to, I don't feel it needs to be advertised, no matter which team you play for.

Its a good idea however you have to figure out some little details. For example if I am living with someone, sharing an apartment and obviously we want to get a tax break, why dont we become "legal partners."

Secondly, people will still complain that we are lowering the value of marriage. With above and now no longer legally binding it really isnt as important.

Thirdly, should gays get benefits for raising children, should they raise children?

I actually believe the same thing. We should have a seperate thing for all the benefits, however we need to recognize that there will still be problems. Another real big thing is that the religous right is not worried that they will find some amazingly hot gay guy and be seduced by them. They dont want society to have gay marriages. Making them seperate would be legalising gay marriage AND garrenteeing benefits. Unless you prohibit gays from getting marrried in any church and weget to the seperate but equal thing.

Well i can see being pro-gay in you case, has turned you into an idiot....

No need for the personal attacks, man. You asked for comments, thoughts, and questions. Gay marriage isn't an opinion, it's a right outlined in the constitution by equality. Personally, I think that, like it or not, people just let people go about their own business and stop trying to enforce THEIR beliefs on others and control them. We've tried the separate but equal thing before and history has proven it doesn't work.

Pro-gay? Being pro-something is for a CAUSE. Is being gay a cause? Why can't people just be gay, no strings attached? Why do religious fanatics have to make a whole big thing about how OTHER people are going about THEIR lives. And if you think homosexuals should be wiped off the face of the earth...well...I don't think someone's quite comfortable with their own sexuality...

No, I think it's more along the lines of this: gay is not natural. Period. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that same 'God' make all the animals that frolic in nature?

That tends to include the wolves and other pack animals that regular engage in homosexual activity. I'd say it's perfectly natural, just not conducive to being a breeder.

In that case, what you've said basically nailed the whole problem with gay marriage. Most people see marriage a religious thing and when people try to change that, most people refuse to change it. The whole problem is with the word marriage. We see marriage as one man and one woman, however we are open to allowing legal benefits for homosexuals.

Marriage is the religious act...that is the problem!

To me, if the government just called them Legal Life-Partners... or something like that, probably wouldn;t be so much of a problem.


Marriage is not a solely religious act. Marriages have been done in ancient societies since history records. Secular as well as religious. Spiritual, yes. But not strictly religious.

If I had someone that I really loved, and they felt the same, I believe that I should have the opportunity to be married to that individual. Were that person man or woman. Love exists, and to prohibit a people whose basic desires differ from yours, faith-based or not, to join in marriage, is bigotry, pure and simple.

Some faiths allow the marriage of homosexuals. Others do not. But trying to force all homosexuals to be unable to join in lifelong partnership, legally bound marriage is, needless to say, an atrocious idea.

in actuality, one of the important discussions in legal debates about this is the difference between gay marriage and the fact that many gay couples are asking for civic union, not necessarily marriage.
The fact is that there is soooo much more financial security for a couple with the benefits of "marriage" or civic union--a similar contract just through the government instead of the church. Being able to sign a life partner's name on a loan or a house deed is guaranteed to be more leverage in times of financial need.
So, technically, this is exactly what the homosexual community is asking for--a chance to have the same benefits under the law, not the same status as a couple under a religiously binding contract. So whether you're pro or anti homosexual, it'd be similar to denying them the ability to have bank accounts or requiring them to pay significantly larger taxes just because you disagree with them? That's inhumane.

It has been proposed on many forums before that gays should get "civil unions" for the rights of what is currently called "marriage". You will find that most gays won't object to this--provided that straight people have to go through the same process to get those rights and that they too have "civil unions" as far as the government is concerned. Marriage can then be left solely up to religious institutions. Of course, I think you will find that some churches are going to be willing to marry gays. However, no church would ever be forced to do so (just like none are no forced to perform interracial, -religious, or -denominational marriages). So I think you and I could agree, but there are some things here that you are incorrect about.


Marriage...traditionally has been the union of a man and a woman in pretty much all religions. Yes i am well aware of polygamy in religion, but they still have the basic idea, that you Marry under G-d, and with this tends to come Moral/Social and Religious obligations......


The one man, one woman under God idea of marriage is more important to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic axis of religions. And Native American religions did allow gay marriages.


I say, why should we stop this? Just because there are many people that don't care about religion, should we re-write things for them?

Should you? If you live in the USA, yes you should. Our governmental system is not based on religion. It is based on a system of rights and checks and balances. However, I'm not naive enough to think that people are going to go for that, so as I said I would be willing to compromise on this with a system of Civil Unions for all as far as the government is concerned.


Just because the only way they would get married is by going to a church, should we eliminate this process?

This is plain wrong. No interpretation about it. One does not have to go to a church to get married. If that were true Jews who go to synagoges would not be married nor Muslims in their mosques. For that matter, people who have marriages performed by a judge or a justice-of-the-peace would not be married. Marriage is already not solely a religious institution. It stopped being that when the government started granting rights associated with it.

Again, I repeat just because the government allows church weddings to grant the same rights as a judge can give when performing a marriage does not mean that marriage is a religious insitution. It means that the civil government has shared a privledge with the religious organizations for he sake of simplicity and respect.


To make this blunt.... people should realize marriage is a more religious thing.... I say, that Gay's should not be married.... but on the other hand, to be fair (Note: No matter what i am against gays even exisiting) Anyways, to be fair, i think we should find a middle ground, instead of marriage.... just let them have the bonuses of what typically married people get.


Marriage is a religious thing when and only when one is talking about religious marriage. When one is talking about the Government, marriage is a *civil* issue. And a system where everyone gets "civil unions" would do just what you are proposing.

I also appreciate that, even though you don't think gays should exist, you realize that we do and that we should deserve legal recognition and equality. That's the true spirit of realizing what religious freedom and tolerance is about.


It's so simple.... It'll end the discussions on Gay marriaged... why? We still ban them from getting married...but recognize that they wish to share things, and split property, as what is generally done.

If you want gays to agree on this, as they likely will for a compromise, you might want to drop the line about "banning them from getting married" it comes across as an attack and makes it hard for people to agree when they otherwise would.


Give Homosexuals the same benefits of a married couple, without the religious stuff, that way no-one could tell the difference if they're married or not, but at least they can put eachother in their wills... and whatever else Married Couples get. The same thing should technically apply to Atheists/Agnostics...


You do realize that this is all that gay people are asking for from the government right? The right to inheritance, to be able to make end of life decisions for one another, the right to joint custody, etc. No one has ever asked the government to force religious groups to perform gay marriages. That would go against the separation of church and state.

That being said, I'm sure there will be continued dialogue within the churches on this topic, but it will be settled as an internal matter of the church without government interference.

Its a good idea however you have to figure out some little details. For example if I am living with someone, sharing an apartment and obviously we want to get a tax break, why dont we become "legal partners."

Thank you :)

Secondly, people will still complain that we are lowering the value of marriage. With above and now no longer legally binding it really isnt as important.

They won't be considered married... they will just have the ability to get your tax breaks...and be put on wills..and whatever else people get when married.

Thirdly, should gays get benefits for raising children, should they raise children?

My personal opinion is that there should be always a man and a woman when raising a child, too many children go weird when raised with a single parent... i;m sure the same will apply to 2 people of the same gender. So probably they would get a sort of Big Brother/Sister who would raise up with them.

I actually believe the same thing. We should have a seperate thing for all the benefits, however we need to recognize that there will still be problems. Another real big thing is that the religous right is not worried that they will find some amazingly hot gay guy and be seduced by them. They dont want society to have gay marriages. Making them seperate would be legalising gay marriage AND garrenteeing benefits. Unless you prohibit gays from getting marrried in any church and weget to the seperate but equal thing.

As said, they will not be married.. just entitled to benefits.

No need for the personal attacks, man. You asked for comments, thoughts, and questions. Gay marriage isn't an opinion, it's a right outlined in the constitution by equality. Personally, I think that, like it or not, people just let people go about their own business and stop trying to enforce THEIR beliefs on others and control them. We've tried the separate but equal thing before and history has proven it doesn't work.

Your comment was idiotic and childish.

Pro-gay? Being pro-something is for a CAUSE. Is being gay a cause? Why can't people just be gay, no strings attached? Why do religious fanatics have to make a whole big thing about how OTHER people are going about THEIR lives. And if you think homosexuals should be wiped off the face of the earth...well...I don't think someone's quite comfortable with their own sexuality...

Vice-Versa...i think that if they;re comfortable with gay marriage, something is wrong with their sexuality. See how those comments can play out?

In that case, what you've said basically nailed the whole problem with gay marriage. Most people see marriage a religious thing and when people try to change that, most people refuse to change it. The whole problem is with the word marriage. We see marriage as one man and one woman, however we are open to allowing legal benefits for homosexuals.

Thanx, and that's why i say no marriage.. just legal benefits.

I think that MuhOre is approaching the marriage question from the opposite side as myself, but reaching similar conclusions.

Marriage is, and has always been a religious institution. This means that the government has no right to redefine it. However, it also means that the government has no right to involve itself in it at all. Therefor I think that the government should simply stop marrying people all together. If it is a religious issue, then it is unconstitutional for them to do so.

Let the government perform civil unions between any two adults who desire it. Marriage will return to being the sole purvue of religion. If you want a civil union? Fine, get the document from a court house. The government will even recognize the authority of religious leaders to perform civil unions (much as it now recognizes marriages performed by them). If you want to be married though, don't talk to the government, talk to your religious leader, because it isn't the governments job.

I see this as answering the problem. The government treats everyone equally (no marriages for anyone but civil unions for everyone) and religious people get to keep marriage as they like it and get to have even less governmental involvement than they have now.

In that case, what you've said basically nailed the whole problem with gay marriage. Most people see marriage a religious thing and when people try to change that, most people refuse to change it. The whole problem is with the word marriage. We see marriage as one man and one woman, however we are open to allowing legal benefits for homosexuals.

You do realize that the marriage homosexuals are asking for is *civil marriage*. By the very definition its not a religious affair. I had once thought that most people would be smart enough to tell the difference, but I am starting to see that society as a group is either unable or unwilling to tell the different.

Please note, this isn't meant as a personal attack on your intelligence. I've just been observing a very disturbing trend lately.

Marriage existed long before modern religion, so it is actually incorrect to say that "marriage" is a strictly religious term. Even if it was though, there is no reason to say that homosexual marriage should be outlawed. In the Bible, the passage that explicitly says homosexuality is wrong is in Leviticus alongside a passage that says that you must call a priest if you have mould in your house and should never wear two types of fabric at the same time. So, unless you're willing to accept these prescriptions, saying "It's in the Bible" is not a good enough reason for saying homosexuality is wrong.

Yes, for a long time churches have only married heterosexual people, but many changes do occur when it is seen that they are necessary. For example, the Catholic church, which had said mass in Latin for almost 2000 years, began celebrating masses in English and other languages in the 1960's.

As far as having legal but not religious marriages for homosexual people, I think you'd find that many homosexuals are deeply religious and would feel that something was missing if they couldn't have a religious marriage as well as a legal one. Your idea is a good idea though, and in fact Canada's Common Law applies to homosexual couples and gives pretty much the same rights as marriage.

Marriage is not a solely religious act. Marriages have been done in ancient societies since history records. Secular as well as religious. Spiritual, yes. But not strictly religious.

Please link for proof. Marriage has traditionally always been religious.

If I had someone that I really loved, and they felt the same, I believe that I should have the opportunity to be married to that individual. Were that person man or woman. Love exists, and to prohibit a people whose basic desires differ from yours, faith-based or not, to join in marriage, is bigotry, pure and simple.

Marriage is a religious act, Pure and Simple.

Some faiths allow the marriage of homosexuals. Others do not. But trying to force all homosexuals to be unable to join in lifelong partnership, legally bound marriage is, needless to say, an atrocious idea.

Fine, go convert to that religion then... just leave the one's that don't allow it, alone.

in actuality, one of the important discussions in legal debates about this is the difference between gay marriage and the fact that many gay couples are asking for civic union, not necessarily marriage.
The fact is that there is soooo much more financial security for a couple with the benefits of "marriage" or civic union--a similar contract just through the government instead of the church. Being able to sign a life partner's name on a loan or a house deed is guaranteed to be more leverage in times of financial need.
So, technically, this is exactly what the homosexual community is asking for--a chance to have the same benefits under the law, not the same status as a couple under a religiously binding contract. So whether you're pro or anti homosexual, it'd be similar to denying them the ability to have bank accounts or requiring them to pay significantly larger taxes just because you disagree with them? That's inhumane.

See, we are getting somewhere....

Pracus- I get your point..., but that thread has too many mini duscussions for me to reply to it all.

I only read the first post due to time issues, but I just want to put my say in. America is supposed to be the land of the free. All people are created equal, so by that word of the law they MUST have the same rights. Equality is a thing I love dearly, so here's my solution. Give gay couples the right to get a marriage license with any and all benefits associated with a traditional couple. Now this is a GOVERNMENT license, making their marriage LEGAL in the EYES OF THE LAW. This has nothing to do with religion or weddings or anything, this is just the U.S. government saying, "These two are married. They get stuff other married couples get." Now, a church is a private institution and cannot be forced to perform a wedding because the government said so. So, if a gay couple can find a minister that will marry them, great. That's that church's choice. If they can't, then it’s tough on them. They can't have a religious ceremony. This upholds the SEPARATION of church and state. It makes perfect sense and does not discriminate against anyone. Whether you like it or not, gays are humans and they deserve equal rights in the eyes of the law.

So far i'm happy that people aren't flaming eachother, and seem to more or less agree with my concept of this.

My personal opinion is that there should be always a man and a woman when raising a child, too many children go weird when raised with a single parent... i;m sure the same will apply to 2 people of the same gender. So probably they would get a sort of Big Brother/Sister who would raise up with them.

There have been scientific studies done on this. Very powerful, very well controlled studies that say that children raised by homosexuals score just as well on tests of intelligence, emotional adjustment, peer interaction, and self-acceptance. It does not take a man and a woman to raise a child, instead it takes a loving environment where limits are set and enforced and where attention is given.



Your comment was idiotic and childish.

I thought it was pretty good actually. Just because it doesn't agree with you doesn't mean its idiotic or childish.


Vice-Versa...i think that if they;re comfortable with gay marriage, something is wrong with their sexuality. See how those comments can play out?


Did you know that the APA, AMA, and a thousand and one other groups do not consider homosexuality to be a disease in any form? They consider it a perfectly normal variation in human sexuality.

I only read the first post due to time issues, but I just want to put my say in. America is supposed to be the land of the free. All people are created equal, so by that word of the law they MUST have the same rights. Equality is a thing I love dearly, so here's my solution. Give gay couples the right to get a marriage license with any and all benefits associated with a traditional couple. Now this is a GOVERNMENT license, making their marriage LEGAL in the EYES OF THE LAW. This has nothing to do with religion or weddings or anything, this is just the U.S. government saying, "These two are married. They get stuff other married couples get." Now, a church is a private institution and cannot be forced to perform a wedding because the government said so. So, if a gay couple can find a minister that will marry them, great. That's that church's choice. If they can't, then it’s tough on them. They can't have a religious ceremony. This upholds the SEPARATION of church and state. It makes perfect sense and does not discriminate against anyone. Whether you like it or not, gays are humans and they deserve equal rights in the eyes of the law.

The problem, is the word "Marriage" If they change the wording... people would not complain as much.

Pracus- Tell that to my neighbourhood.... 9 our of the 10 kids i know that have had single parents since at least pre-teen, tend to become mentally unstable, regardless of intelligence. You could aruge that's because there's only 1 parent... but it tends to more be, of the fact, that there isn't a Mother and Father different traits there to help them out in life.

Hoomosexuality was a gene change (called "mutation" but I didn't use the word because in the non-biological sense people may misread it as having negative connotations) that occured much in the same way as red hair. That's right, humans did not initially have red hair. Over time, some cell reproduction altered slightly and we got red hair. Scientists believe that homosexuality came about in much the same way. So it's as "natural" as red hair.

Please link for proof. Marriage has traditionally always been religious.
[/QUOTE

Check the US legal code. You can get married without mention of the word God, Jesus, Allah, Mohammed or any others. You go to a courthouse and do it.


[QUOTE=MuhOre]
Marriage is a religious act, Pure and Simple.


For you yes. And that's fine. For others it isn't.


Fine, go convert to that religion then... just leave the one's that don't allow it, alone.


I think you are confusing arguments within religions and the arguement for governmental recognition of gay unions. These are two separate debates. The arguements within a religious organization will only be settled internally. No court, no President, no Congress will be able to interfere with that. As for the governmental recognition of gay partnerships, only time is going to tell how that plays out. If this country is truly about equal rights, then it is going to be recognized.

Well, frankly, Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on religion. There are a number of religions (even some Christian sub-cults) who are fine with homosexual relationships and marriages. Religion does not have a monopoly on marriage. The act of 'marriage' predates Christianity certainly, and probably most (if not all) religions that still exist currently.

As the countries where this is currently an issue are secular countries, whatever cult you or anybody else belongs has (or should have) no influence whatsoever on whether homosexuals are permitted to be married or not.

And 'seperate but equal' is... well, not equal. This has been proven in the past.

I personally think that government 'marriage' should be scrapped altogether. Replace civil marriage with 'civil union' or whatever you want to call it and have that union for all couples, gay or straight. Then people can go have whatever religious ceremony suits them, the many and varied churches, priests, shamans, druidic circle leaders and whatevers can be as bigoted as they like with regard to who they perform their ceremoney for and the issue is essentially settled and we can all get on with our lives.

The problem, is the word "Marriage" If they change the wording... people would not complain as much.

Pracus- Tell that to my neighbourhood.... 9 our of the 10 kids i know that have had single parents since at least pre-teen, tend to become mentally unstable, regardless of intelligence. You could aruge that's because there's only 1 parent... but it tends to more be, of the fact, that there isn't a Mother and Father different traits there to help them out in life.

And yet you can't say that for certain. Because the parameters are difference. in your example, it is an issue of single-parenting (which by the way, there are many many single parents who are doing just fine) which does not equate to an issue of two men or two women raising a child. There have been studies conducted on that very situation and have shown the children grow up just fine.

In short you cannot equate children of single parents to children of gay couples. They are apples and oranges. To say they are the same is a gross oversimplification of the facts.

MuhOre: I understand if you don't want ot answer, but I'm just curious. Why do you have a problem with homosexuality? Is it because you see your religion as being against it? Or some other reason?

One of the main issues here Pracus, is that People don't want gay's to get married... although they won't care as much if they're just getting Government Subsidies... and such.

It does not matter what religions you talk about... go with the one's that have influence on the world.

Nobody cares what some natives do for marriage, i;m sorry to say... only what the main cultures, particulary the Monotheistic ones....

Btw,
I have several friends who were raised in single parent homes, and several who were not. Amongst them and their siblings, there is no difference in their success in the world, their happiness or their personal relationships. In fact, the one person who is having the most trouble (my friend's brother) grew up in a "normal" two parent family.

MuhOre: I understand if you don't want ot answer, but I'm just curious. Why do you have a problem with homosexuality? Is it because you see your religion as being against it? Or some other reason?

Well technically my religion is against it, yes. But it's different for me.... It's more of Instincts... i can't really explain it all at once regardless. If you want i'll TG you.

The problem, is the word "Marriage" If they change the wording... people would not complain as much.

That brings up unequality again though. It's like having a 'colored' and 'white' drinking fountain. They are both fountains, but the point is one group is being forced to use a fountain. They can't have the other one because it's not FOR them. That is not American! The way to "save" marriage, which is far more complicated than it should be is to get rid of marriage lisenses. They would ALL have to be certificates of civil union or whatever they would name them. The religious thing involving a wedding can be marriage. Lots of trouble, but equality is very important to me. I like to think America has moved past all the hate during times like segregation... but I know better.

Btw,
I have several friends who were raised in single parent homes, and several who were not. Amongst them and their siblings, there is no difference in their success in the world, their happiness or their personal relationships. In fact, the one person who is having the most trouble (my friend's brother) grew up in a "normal" two parent family.

I guess it can also to do with social issues.... but observations of mine, tend to show kids who were raised all the way to Adulthood with both parents, came out slightly more "normal".

One of the main issues here Pracus, is that People don't want gay's to get married... although they won't care as much if they're just getting Government Subsidies... and such.

It does not matter what religions you talk about... go with the one's that have influence on the world.

Nobody cares what some natives do for marriage, i;m sorry to say... only what the main cultures, particulary the Monotheistic ones....

Which "people" are these? Amongst people I know, most of them fully support homosexual marriage ro don't care....

And why should "natives", as you called them, matter less? If any society's beliefs are important, surely theirs are as well.

I'm not certain, but isn't there already a civil union or something that gives similar rights to gay couples as straight married ones? Correct me if I'm wrong.

But still, it's all semantics. I do find it funny that anything named "gay marriage" is somehow worse than exactly the same thing under a different name, as has been suggested in this thread. So why not let them call it marriage? It's only a word.

Oh, and to the person who defended his position against same-sex couples by saying it's not natural:

1. What's so great about nature? If you love it so much, get off your computer, sell everything you own and go live in the woods. The reason why humanity still survives is because we have protected ourselves from natural elements so successfully.

2. Homosexuality occurs in nature, as has been mentioned before.

I guess it can also to do with social issues.... but observations of mine, tend to show kids who were raised all the way to Adulthood with both parents, came out slightly more "normal".


Very likely has more to do with environment in general. You'd have to do a survey of the whole world to get good results I guess. :)

One of the main issues here Pracus, is that People don't want gay's to get married... although they won't care as much if they're just getting Government Subsidies... and such.

It does not matter what religions you talk about... go with the one's that have influence on the world.

Nobody cares what some natives do for marriage, i;m sorry to say... only what the main cultures, particulary the Monotheistic ones....

So what you are proposing is that Freedom of Religion only exists for the biggest religions and the others be darned?

Come on, I know you knwo better than that. The situation you present is called tyranny by majority. Never heard that phrase? It is what led to slavery and then to the attempts to deny african americans their civil rights.

Now mind you, we're still agreed on the semantics name change of what is called "marriage" to "civil unions" for the purpose of the government. Churchs/Mosques/Temples/Synagogues could still do whatever they want.

Which "people" are these? Amongst people I know, most of them fully support homosexual marriage ro don't care....

And why should "natives", as you called them, matter less? If any society's beliefs are important, surely theirs are as well.

People here, either do not care or are against it... we have few people here that are for it... and they don't really know why.

And as much as their beliefs might also be important, nobody cares, unless it has an influence on the world.

I mean if Judaism never helped created Christianity and Islam. Nobody would care for what Judaism does... Plus technically this stuff more applies to those 3 religions. Nobody really cares what the Buddhists and Taoists do... Just Christianity/Judaism/Islam.

I've been trying to think of a lengthy topic, on how i can represent the religious people against Gay Marriage........ here is what i came up with.

Marriage...traditionally has been the union of a man and a woman in pretty much all religions. Yes i am well aware of polygamy in religion, but they still have the basic idea, that you Marry under G-d, and with this tends to come Moral/Social and Religious obligations......

I say, why should we stop this? Just because there are many people that don't care about religion, should we re-write things for them?

Just because the only way they would get married is by going to a church, should we eliminate this process?

To make this blunt.... people should realize marriage is a more religious thing.... I say, that Gay's should not be married.... but on the other hand, to be fair (Note: No matter what i am against gays even exisiting) Anyways, to be fair, i think we should find a middle ground, instead of marriage.... just let them have the bonuses of what typically married people get.

It's so simple.... It'll end the discussions on Gay marriaged... why? We still ban them from getting married...but recognize that they wish to share things, and split property, as what is generally done.



This is the best i can think of, when typing..i am a much better debater in person on this issue, when people talk to me. If you wanna TG me on what i'm trying to say, you are free to do so. For those of you who know, what i'm basically saying, i'm sure you can at least agree to this, right?

And to those who are too lazy to read the whole thing, and think i'm bashing Gays in this topic...i shall be kind and give you a quick summary.




Give Homosexuals the same benefits of a married couple, without the religious stuff, that way no-one could tell the difference if they're married or not, but at least they can put eachother in their wills... and whatever else Married Couples get. The same thing should technically apply to Atheists/Agnostics...



Thoughts? Comments? Questions?

Do not flame me once again...hopefully you'll get the gist of what i'm saying.

you ask us to comment...yet not to flame your nazi-ass. How am I suppose to do that?

Ok, first of all, in my opinion, you are a stupid ignorant bastard for being against homosexuality which is natural.You can't prevent it from happening. Second, marriage and legal partnership are the same thing when it comes to legality. I think that homosexuals should be allowed to marry legally, though if the religion says no, then no, government has no place in religious laws that have been laid down years ago. I wouldn't care, as long as I can marry a man that i fell in love with legally, I'm find because religion is frankly a big load of bull shit.

P.S. This was not meant to be flaming, I'm just stating my opinion about you.
P.P.S. Homosexuals, bisexuals (like myself), etc. are NORMAL PEOPLE. We are normal people and we deserve rights like everybody else.

I guess it can also to do with social issues.... but observations of mine, tend to show kids who were raised all the way to Adulthood with both parents, came out slightly more "normal".

Again, I point out that children raised by single-parents vs. children raised by two homosexuals are NOT comparable. You cannot do any type of analysis on a situation like that which would give you anything more than a correlation (if that). The differences of having two people who love and care for you and are your primary caregiver(s) are too large to estimate in that way.

And just so you all know, I'm highly supportive of single-parents. Some of the best parents I know (minus my own of course who are the best of all time!) are doing it alone.

So what you are proposing is that Freedom of Religion only exists for the biggest religions and the others be darned?

*blinks* no..... some stuff is hard to explain, let's leave it at that.

Come on, I know you knwo better than that. The situation you present is called tyranny by majority. Never heard that phrase? It is what led to slavery and then to the attempts to deny african americans their civil rights.

In a sense they were justified, as the Africans weren't native "Americans/Europeans"

Although over time, they became more assimilated, so it didn't matter as much.

Now mind you, we're still agreed on the semantics name change of what is called "marriage" to "civil unions" for the purpose of the government. Churchs/Mosques/Temples/Synagogues could still do whatever they want.

Yes.

And as much as their beliefs might also be important, nobody cares, unless it has an influence on the world.

I mean if Judaism never helped created Christianity and Islam. Nobody would care for what Judaism does... Plus technically this stuff more applies to those 3 religions. Nobody really cares what the Buddhists and Taoists do... Just Christianity/Judaism/Islam.

Explain what you mean by "nobody cares." THEY certainly care, many others care because they enjoy studying and learning from these countries, and society is certainly influenced by these countries. Buddhism and Taoism have had a massive impact on the Western world.

I'm not certain, but isn't there already a civil union or something that gives similar rights to gay couples as straight married ones? Correct me if I'm wrong.


No, there is not. Some states do have civil unions but they do not come anywhere near the rights of what is currently called marriage. There are over 800 right sassociated with marriage, and about thirty associated with civil unions as they stand. Further, the Federal Government does not recognize people with civil unions (IE gay couples) as being married while it does recognize striaght couples with civil marriages as being so.


But still, it's all semantics. I do find it funny that anything named "gay marriage" is somehow worse than exactly the same thing under a different name, as has been suggested in this thread. So why not let them call it marriage? It's only a word.[/QUOTE

I agree, but for some reason it makes a big difference to many people. If that's what it takes, so be it.

[QUOTE=Featherless Biped]
Oh, and to the person who defended his position against same-sex couples by saying it's not natural:

1. What's so great about nature? If you love it so much, get off your computer, sell everything you own and go live in the woods. The reason why humanity still survives is because we have protected ourselves from natural elements so successfully.

2. Homosexuality occurs in nature, as has been mentioned before.

Word.

Nobody really cares what the Buddhists and Taoists do...

I think a lot of people would disagree with you there. Buddhists and Taoists, for example.

you ask us to comment...yet not to flame your nazi-ass. How am I suppose to do that?

I did not flame them, so do not flame me, Post one more stupid thing and i will report you to the mods.

Ok, first of all, in my opinion, you are a stupid ignorant bastard. Second of all, homosexuality, bisexuality, etc. are NATURAL. You can't prevent it from happening. Third, marriage and legal partnership are the same thing when it comes to legality. I think that homosexuals should be allowed to marry legally, though if the religion says no, then no. I wouldn't care, as long as I can marry a man that i fell in love with legally, I'm find because religion is frankly a big load of bull shit.

Same applies to you, i do not want people here, who are not reading the thread and understand what i mean.

Again, I point out that children raised by single-parents vs. children raised by two homosexuals are NOT comparable. You cannot do any type of analysis on a situation like that which would give you anything more than a correlation (if that). The differences of having two people who love and care for you and are your primary caregiver(s) are too large to estimate in that way.

They aren;t comparable, as they have different results, i am saying that at least having a Male/Female Figure in the household, to help them along the way would be beneficial.

And just so you all know, I'm highly supportive of single-parents. Some of the best parents I know (minus my own of course who are the best of all time!) are doing it alone.

My household is also alas a single household.... I do recognize their hard work, but 2 parents are technically better then one. (Note this does not contradict my above comment)

People here, either do not care or are against it... we have few people here that are for it... and they don't really know why.

And as much as their beliefs might also be important, nobody cares, unless it has an influence on the world.

I mean if Judaism never helped created Christianity and Islam. Nobody would care for what Judaism does... Plus technically this stuff more applies to those 3 religions. Nobody really cares what the Buddhists and Taoists do... Just Christianity/Judaism/Islam.

wrong, Wrong, WRONG. Sorry, but that just made me really angry. *I* for one, who was raised Methodist, care very much what Buddhists and Taoists and Hindus do. Some of them are my dear friends so I care about them and their lives. What you are proposing is a Christian hegemony over the world. And I'm sorry my friend, but that's a crock of BS.

Explain what you mean by "nobody cares." THEY certainly care, many others care because they enjoy studying and learning from these countries, and society is certainly influenced by these countries. Buddhism and Taoism have had a massive impact on the Western world.

But were not spawned and spawned a major religion in the Western World.

I think a lot of people would disagree with you there. Buddhists and Taoists, for example.

Buddhist and Taoists, care that we don't care for their religion as much? eh....

You know, I think it's funny when people say that gay marraige will "ruin" marriage. I mean, if you want to throw the lot of your life in with someone else in the lottery of life, why should we stop them? and how would this affect me, if two gay people get married?
another thought: If the most interesting thing about you is your sexual orientation, then IMHO, you're pretty boring.

wrong, Wrong, WRONG. Sorry, but that just made me really angry. *I* for one, who was raised Methodist, care very much what Buddhists and Taoists and Hindus do. Some of them are my dear friends so I care about them and their lives. What you are proposing is a Christian hegemony over the world. And I'm sorry my friend, but that's a crock of BS.

You care what they practice? So your saying you would stop them from practicing their religion, just because it's different? I don't think you understand what i meant.

*blinks* no..... some stuff is hard to explain, let's leave it at that.


Sorry if I over tasked you. And why is it hard for you explain? Perhaps because you realize that I am right? What you have said here shows that you think the way Christians (such as yourself, not all) view the world is the way the government should behave. You do NOT beleive in freedom of religion for anone but for yourself.

*
In a sense they were justified, as the Africans weren't native "Americans/Europeans"


you're saying that people were justified in denying African Americans rights as human beings? What a load of bull that is worthy of someone from the KKK. You might be somewhat reasonable at times, but your underlying idealogies need some adjustment.

You know, I think it's funny when people say that gay marraige will "ruin" marriage. I mean, if you want to throw the lot of your life in with someone else in the lottery of life, why should we stop them? and how would this affect me, if two gay people get married?
another thought: If the most interesting thing about you is your sexual orientation, then IMHO, you're pretty boring.

*blinks* can you rephrase that please?

They aren;t comparable, as they have different results, i am saying that at least having a Male/Female Figure in the household, to help them along the way would be beneficial.

Yet you cannot say with any degree of certainty that having a man and a woman is any better than having two men or two women. Science on the other hand has said with quite a degree of certainty (high sample sizes, statistical significance and reproducibility) that it does NOT matter what gender or sexual orientation your parents are.



My household is also alas a single household.... I do recognize their hard work, but 2 parents are technically better then one. (Note this does not contradict my above comment)


Technically, yes it does.

Buddhist and Taoists, care that we don't care for their religion as much? eh....

You said that nobody cares about Buddhists or Taoists. This, then, states that Buddhists and Taoists don't care about themselves.

Also, stop saying "We" and "People" when only referring to your own opinions. You are only one person.

just let them have their benefits... i don't care how, but everywhere i look there seems to be a damn debate about it...

civil marriage? nothing to do with the church... acceptable. all people deserve the same rights, even though i doubt even in the almighty america that is the case. so a gay couple deserves the same benefits from the state a married heterosexual couple would have.

now as much as i respect religious people, i think all their whining and bitching is just getting monotonous. the bible was written by humans and even though it is meant to be the word of god... there is room for human error. with no existance that god exists... i don't think a view that is based on a possibly ignorant upbringing should count, especially when the bible seems more and more outdated with the introduction of science, but that's a different debate.

i think while we have this fad where everyone is equal, just make it legal to shut everyone up >.<

But were not spawned and spawned a major religion in the Western World.


Oh I get it now. Only the Western world with its far smaller amount of the population matters. I've got you now.

*
Buddhist and Taoists, care that we don't care for their religion as much? eh....

You said "who cares about their religions" and the response was "They do." Not that you do, its obvious that you cannot see much past yourself.

Sorry if I over tasked you. And why is it hard for you explain? Perhaps because you realize that I am right? What you have said here shows that you think the way Christians (such as yourself, not all) view the world is the way the government should behave. You do NOT beleive in freedom of religion for anone but for yourself.

1. I'm Jewish...... *considering making a huge siggie saying that now*
2. I believe in freedom of religion, as long as it doesn't interfere in another person's religion.

you're saying that people were justified in denying African Americans rights as human beings? What a load of bull that is worthy of someone from the KKK. You might be somewhat reasonable at times, but your underlying idealogies need some adjustment.

1. Yes they were.... They are not native to your country, think differently and act differently. It was extremely justified.... not the slavery.. just the voting. (This is a different topic though)

2. My Idealogies, make sense, if we could talk 1 on 1, I find it harder to express myself on a forum.

Same applies to you, i do not want people here, who are not reading the thread and understand what i mean.


I understand what you mean, and I think government should stay out of religious marriage. But there is legal marriage and religious marriage. I am saying that there should be LEGAL gay marriage. Religious marriage shouldn't be affected by it, if the religion says no, then no...government can't dictate religious law. The rest was more in your statement that you're against homosexuality....which I don't understand how it is possible as it is a natural thing.

You care what they practice? So your saying you would stop them from practicing their religion, just because it's different? I don't think you understand what i meant.

I care that their religious views are respected and represented equally in our government. You say if Christians refuse to perform gay marriages then gays shouldn't be married but that you don't care if Hindus did, it still shouldn't be recognized because Christianity "has more of an impact". What a load of BS.

I think you are the one who needs ot read more closely.

Generally when people write G-d, they're Jewish. Just for those of you who didn't know.

*blinks* can you rephrase that please?
What I'm saying is, why do you care about what other people do? Is gay marriage going to make the world any "gayer"? And no matter what you say, do, or disapprove of, that won't make one gay person straight. Sorry.

1. I'm Jewish...... *considering making a huge siggie saying that now*
2. I believe in freedom of religion, as long as it doesn't interfere in another person's religion.


Glad to know that biggotry isn't just confined to Christianity as if often seems (though I know it isn't true) on these boards. Gay people getting married in a Methodist church and the government granting them rights would not interfere in your religion's rights not to have that happen.



1. Yes they were.... They are not native to your country, think differently and act differently. It was extremely justified.... not the slavery.. just the voting. (This is a different topic though)


They were as native to this country as any European settler or their offspring was--many of whom were forced here as indentured servants, just like the slaves. By your line of reasoning, only Native Americans should have the right to vote.


2. My Idealogies, make sense, if we could talk 1 on 1, I find it harder to express myself on a forum.

Sadly, your idealogies don't make sense. And while I don't believe in anger, if we were to speak one on one I'm afraid I would be tempted to give you a black eye. I try to be tolerant of everything I can. But intolerance by others is the one thing I cannot stand.

Yet you cannot say with any degree of certainty that having a man and a woman is any better than having two men or two women. Science on the other hand has said with quite a degree of certainty (high sample sizes, statistical significance and reproducibility) that it does NOT matter what gender or sexual orientation your parents are.

Nature vs. Nurture is not relevant to this discussion.... No-ne can argue about it.

Technically, yes it does.

I agree having 2 parents is better then 1, but i still agree that having a male and a female raising a kid would make a more stable kid. I don't see myself contradicting.

You said that nobody cares about Buddhists or Taoists. This, then, states that Buddhists and Taoists don't care about themselves.

Also, stop saying "We" and "People" when only referring to your own opinions. You are only one person.

I want you to talk to 10 strangers, and ask them if they would care if one of their practices was eating a flower ( i know it's not, but ask anyways)

Oh I get it now. Only the Western world with its far smaller amount of the population matters. I've got you now.

Of course! :rolleyes: Stop being sarcastic... and try to understand my comments, i am trying to do the same with you.

You said "who cares about their religions" and the response was "They do." Not that you do, its obvious that you cannot see much past yourself.

Sigh.... Of course they care about their religion. But "we" the Westerners tend not to....... When they start caring that is a different story, but the majority of the people don't really care much what they do, so long as it doesnt affect them.

So the gist of what you're saying is that gays aren't allowed to be religious?
:eek: :rolleyes: :headbang:
Good lord. You ignored everything he is saying. The thing is, homosexuality is condemned in the Bible, and by that I mean in the New Testament, which matters a great deal more than the Old Testament. Now, I don't really know of any religion that allows homosexuality. The Qur'An specifically condemns it, and as far as religion is concerned in America those two are the most popular. Now, for a gay person to try and reconcile their homosexuality with God is just plain wrong. It is a sin, and therefore is just as wrong as stealing, lying, and murder. All are sins in the eyes of God. Therefore, no one has said that they cannot be religious. However, they themselves distance themselves from God by ignoring his word. That would not by my fault, or anyone else's but their own.

And I agree with him. After, as I have said before, marriage licenses and justices of the peace are fairly recent additions. The government used to have no place in marriage. In recent times, it has tried to butt in. Now, I feel as if we should have something like a civil union, which would be considered a "marriage", and would still carry the same benefits as a marriage, but would not be the same ceremony or coupling that is traditionally associated with marriage. Therefore, I would like to request that you liberals respect the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, and tell the government to quit secularizing marriage and create its own ceremony. After all, it belongs to us, and the government has no place getting involved with licensing and so on and so forth. Leave it up to the churches, and make up your own ceremony!

It is obvious here, no-one here really understands what i am talking about on some issues.

I am going to stop talking here, but anyone that wants me to explain better some of my other comments......once again TG me, and i will explain.

Pracus- I would not suggest you attempting to attack me, if we were to meet.... But that is also a diffferent topic.

Anyways. Adios, you may converse among yourselves.

I want you to talk to 10 strangers, and ask them if they would care if one of their practices was eating a flower ( i know it's not, but ask anyways)

Do you mean one of my practices? I think they would care if they had to eat flowers.

Nature vs. Nurture is not relevant to this discussion.... No-ne can argue about it.


Who said anything about nature vs. nuture. All I said was that you cannot compare the children you have observed who have come out of single home with children who you (presumably) have not seen who were raised in two parents homosexual homes.



I agree having 2 parents is better then 1, but i still agree that having a male and a female raising a kid would make a more stable kid. I don't see myself contradicting.


You see that. Reproducible scientific studies say otherwise.



I want you to talk to 10 strangers, and ask them if they would care if one of their practices was eating a flower ( i know it's not, but ask anyways)


I want you to talk to 10 strangers and see if they think that Buddhists and Hindus should have the right to practice their religion openly and to have marriages that their assemblies perform recognized by the government.


Of course! :rolleyes: Stop being sarcastic... and try to understand my comments, i am trying to do the same with you.


Sarcasm is a gift from the gods. And I am trying to understand you. And the only thing I'm understanding is you are a bigot.



Sigh.... Of course they care about their religion. But "we" the Westerners tend not to....... When they start caring that is a different story, but the majority of the people don't really care much what they do, so long as it doesnt affect them.

You do realize that there are Buddhists and Hindus practicing their religions right here in the Western World? And the majority of people care about Freedom of Religion whether or not they tend to consciously think of Hindus.

This actually is a good thread. I think people are not comfortable with gays. NOt that they are homophobic. However, people fear they will have some bad effect. Especially in school. Should teachers be openly gay. If not, then obviously teachers cant be openly in love with anyone. However, on a lighter note...

I just think its people being sexist. If a man can marry a woman, but a woman cant marry a woman its just sexism. Plain and simple. jk, but it is an interesting perspective.

Now, for a gay person to try and reconcile their homosexuality with God is just plain wrong. It is a sin, and therefore is just as wrong as stealing, lying, and murder. All are sins in the eyes of God. Therefore, no one has said that they cannot be religious. However, they themselves distance themselves from God by ignoring his word. That would not by my fault, or anyone else's but their own.


And here I thought that a personal relationship between God and man was just that--personal. Gay people have just as much right to seek out that relationship with God and if they can reconcile the differences, then so be it. It's not for you to interfere with. And judging what is and isn't a sin is a matter for God. "Judge not lest you also be judged" and "Do not try to remove the splinter from your neighbor's eye before removing the log from your own." Let gay people deal with God and sin in their own way. You have no right to interfere in that.

:
And I agree with him. After, as I have said before, marriage licenses and justices of the peace are fairly recent additions. The government used to have no place in marriage. In recent times, it has tried to butt in. Now, I feel as if we should have something like a civil union, which would be considered a "marriage", and would still carry the same benefits as a marriage, but would not be the same ceremony or coupling that is traditionally associated with marriage. Therefore, I would like to request that you liberals respect the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, and tell the government to quit secularizing marriage and create its own ceremony. After all, it belongs to us, and the government has no place getting involved with licensing and so on and so forth. Leave it up to the churches, and make up your own ceremony!

Never mind. Some things aren't even worth responding to. :headbang:

Many westerners recognize that marrige is a civil affair, ie you have to be liscensed to be married, thus under the constitution equal marrige rights should exist for all.

Sadly, your idealogies don't make sense. And while I don't believe in anger, if we were to speak one on one I'm afraid I would be tempted to give you a black eye. I try to be tolerant of everything I can. But intolerance by others is the one thing I cannot stand.
You sound like a parody of Austin Powers. "
There are two things I cannot stand, people who are intolerat of other people's cultures, and the Dutch!"
Now, you try to set yourself up as the tolerant, thoughtful, rational personale here. However, you then claim that because the other guy is "intolerant", i.e. he disagrees with you, you are going to hit him. Grow up...

And if you really want to start a fight, I'll be glad to give you my address, and you can come right on down to South Carolina and try to black my eye. You see, there is one thing I really can't stand, and that is people who make stupid threats over the Internet. You will never, ever speak to someone in real life the way you do on the Net, for fear of being shot. However, here you feel free to threaten to beat someone up, as if you actually had the ability to do such a thing. Not to mention the fact that you are obviously little more than a prepubescent teenager who fantasizes of one day actually following through on the threats he makes. Indeed, if you were actually capable of beating him up, you wouldn't make threats. Would you like my address? If you wish, I'll TG it to you, and you can fly right on down.

Just because the only way they would get married is by going to a church, should we eliminate this process?



Actually, to become legally married, just go down to your city courthouse and apply for a marriage license. You'll be legally married, no church involved.

Now you might say "But you're not married before the lord!" and I'd remind you that the religeous aspect of marriage is just not what the gays are really after.

They were as native to this country as any European settler or their offspring was--many of whom were forced here as indentured servants, just like the slaves. By your line of reasoning, only Native Americans should have the right to vote.
Borrowed from a broadcast program (I'm sure a few people will get the reference) :

"You won, alright? You came in and you killed them and you took their land. It's what conquering nations do. It's what Caeser did, and he's not going around saying, 'I came, I conquered, I felt really bad about it.' The history of the world is NOT people making friends. You had better weapons and you massacred them, end of story."

I will not be an apologist for things people years before me have done. Oh, your great-great grandfather was a slave? Well, gee, that sucks, but you can still get off your lazy ass and get a job, you're not entitled to anything you haven't earned.

And if you really want to start a fight, I'll be glad to give you my address, and you can come right on down to South Carolina and try to black my eye. You see, there is one thing I really can't hate, and that is people who make stupid threats over the Internet. You will never, ever speak to someone in real life the way you do on the Net, for fear of being shot. However, here you feel free to threaten to beat someone up, as if you actually had the ability to do such a thing. Not to mention the fact that you are obviously little more than a prepubescent teenager who fantasizes of one day actually following through on the threats he makes. Indeed, if you were actually capable of beating him up, you wouldn't make threats. Would you like my address? If you wish, I'll TG it to you, and you can fly right on down.

Just ignore a threat. I dont care if it came from a teenager or an senior. Firghting over an internet post would be the stupidest thing I ever heard.

Marriage is not required to go thru relgion

Marriage is not required to go thru relgion
In America it is. I know some other countries it isnt.

And here I thought that a personal relationship between God and man was just that--personal. Gay people have just as much right to seek out that relationship with God and if they can reconcile the differences, then so be it. It's not for you to interfere with. And judging what is and isn't a sin is a matter for God. "Judge not lest you also be judged" and "Do not try to remove the splinter from your neighbor's eye before removing the log from your own." Let gay people deal with God and sin in their own way. You have no right to interfere in that.
Actually, I base what i say on specific verses of the Bible, which is God's word. If he says homosexuality is a sin, then who are you to disagree? I merely agree with the Supreme Being who created all of us. You simply express your own ignorant views, which merely show that you have little or no knowledge of the topic in discussion. Thus, it is a sin, and your argument is faulty. Don't argue religion that you don't understand or know anything about.

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

1Corithians 6:9-10: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Matthew 19:4-5: "...at the beginning, the Creator 'made them male and female' and said 'For this reason man will leave his father and mother, and be united with his wife; and the two will become one flesh.'"

ude 1:7: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
Note: In this verse, the original Greek for "strange flesh was "sarkas heteras", which has a possible meaning of homosexuality, along with unnatural lust, or lust by men for other men.

I say, why should we stop this? Just because there are many people that don't care about religion, should we re-write things for them?

Just because the only way they would get married is by going to a church, should we eliminate this process?
Ever here of a civil marriage? Marriages don't have to be religious. I say if homosexuals wnat to marry more power to them.

Frankly I don't see what basis there is for an arguement against homosexuals marrying, particularily in the US? In fact the only arguement I have seen for not giving them the right to marry is along religious lines. All I keep hearing is "It's against God because he wanted us to procreate. Gays and lesbians can't procreate", "Marriage is a religious institution", and so on and so forth.

First of all, if being homosexual is against God, why do we have homosexuals in the first place? If He didn't want them around, shouldn't such an all powerful being be able to make it so that homosexuality never existed in the first place? I mean look around you people. Almost every animal species on this planet has some sort of homosexual population! Frankly, if God didn't want homosexuality to exist, then there should be some solid evidence for this, but there isn't. The Bible? Yeah you could interpert some passages as banning or forbiding homosexuality, but there's a problem there. The Bible, according to many including myself, is the word of God, but its the word of God as translated by man. In its english form, its been translated some many times that it is useless to deny that the word of God hasn't been colored in some way shape or form by man's baises.

Second, marriage is not solely a religious institution. Yes, a lot of people get married in churches, synagogues, mosques or what have you, but many have also been married by the justice of the peace in civil marriages. If some religions don't want to marry homosexuals, so be it. It is their choice. The US can't touch them because of the principle of seperation of church and state. By this same way of thinking, the government also can't define marriage by religious means. The minute we start doing that, we no longer have seperation of church and state. The government would be seen supporting a single or handful of religions over the rest because the government subscribes to that religion or group of religions' views on marriage. I mean that would clearly make civil marriages proformed by government officials religious. Also, what if a certain religious sect has no problem with and even does homosexual marriages? Now they can't because the government says it can't. All in all, if you want to ban homsexual marriage you better have something better than using religion to justify it.

Don't you see? We can't deny homosexuals the right to marry because the issue gets inevitably tied up with religion. You may not like it. Hell, you might not like anything that has do with homosexuals period. Go ahead hate them with you want. It's your right, but do go around violating their rights and the principals this country was founded upon.

*NOTE* I do realize that the US government has endorsed religions, in particular, in the past, as well as today. Yet in principle, they are not supposed to. It doesn't make what they have done right though.

Marriage is not required to go thru relgion
In America it is. I know some other countries it isnt.

Eh? Maybe I'm misunderstanding and you'll clarify.. Religion is NOT required for a marriage in the united states.

You may choose to be married in a church or other 'holy' location, but such things are not required in any way.

First of all, if being homosexual is against God, why do we have homosexuals in the first place?
Two words, free will.

Second, marriage is not solely a religious institution.
As I have said before, although you ignored it, government only recently stuck its nose into marriage. In my opinion, it had no right to do such a thing. I believe it should stay out, and create its own ceremony that is entirely different from marriage, since it stole the institution from religion in the first place.

Two words, free will.

Uhh... sexual orientation isn't a product of one's free will. Try again.

Two words, free will.

I thought free will, as well as self awareness, came from the human race eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge. This may explain homosexuality in humans, but it sure as hell doesn't explain other species does it? Also I believe there is quite a few scientific studies suggesting homosexuality is not a choice, but happens due to nature.

As I have said before, although you ignored it, government only recently stuck its nose into marriage. In my opinion, it had no right to do such a thing. I believe it should stay out, and create its own ceremony that is entirely different from marriage, since it stole the institution from religion in the first place.

I have to disagree about this. Civil marriage has been around for awhile now. Therefore it is not a recent development. Besides, civil marriages don't involve much ceremony do they?

Eh? Maybe I'm misunderstanding and you'll clarify.. Religion is NOT required for a marriage in the united states.

You may choose to be married in a church or other 'holy' location, but such things are not required in any way.
He's wrong, you are right Dars. However, I would argue that government has no right to approve a marriage. A civil union, yes, but not a marriage. In my mind that leads to excessive entanglement with religion, which violates the Lemon test, which is used in cases involving the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

its obvious that gays should be able to marry. one becuz not all gays are bound by religion becuz not all gays are christian. and marriages dont always take place in a church it can happen anywhere. Its their choice not ours if they should marry.

Uhh... sexual orientation isn't a product of one's free will. Try again.
Uhh, actually it is, and only a few die hard fools dispute it. Such as the fact that I know quite a few people who used to be homosexual, and after coming to Christ reformed and left their former ways. You merely have the word of some biased internet site. I'd say my personal experience weighs heavier.

I thought free will, as well as self awareness, came from the human race eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge. Sure as hell doesn't explain other species does it? Also I believe there is quite a few scientific studies suggesting homosexuality is not a choice, but happens do to nature.

Actually, God created all men with free will. That is why Adam and Eve were able to choose to eat the fruit. But at least you are thinking. And in my opinion, animals are probably equipped with free will, because I believe that my dog decideds whether or not to obey based on how it feels. Common sense helps sometimes...


I have to disagree about this. Civil marriage has been around for awhile now. Therefore it is not a recent development. Besides, civil marriages don't involve much ceremony do they?
It has not been around for long when you consider that true humans have existed, according to the Atheistic viewpoint, for 30,000 years. In that span, civil marriage has only existed for the blink of an eye. And when I use the term ceremony, it is because it still requires a ceremony even for a civil union, albeit a secular one. Secular and ceremony do not necessarily exclude one another.

Uhh, actually it is, and only a few die hard fools dispute it. Such as the fact that I know quite a few people who used to be homosexual, and after coming to Christ reformed and left their former ways. You merely have the word of some biased internet site. I'd say my personal experience weighs heavier.
What do you make of the scientic studies than that say it isn't choice? That all scientists are godless heathens? That would be quite a laugh as I happen to known quite a few religious scientists. In fact, I'm majoring in chemistry with a minor in psychology right now and I consider myslef religious.

Uhh, actually it is, and only a few die hard fools dispute it.

If by "a few die hard fools" you mean the vast majority of the scientific and psychiatric community, I agree completely.

What do you make of the scientic studies than that say it isn't choice? That all scientists are godless heathens? That would be quite a laugh as I happen to known quite a few religious scientists. In fact, I'm majoring in chemistry with a minor in psychology right now and I consider myslef religious.
Please, try to point that out. Run a quick search on the causes of homosexuality. Every study that has concluded it was genetic has been debunked immediately afterward. There are no genetic differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals that have been found. You have no proof.

Actually, God created all men with free will. That is why Adam and Eve were able to choose to eat the fruit. But at least you are thinking. And in my opinion, animals are probably equipped with free will, because I believe that my dog decideds whether or not to obey based on how it feels. Common sense helps sometimes...
Funny I thought that the serpent convinced Eve. Some free will? I don't know about you, but I'd fear the wrath of an almighty God rather than what a serpent would do if I didn't follow his suggestion. If you want to keep using religion, go right ahead. I'll just use it right back.

It has not been around for long when you consider that true humans have existed, according to the Atheistic viewpoint, for 30,000 years. In that span, civil marriage has only existed for the blink of an eye. And when I use the term ceremony, it is because it still requires a ceremony even for a civil union, albeit a secular one. Secular and ceremony do not necessarily exclude one another.
From that standpoint I will conceed that civil marriages in the US do have a very short history. Yet I have to ask, how are we sure that marriage was originally religious if we go back that far? I'd argue that it probably began for political reasons if you want to go back that far. I mean, what better way to form alliances then through blood. Most nobles seemed to think the same thing throughout most of history.

Please, try to point that out. Run a quick search on the causes of homosexuality. Every study that has concluded it was genetic has been debunked immediately afterward. There are no genetic differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals that have been found. You have no proof.
Genetically perhaps? But what about physiologically? There have been studies done on the brains of homosexuals versus heterosexuals. There does seem to be a difference, but your probably not interested. Besides, to say nothing genetically hasn't been found is a bit premature isn't it? Yes, we have mapped the human genome, but we're still learning to read that map. I mean hell less than a week ago scientists announced that the genes need to make a human are way less than previously thought. Also, I believe when they decoded the human genome that it was also stated that it is possible that they haven't discovered all variants of certain genes.

Funny I thought that the serpent convinced Eve. Some free will? I don't know about you, but I'd fear the wrath of an almighty God rather than what a serpent would do if I didn't follow his suggestion. If you want to keep using religion, go right ahead. I'll just use it right back.
Feel free to "use religion right back". You don't make any sense. Eve had a choice of whether or not to eat the fruit. Just as Adam then had a choice. They weren't forced into anything. Therefore, I don't quite understand your point...


From that standpoint I will conceed that civil marriages in the US do have a very short history. Yet I have to ask, how are we sure that marriage was originally religious if we go back that far? I'd argue that it probably began for political reasons if you want to go back that far. I mean, what better way to form alliances then through blood. Most nobles seemed to think the same thing throughout most of history.
Actually, there are many proposed reasons for why it evolved. Mostly, what you say is indeed true. However, these unions were validated by their religious value. They were not validated by a license. Thus, although it may have evolved as a simple necessity, it was given credibility by its association with religion.

Genetically perhaps? But what about physiology? There have been studies done on the brains of homosexuals versus heterosexuals. There does seem to be a difference, but your probably not interested. Besides, to say nothing genetically hasn't been found is a bit premature isn't it? Yes, we have mapped the human genome, but we're still learning to read that map. I mean hell less than a week ago scientists announced that the genes need to make a human are way less than previously thought. Also, I believe when they decoded the human genome that it was also stated that it is possible that they haven't discovered all variants of certain genes.
However, all you did here was skirt the issue. Also, I would like to see a reference for the issue of physiology, because I have never heard any professional refer to it.

By the way, the Christian Medical Fellowship has done some work on this topic. Granted, you may choose to not believe them because they are christians, but they are qualified professionals who do a very good job of backing themselves up with references.
You can read it here.
http://www.cmf.org.uk/index.htm?nucleus/nucoct97/cause.htm

Here is a site that refers to the physiological side of homosexuality. However, they actually believe that homosexuality is natural. Still they admit that the causes are unidentified.


And it is time for dinner, I'm hungry. :).

I say, why should we stop this? Just because there are many people that don't care about religion, should we re-write things for them?

If religion has been written into law, then yes, it should be rewritten. Ever heard of a little thing called the separation of church and state?

Just because the only way they would get married is by going to a church, should we eliminate this process?

Going to a church is most definitely not the only way to get married. If that was true, no one but christians would be able to marry. Many religious institutions offer marriage services, and judges have the power to marry people in a non-religious ceremony. This is called a civil marriage. I'm not trying to stop you from getting married in a church.

To make this blunt.... people should realize marriage is a more religious thing.... I say, that Gay's should not be married.... but on the other hand, to be fair (Note: No matter what i am against gays even exisiting)

Religion does not have a monopoly on marriage. Christianity does not have a monopoly on religion. Conservatives do not have a monopoly on christianity. Bigots and homophobes do not have a monopoly on conservatism.
Get over yourselves, and let us live our lives.

Anyways, to be fair, i think we should find a middle ground, instead of marriage.... just let them have the bonuses of what typically married people get.

It's so simple.... It'll end the discussions on Gay marriaged... why? We still ban them from getting married...but recognize that they wish to share things, and split property, as what is generally done.

Yeah, you know, it's amazing that nobody has ever thought of that before! Oh wait, it's called a civil union. So far it doesn't seem like they're very popular with the gay marriage opponents either.


And to those who are too lazy to read the whole thing, and think i'm bashing Gays in this topic...i shall be kind and give you a quick summary.

So when you say that a certain group shouldn't even have the right to exist, that's not bashing?
I'm not trying to flame you, I'm just having a hard time trying not to feel bashed.

Feel free to "use religion right back". You don't make any sense. Eve had a choice of whether or not to eat the fruit. Just as Adam then had a choice. They weren't forced into anything. Therefore, I don't quite understand your point...

Well, I'm not seeing your point. So we're even. I had thought that Adam and Eve weren't create with free will. I mean if they were would they start question God? I would have a lot of questions like such as:

What am I?
Who are you?
Why am I here?
What is this place?
Who made it?
Why did you make it?
What is the purpose of all this?
Why should I work in your garden? Don't I have a choice?
What makes you so powerful?
Why am I naked and you clothed? (Which oddly enough doesn't come around until the whole Tree of Knowledge incident)

Actually, there are many proposed reasons for why it evolved. Mostly, what you say is indeed true. However, these unions were validated by their religious value. They were not validated by a license. Thus, although it may have evolved as a simple necessity, it was given credibility by its association with religion.

How were they validated, as you put it, by religion? Who went ahead and declared that so? Wouldn't it be true that using marriage to create alliances is validated merely by the fact that it helped form alliances and ensure survival? I think an arguement could be made that marriage sanctioned by the gods or God or Allah or whoever you subscribe to came about so that the members your tribe, kingdom, fiefdom, etc. wouldn't complain or question alliances through marriage. I mean if you didn't like what your leader was doing what better way to stop complaints in their tracks than by saying, "God let me marry that person. In fact, God gives me the right to rule." I mean who's to question God, right, even if God's will was proclaimed through a man?

However, all you did here was skirt the issue. Also, I would like to see a reference for the issue of physiology, because I have never heard any professional refer to it.
Actually that was a spelling mistake. I meant to say physiologically. I should thank you for pointing that out.

Seems like you're grasping at straws though. I mean using a spelling mistake as a rebutal? ;)

Wow. What an odd thread.

My two cents: from what I understand, the French government does not marry people. That is solely the province of religions. Any two consenting adults may enter into a civil union. They then enjoy the same rights the rest fo the world commonly associates with marriage. If there are any citizens of France in this thread, I would enjoy some confirmation or debunking.

Secondly, no one knows what causes homosexuality, though some studies may indicate that only species that experience orgasm (as opposed to mere ejaculation) engage in homosexual practices.

Thirdly, while I am not a historian, I know marriages occured in Ancient Rome and Greece, which predate Christianity. While I do not know if the were religious or secular ceremonies (I think there was no separation of state and religion so it may be a moot point), marriage predates Christianity. Therefore, the argument that Christianity, and perhaps any other religion, has a monopoly on marriage is not a valid one, or at least must allow the validity of other religions.

Leviticus 20:13 (yawn)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. King James Version

If you use this Bible passage to condemn homosexuality, then you must support the death penalty for homosexuality. I think, as a society, we have evolved beyond this.

Since we are allowing personal anecdotes to be used as arguments despite their statistical insignificance, I should say that 100% of the children I know who were raised by homosexual couples turned out just fine. Mind you, this is my idea of normal, which probabaly does not agree with MuhOre's (Thank G_d).

Personally, my views seem to be shared with the vast majority of Christians and Jews I know. My question is then: what's up with the rest of you Jews and Christians?

MuhOre: You said that you were Jewish and that "technically" it was against your religion. I am Jewish as well and after studying homosexuality in the Torah, the main concern was not "wasting Israeli seed". Well, now we know that the supply can't exactly run out, so if you feel uncomfortable by it, then say it, don't blame it on the text without thinking of the purpose.

Actually, I base what i say on specific verses of the Bible, which is God's word. If he says homosexuality is a sin, then who are you to disagree? I merely agree with the Supreme Being who created all of us. You simply express your own ignorant views, which merely show that you have little or no knowledge of the topic in discussion. Thus, it is a sin, and your argument is faulty. Don't argue religion that you don't understand or know anything about.


I know exactly what the Bible says. I was raised a Christian and was in a good way to being a fundamentalist. However, I have a higher opinion of the Almighty's gifts of compassion and his willingness to change his mind (prayer and miracles would be useless otherwise). Let people form their own relationship with God and make their own decisions. Its not your job to judge them for what they feel is true in their heart or to try to punish or rebuke them when you think they are wrong.

Two words, free will.


Three words: Not. A. Choice.


As I have said before, although you ignored it, government only recently stuck its nose into marriage. In my opinion, it had no right to do such a thing. I believe it should stay out, and create its own ceremony that is entirely different from marriage, since it stole the institution from religion in the first place.[/QUOTE]

Fine, let it do that (hee hee, I say that like it doesn't already have civil marriage). But if people who are married in churches want the same rights as people in that new and separate ceremony, then they should have to go through it too.

I have to disagree about this. Civil marriage has been around for awhile now. Therefore it is not a recent development. Besides, civil marriages don't involve much ceremony do they?

Civil marriages have been around at least since the time of the writing of Little Women. In it, Amy and Laurie are married in the American Consulates in France--not in a church or by a minister. Further, you can have a civil marriage with ceremony or without it. You CAN just get a license and swear before a judge that you intend to spend your life together and that you aren't violating any laws by marrying.

Well, I'm not seeing your point. So we're even. I had thought that Adam and Eve weren't create with free will. I mean if they were would they start question God? I would have a lot of questions like such as:

What am I?
Who are you?
Why am I here?
What is this place?
Who made it?
Why did you make it?
What is the purpose of all this?
Why should I work in your garden? Don't I have a choice?
What makes you so powerful?
Why am I naked and you clothed? (Which oddly enough doesn't come around until the whole Tree of Knowledge incident)

OK, I at least see where you are coming from. However, I think you have made a logical error. You see, you fail to consider the circumstances they lived under. First, they were intimately in touch with God, in that they knew for a fact he existed because they had spoken with him, and been created by him explicitly. Therefore, they would not question God's existance, simply because they knew for a fact he existed. Now, as to those other questions, I believe you have made another logical error. Self-Awareness does not equal free will. They had choices, because God told them specifically not to eat the fruit, and they *chose* to do so after being convinced that it would be good. Eve was convinced by the Serpent, and Adam by Eve. Thus, they always had the choice of whether or not to do something, depending on whether or not they *wanted* to.

Now, as to the naked-clothed question, I believe you have made another logical error. You again mistake free will with self-awareness. However, since they, beforehand, had no experience with clothing or covering, it seems natural that they would not consider needing it. As to questioning why God was so powerful, well, to that I can only shake my head. You see, we do not have a full account of every word that was spoken between God and the first humans. However, it seems logical that, just like every other human who personally met God, they would not ask a question such as "Why are you so powerful?" They would simply know that he is. When Moses saw just the hand of God, his face shone like the Sun. It was said that to see God in his entirety would kill a man. How do you question that kind of power? Also, they did not work in the Garden. That is just plain wrong. Everything was provided for them, and it was a paradise.


How were they validated, as you put it, by religion? Who went ahead and declared that so? Wouldn't it be true that using marriage to create alliances is validated merely by the fact that it helped form alliances and ensure survival? I think an arguement could be made that marriage sanctioned by the gods or God or Allah or whoever you subscribe to came about so that the members your tribe, kingdom, fiefdom, etc. wouldn't complain or question alliances through marriage. I mean if you didn't like what your leader was doing what better way to stop complaints in their tracks than by saying, "God let me marry that person. In fact, God gives me the right to rule." I mean who's to question God, right, even if God's will was proclaimed through a man?
Again, I fail to see a very logical path to your conclusion. No offense, but you are now taking the preexisting institution, religion, and claiming that it was merely an excuse to keep the populace down. If anything, that is an unsupported supposition. Now, my claim, that when the practice of marriage began it was necessary to validate it through religion, makes far more sense. You see, I don't agree that marriage began simply to strengthen alliances. That is a possibility, but not the only one. And as for who declared that marriage was validated by religion, I did, and so did everyone else who got married before the days of marriage licenses. After all, marriage is the only way to make intercourse permissible in the eyes of God, whichever God you may follow. No religion that I know of claims anything else.

Give Homosexuals the same benefits of a married couple, without the religious stuff, that way no-one could tell the difference if they're married or not, but at least they can put eachother in their wills... and whatever else Married Couples get. The same thing should technically apply to Atheists/Agnostics...
Oh, so now you're gonna ban atheists from getting married? :p

Three words: Not. A. Choice.


As I have said before, although you ignored it, government only recently stuck its nose into marriage. In my opinion, it had no right to do such a thing. I believe it should stay out, and create its own ceremony that is entirely different from marriage, since it stole the institution from religion in the first place.

Fine, let it do that (hee hee, I say that like it doesn't already have civil marriage). But if people who are married in churches want the same rights as people in that new and separate ceremony, then they should have to go through it too.[/QUOTE]
I agree with that last part. I see it as being a two-part experience. Civil Union, first, then the marriage. Legal, then Religious. And as to the first part. Back. It. Up. Or shut up. Because I have already pointed out why you are wrong.

Uhh, actually it is, and only a few die hard fools dispute it. Such as the fact that I know quite a few people who used to be homosexual, and after coming to Christ reformed and left their former ways. You merely have the word of some biased internet site. I'd say my personal experience weighs heavier.

Boy are you being mislead. The vast majority of scientists (people who actually STUDY these things and don't just make jump conclusions) agree that it is NOT a choice but another varation of human sexuality. Check out the APA's website if you do not believe me. I will not deny that maybe for some people it is a choice but let me assure you, its not for the majority. I tried for YEARS to change who I was. I pleaded, I begged, I prayed, I focused, I dated women and all to no end.

And as for your personal experience, I would say that it is extremely limited and biased (but then who's is not?). Unless you've been gay, you have no personal experience in the matter.

Oh, so now you're gonna ban atheists from getting married? :p
Well, honestly, why would an atheist want a christian marriage? A civil union makes far more sense. A two part operation seems to be in order. Everyone must get a civil union for the legal aspect. Then, for the religious types, they can get a marriage that holds the symbolic importance.

Please, try to point that out. Run a quick search on the causes of homosexuality. Every study that has concluded it was genetic has been debunked immediately afterward. There are no genetic differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals that have been found. You have no proof.

Incorrect. No "gay gene" has been isolated. However the are heavy correlations between other phenotypic expression that suggest a genetic etiology. Further, there are KNOWN linkages on the Y chromosome as well as the long arm of chromosome 15 that further support a linkage. These studies have been reproduced. Just because a gene hasn't been isolated does not mean it exists. And more than likely, there is no one gene that causes it but a series of genes that, when combined with psychology and early life experiences determine one's sexuality. The best studies have indicated that sexuality is determined by age 5.

Just because your church's website says otherwise, certainly doesn't make it true. Try to go with an academic group or journal and see what you find.

I know exactly what the Bible says. I was raised a Christian and was in a good way to being a fundamentalist. However, I have a higher opinion of the Almighty's gifts of compassion and his willingness to change his mind (prayer and miracles would be useless otherwise). Let people form their own relationship with God and make their own decisions. Its not your job to judge them for what they feel is true in their heart or to try to punish or rebuke them when you think they are wrong.
To change his mind? You were obviously not a fundamentalist. You have just determined to ignore every scripture I quoted, simply to satisfy your own moral standpoint, in defiance of everything God has said. Therefore, you were never a fundamentalist. I am a fundamentalist, and I can therefore assure you that your viewpoint would make you a moderate, at best. And if he expressly forbids something, then who are you to state that he "really didn't mean it" or that "he changed his mind, but you just don't know it yet"? You have no leg to stand on when it comes to religious grounds.

Actually, there are many proposed reasons for why it evolved. Mostly, what you say is indeed true. However, these unions were validated by their religious value. They were not validated by a license. Thus, although it may have evolved as a simple necessity, it was given credibility by its association with religion.

You do realize that no one has proposed taking marriage rights away from religions haven't you? They've proposed extending Civil Rights to peopel to whom they have long been (unjustly) denied.

Incorrect. No "gay gene" has been isolated. However the are heavy correlations between other phenotypic expression that suggest a genetic etiology. Further, there are KNOWN linkages on the Y chromosome as well as the long arm of chromosome 15 that further support a linkage. These studies have been reproduced. Just because a gene hasn't been isolated does not mean it exists. And more than likely, there is no one gene that causes it but a series of genes that, when combined with psychology and early life experiences determine one's sexuality. The best studies have indicated that sexuality is determined by age 5.

Just because your church's website says otherwise, certainly doesn't make it true. Try to go with an academic group or journal and see what you find.
ROFL.
I'm sorry, but your lack of evidence makes you humorous. Here, I actually meant to link http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8895026&dopt=Abstract
to show that even people on your own side don't agree with you. Now, I see that you don't need facts. Just media hype.

You do realize that no one has proposed taking marriage rights away from religions haven't you? They've proposed extending Civil Rights to peopel to whom they have long been (unjustly) denied.
I'm aware of that. However, I still believe that there should be two seperate institutions. I am a law student, and in my mind marriage has led to excessive entanglement with religion, in violation of the Lemon test in regards to the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, Amendment 1. Therefore, marriage should be completely seperate from the government, and civil unions should become mandatory for all couples wishing to be together legally, while marriages should be reserved for their symbolic importance to religious factions.

Actually that was a spelling mistake. I meant to say physiologically. I should thank you for pointing that out.

Seems like you're grasping at straws though. I mean using a spelling mistake as a rebutal? ;)
I actually didn't notice the mistake, I understood what you meant. However, I was not aware that Science had regressed back to trying to find discrepancies in brain structure to explain homosexuality. That would suggest an anomaly, and at the very least lead to the conclusion that it was an unnatural occurance that should not be considered normal, just as sickle cell anemia is not normal or beneficial.

Well, in my opinion, not only is gay marriage wrong, so is being gay. It is against everything in the Bible and the Lord God Almighty does not permit it. Not only that, nothing comes out of a union between homos. No children, nothing--therefore, it is pointless. And wrong...I'm hoping Bush is re-elected so he can get that ban on gays out.

Fine, let it do that (hee hee, I say that like it doesn't already have civil marriage). But if people who are married in churches want the same rights as people in that new and separate ceremony, then they should have to go through it too.
I agree with that last part. I see it as being a two-part experience. Civil Union, first, then the marriage. Legal, then Religious. And as to the first part. Back. It. Up. Or shut up. Because I have already pointed out why you are wrong.[/QUOTE]

We just agreed. Let the government give civil unions to all and let religious groups decide who they will marry.

Of course, you DO realize that some religious groups are going to perform marriages for gays? But I'm certain your's won't and will never be forced so to do.

And I have backed it up with myself. Not. A. Choice.

You can choose not to believe that, but it won't change that simple fact. Not. A. Choice.

However, if you want a scientific authority. Here's the APA take on it:

http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#choice

Read on down and see how they feel about conversion therapies.

Well, honestly, why would an atheist want a christian marriage? A civil union makes far more sense. A two part operation seems to be in order. Everyone must get a civil union for the legal aspect. Then, for the religious types, they can get a marriage that holds the symbolic importance.

you do realize that's the way it is right? Atheists don't want a christian marriage. they want a Civil marriage. That adjective before the noun makes a lot of difference.

My two cents: from what I understand, the French government does not marry people. That is solely the province of religions. Any two consenting adults may enter into a civil union. They then enjoy the same rights the rest fo the world commonly associates with marriage. If there are any citizens of France in this thread, I would enjoy some confirmation or debunking.
____________________
Secondly, no one knows what causes homosexuality, though some studies may indicate that only species that experience orgasm (as opposed to mere ejaculation) engage in homosexual practices.
____________________
Thirdly, while I am not a historian, I know marriages occured in Ancient Rome and Greece, which predate Christianity. While I do not know if the were religious or secular ceremonies (I think there was no separation of state and religion so it may be a moot point), marriage predates Christianity. Therefore, the argument that Christianity, and perhaps any other religion, has a monopoly on marriage is not a valid one, or at least must allow the validity of other religions.
_____________________
Leviticus 20:13 (yawn)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. King James Version

If you use this Bible passage to condemn homosexuality, then you must support the death penalty for homosexuality. I think, as a society, we have evolved beyond this.
_________________________
Since we are allowing personal anecdotes to be used as arguments despite their statistical insignificance, I should say that 100% of the children I know who were raised by homosexual couples turned out just fine. Mind you, this is my idea of normal, which probabaly does not agree with MuhOre's (Thank G_d).
_________________________
Personally, my views seem to be shared with the vast majority of Christians and Jews I know. My question is then: what's up with the rest of you Jews and Christians?
I agree totally with that first paragraph. That is exactly what I am proposing. Thank you very much.

Second, I also agree with the next paragraph.

Third paragraph, you make the mistake of assuming that I consider marriage to be the result of christianity. I never said such a thing. I said that where they occured, they were validated by religion and held religious significance, as opposed to a secular value.

Now, the passage from Leviticus is basically worthless, because we no longer follow the law of the Old Testament. We follow the New Testament, and are instructed that we are no longer accountable to the law of Moses.

I don't care if homosexual couples raise kids, as long as they are monitored. I also believe the adoptive parents of any foster child should be monitored. Now, if they are artificialy inseminated, then it is their responsible to take care of their kid. Not mine or anyone else's.

Therefore, I agree with you. I don't know that any christian who is using the word of God as his guide could actually disagree. A homosexual is a sinner, yes, but so are my parents. They still did a good job. As long as the child's parents don't try to push him into homosexuality, I don't care. If the child chooses himself, then that is his choice.

To change his mind? You were obviously not a fundamentalist. You have just determined to ignore every scripture I quoted, simply to satisfy your own moral standpoint, in defiance of everything God has said. Therefore, you were never a fundamentalist. I am a fundamentalist, and I can therefore assure you that your viewpoint would make you a moderate, at best. And if he expressly forbids something, then who are you to state that he "really didn't mean it" or that "he changed his mind, but you just don't know it yet"? You have no leg to stand on when it comes to religious grounds.

Read what I said again. I said I was ALMOST a fundemantalist. I'm certainly not now. You see, I've realized that if God isn't someone who can love unconditionally but refuses to help me change, then He isn't worth believing in. fortuanntely, I don't believe ina God like that. Scripture be damned if need be.

And who are you to say that He really did mean it or that He hasbn't changed His mind. The sky's opened up for you lately?

And you are right. I really have no leg to stand on religiously except that I hold that people are free to believe as they choose. You can have a biggoted, hateful God if you wish. I can believe otherwise. Comparing religious beliefs really isn't possible. Neither of us are going to change our view.

Any gays being united in any way should not be considered marriage. Or a union or any other legal binding thing for that matter.

ROFL.
I'm sorry, but your lack of evidence makes you humorous. Here, I actually meant to link http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8895026&dopt=Abstract
to show that even people on your own side don't agree with you. Now, I see that you don't need facts. Just media hype.

I'll have to dig out the articles written since then, unfortunantely I don't have time right now as I should be studying for a Biostatistics Exam. But as a word to the wise--try not to quote evidence that's more than three years old. Odds are its changed.


EDITORIAL ADDICTION:

I just finished reading the abstract on that article. Those people had something to prove. Did you see where it said that they don't think you should do research at all because that assumes its a mental illness? They are out with an agenda. Further they hold its not a choice. Thanks for providing my evidence for me on that point.

you do realize that's the way it is right? Atheists don't want a christian marriage. they want a Civil marriage. That adjective before the noun makes a lot of difference.
OK, so you agree with me on this. Good. So what are you arguing it for? I have been advocating a seperated system this whole time. Government handles civil unions, and then churches can marry people. No duh. If you agree, then quit trying to score points off it.

That's not the issue--the issue is whether or not you think Gay Marriage is right or wrong. Don't get off topic w/ the definitions of unions or marriages...because the fact of it is that gays should not be united or married at all.

I'll have to dig out the articles written since then, unfortunantely I don't have time right now as I should be studying for a Biostatistics Exam. But as a word to the wise--try not to quote evidence that's more than three years old. Odds are its changed.
That's all fine and well, but for that matter, don't quote facts you can't prove. And in my opinion, anything too recent probably hasn't been examined thoroughly, and any experiment that will validate or disprove it probably hasn't been finished. Therefore, you can bring out a study that was finished yesterday. However, I will tell you to wait a few months, so you can see it invalidated just like every other one that has tried to find the "key" to homosexuality.

I'm aware of that. However, I still believe that there should be two seperate institutions. I am a law student, and in my mind marriage has led to excessive entanglement with religion, in violation of the Lemon test in regards to the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, Amendment 1. Therefore, marriage should be completely seperate from the government, and civil unions should become mandatory for all couples wishing to be together legally, while marriages should be reserved for their symbolic importance to religious factions.

If marriage has led to entanglements with the lemon clause then it is only because people are too ignorant/hard-headed/stupid or just plain unwilling or unable to recognize the differences in Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage. That says a lot for the meager intellectual ability of a lot of people.

Well, honestly, why would an atheist want a christian marriage? A civil union makes far more sense. A two part operation seems to be in order. Everyone must get a civil union for the legal aspect. Then, for the religious types, they can get a marriage that holds the symbolic importance.
There are such things as non-Christian marriages...although, it would make more sense just to have everyone get civil marriages, and if people are so inclined, get a Catholic or Protestant or Buddhist marriage on top of it (the various religions have full descretion at refusing to perform religious marriages).

Well, in my opinion, not only is gay marriage wrong, so is being gay. It is against everything in the Bible and the Lord God Almighty does not permit it. Not only that, nothing comes out of a union between homos. No children, nothing--therefore, it is pointless. And wrong...I'm hoping Bush is re-elected so he can get that ban on gays out.

I shouldn't respond but. . . you do realize that we are not a theocracy right?

I'll have to dig out the articles written since then, unfortunantely I don't have time right now as I should be studying for a Biostatistics Exam. But as a word to the wise--try not to quote evidence that's more than three years old. Odds are its changed.


EDITORIAL ADDICTION:

I just finished reading the abstract on that article. Those people had something to prove. Did you see where it said that they don't think you should do research at all because that assumes its a mental illness? They are out with an agenda. Further they hold its not a choice. Thanks for providing my evidence for me on that point.
They said it was not a choice. You are correct. However, they also said that they had no known cause for it. Therefore, their conclusion had no factual basis. Thank you for making ignorant statements that make me look more intelligent.

the "key" to homosexuality.

There is NO key to homos--the fact is, that's is wrong and unnatural. The scientific studies to try to prove it natural are unbased and unscientific.

OK, so you agree with me on this. Good. So what are you arguing it for? I have been advocating a seperated system this whole time. Government handles civil unions, and then churches can marry people. No duh. If you agree, then quit trying to score points off it.

I actually do agree with you. What I disgree with is some of your back line idealogies. Forgive me if I get riled up. Growing up in Mississippi has made me very defensive of myself at times.

They said it was not a choice. You are correct. However, they also said that they had no known cause for it. Therefore, their conclusion had no factual basis. Thank you for making ignorant statements that make me look more intelligent.

Intelligence, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Or beerholder if you are at a frat party.

rofl! :)

I agree with that last part. I see it as being a two-part experience. Civil Union, first, then the marriage. Legal, then Religious. And as to the first part. Back. It. Up. Or shut up. Because I have already pointed out why you are wrong.

We just agreed. Let the government give civil unions to all and let religious groups decide who they will marry.

Of course, you DO realize that some religious groups are going to perform marriages for gays? But I'm certain your's won't and will never be forced so to do.

And I have backed it up with myself. Not. A. Choice.

You can choose not to believe that, but it won't change that simple fact. Not. A. Choice.

However, if you want a scientific authority. Here's the APA take on it:

http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#choice

Read on down and see how they feel about conversion therapies.[/QUOTE]

However, the APA has absolutely no bearing on matters of a biochemical or physiologically related matter. Therefore, their opinion only concerns me in that they do not consider it to be a disease, and neither do I. Their opinion on any other side of it means nothing, because in other respects they are not experts.

But, still, the fact of the matter is that gay marriage, and any legal unions that may bind them together, are wrong.

Gay marriage, along with any other unions of gays, should, rather, must, be banned.

But, still, the fact of the matter is that gay marriage, and any legal unions that may bind them together, are wrong.

Gay marriage, along with any other unions of gays, should, rather, must, be banned.


Why are they wrong?

Well, in my opinion, not only is gay marriage wrong, so is being gay. It is against everything in the Bible and the Lord God Almighty does not permit it. Not only that, nothing comes out of a union between homos. No children, nothing--therefore, it is pointless. And wrong...I'm hoping Bush is re-elected so he can get that ban on gays out.


Did it ever occur to you that not all share your uninformed, bigoted opinion? What about Jews? Should they be banned too? Blacks? Mexicans? Asian?

Not everybody believes in the Bible, so you know what? Leave them alone. Can't you read the Bible without calling everyone who disagrees with it sinners?

However, the APA has absolutely no bearing on matters of a biochemical or physiologically related matter. Therefore, their opinion only concerns me in that they do not consider it to be a disease, and neither do I. Their opinion on any other side of it means nothing, because in other respects they are not experts.

Actually there are biologica psychologists and genetic psychologists. You will find that the stance of the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the stance of the American Academy of Psychiatrists is the same.

However, we've reached a compromise even if our underlying philsophies/beliefs are different. Let's just agree to disagree on the rest . . . cause I gotta study.

Did I say anything about blacks, Jews, or Mexicans??? No! What I said, is that being gay , which, by the way, is not a race, is wrong. It is a preference. Not a race. And that preference is wrong.

Not everybody believes in the Bible, so you know what? Leave them alone. Can't you read the Bible without calling everyone who disagrees with it sinners?

I will agree with you here--I don't want to impose religion on people...it's just that being gay is wrong.

Did I say anything about blacks, Jews, or Mexicans??? No! What I said, is that being gay , which, by the way, is not a race, is wrong. It is a preference. Not a race. And that preference is wrong.

Not a preference. Calling it sexual preference was ended long ago. And one could argue that being Jewish (ie one of the Jewish faith, not one born of parents of jews) is also a choice. One that is wrong in your eyes. Why this targetting of homosexuals?

I will agree with you here--I don't want to impose religion on people...it's just that being gay is wrong.

If you are going to leave religion out of it, tell me why being gay is wrong outside the context of religion?

I will buy how people see it is as wrong within a religion. But how is it wrong outside the context of that?

Not a preference. Calling it sexual preference was ended long ago. And one could argue that being Jewish (ie one of the Jewish faith, not one born of parents of jews) is also a choice. One that is wrong in your eyes. Why this targetting of homosexuals?

It is too a preference. Any scientic research that has said it is, is both incredible and baseless. Not a single major scientific research organization has said that being gay was genetic.

Being Jewish is a choice, so is being a homo. So is being a Roman Catholic, as I am.

It is too a preference. Any scientic research that has said it is, is both incredible and baseless. Not a single major scientific research organization has said that being gay was genetic.

Being Jewish is a choice, so is being a homo. So is being a Roman Catholic, as I am.

The APA has said it was not a choice. See my previous post. Other medical organizations agree. It also does not have to be genetic to be a choice. Early experiences totally out of your control could cause it and it would still not be a choice.

But you still haven't told me why its wrong, even if it is a choice.

If you are going to leave religion out of it, tell me why being gay is wrong outside the context of religion?

I will buy how people see it is as wrong within a religion. But how is it wrong outside the context of that?

It is wrong because nothing good comes of a gay union. No children, nothing.

It is wrong because nothing good comes of a gay union. No children, nothing.

So straight couples that cannot have children should not be able to get married either.

So straight couples that cannot have children should not be able to get married either.

But that's a man and a woman. They could make children, i.e., they have the parts, but they are unable to. As long as a man and a woman are involved, marriage is fine.

But that's a man and a woman. They could make children, i.e., they have the parts, but they are unable to. As long as a man and a woman are involved, marriage is fine.

Okay so being able to reproduce isn't a requirement of marriage. (a man could be born with no testicles and wouldn't have all the parts). So again, why are you against gays marrying?

To say straight people who cannot have kids are okay but gays who cannot are not okay is poor (and false) logic.

It is wrong because nothing good comes of a gay union. No children, nothing.
Isn't love all you need?

Okay so being able to reproduce isn't a requirement of marriage. (a man could be born with no testicles and wouldn't have all the parts). So again, why are you against gays marrying?

To say straight people who cannot have kids are okay but gays who cannot are not okay is poor (and false) logic.

But gays, in other words, either two sperms or two eggs, cannot produce a child--gays can't have children.

And even if they were to adopt a child, both a father and a mother figure is needed to properly raise a child.

Isn't love all you need?

::does his John Lennon impression:: All you need is love, love, love is all you need. ::We hear "she loves you Yeah Yeah Yeah" in the background::

Good to see you here Chodolo.

But gays, in other words, either two sperms or two eggs, cannot produce a child--gays can't have children.

And even if they were to adopt a child, both a father and a mother figure is needed to properly raise a child.

Actually, the "mother/father figure" thing hasn't been around long enough for you to make that claim.

Secondly, you must have a shitty life if having babies is mroe important then love.

Isn't love all you need?

If love was all that was needed, then future generations will cease. Reproduction is necessary to continue a civilization, or even to narrow it down, a family line. I don't want to get farther into this lest I get off topic. We're going into population decrease, etc. etc.

But gays, in other words, either two sperms or two eggs, cannot produce a child--gays can't have children.

And even if they were to adopt a child, both a father and a mother figure is needed to properly raise a child.

So what about straight men who don't produce sperm or women who've had hysterectomies or gone through menopause. They don't have all the necessary equipment either.

And I'm not even going to argue whether or not homosexuals can raise children. I'm pointing you to the APA.

http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#goodparents

Actually, the "mother/father figure" thing hasn't been around long enough for you to make that claim.



Oh, okay, only thousands of years.

If love was all that was needed, then future generations will cease. Reproduction is necessary to continue a civilization, or even to narrow it down, a family line. I don't want to get farther into this lest I get off topic. We're going into population decrease, etc. etc.

<clears his throat> That's because straight people are choosing not to procreate. Whether or not gay people marry or not is not going to change the fact that they are not going to procreate. And frankly, the population numbers need to decrease. If they continue at the rate they are going, then our world will be grossly overloaded.

And I'm not even going to argue whether or not homosexuals can raise children. I'm pointing you to the APA.

Why don't you make me the argument yourself instead of regurgitating mindless baseless facts?

Why don't you make me the argument yourself instead of regurgitating mindless baseless facts?

Because citing a scientific organization is hardly regurgitating mindless basic facts. It is short, sweet and to the point.

I will agree with you here--I don't want to impose religion on people...it's just that being gay is wrong.

SAYS THE BIBLE! Being gay isn't a choice, neither is being Jewish, black, or Mexican. First Bush targets gays...who's next?

"First they came for the Jews and I did not
speak out — because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists and I did
not speak out — because I was not a
communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I
did not speak out — because I was not
a trade unionist.

Then they came for me — and by then there
was no one left to speak out for me."

-Martin Niemoeller

That's because straight people are choosing not to procreate. Whether or not gay people marry or not is not going to change the fact that they are not going to procreate. And frankly, the population numbers need to decrease. If they continue at the rate they are going, then our world will be grossly overloaded.

We're kinda getting into abortion and kinda off topic here, but still:

This is really off-topic, but I have the urge to say it:
-Because of the abortions and practices that straight couples have had, populations in Europe are decreasing dramatically, and not only that, Muslims are now becoming the majority in Italy and other countries. We are being outpopulated.

Why don't you make me the argument yourself instead of regurgitating mindless baseless facts?
I should also point out that you just called what the APA had to say about homosexuals being able to raise children a basic fact.

Why don't you make me the argument yourself instead of regurgitating mindless baseless facts?
YOU have yet to give any facts. He's directed you to a website, and you choose not to read it because you want to stay ignorant. Fool.

Oh, okay, only thousands of years.
BEEEP! Oh, sorry, no points for you. For most of history children have been raised by EVERYONE in the tribe. Then things got a bit more civilized and it was all of the immidiate family.

It has been very, VERY recent that the nuclear family concept was invented.

SAYS THE BIBLE! Being gay isn't a choice, neither is being Jewish, black, or Mexican.


Being gay is a choice. Again, there are no credible organizations that have said that is isn't.

We're kinda getting into abortion and kinda off topic here, but still:

This is really off-topic, but I have the urge to say it:
-Because of the abortions and practices that straight couples have had, populations in Europe are decreasing dramatically, and not only that, Muslims are now becoming the majority in Italy and other countries. We are being outpopulated.

That's not gay people's fault. We are not procreaters. If anyone is to blame for that (as if anyone should be, totally separate arguement) then its heterosexuals.

Being gay is a choice. Again, there are no credible organizations that have said that is isn't.

If you don't believe that the APA is a credible source there is no point in arguing with you because you are willfully in denial.

But just for the record, could you give me an example of what you would consider a credible source?

We're kinda getting into abortion and kinda off topic here, but still:

This is really off-topic, but I have the urge to say it:
-Because of the abortions and practices that straight couples have had, populations in Europe are decreasing dramatically, and not only that, Muslims are now becoming the majority in Italy and other countries. We are being outpopulated.

"We?"

Oh GOD, not another one of you freaks...

It has been very, VERY recent that the nuclear family concept was invented.

But, still, it has been long enough to prove that when a child is raised without one of the necessary figures, he/she grows up w/ certain psychological problems.

"We?"

Oh GOD, not another one of you freaks...

Might I ask what you mean by that?

And by 'we', I meant the United States of America and caucasians in general.

Being gay is a choice. Again, there are no credible organizations that have said that is isn't.

Have you even ever met a gay person? Or are you just not comfortable enough with your own sexuality that you feel the need to criticize everyone else's?

Have you even ever met a gay person? Or are you just not comfortable enough with your own sexuality that you feel the need to criticize everyone else's?

Everytime a liberal tries to argue that being gay is right, and that it is genetic, is always ends up in personal attacks because they have no other evidence to show.

But, still, it has been long enough to prove that when a child is raised without one of the necessary figures, he/she grows up w/ certain psychological problems.

No, it has not. Scientific studies have shown that children raised by gay people are just as well-adjusted as are children raised by single parents, siblings, aunts/uncles, grandparents or adopted foster parent(s).

::does his John Lennon impression:: All you need is love, love, love is all you need. ::We hear "she loves you Yeah Yeah Yeah" in the background::

Good to see you here Chodolo.
Glad to be here. :p

I've argued this enough to the point of memorization.

If love was all that was needed, then future generations will cease. Reproduction is necessary to continue a civilization, or even to narrow it down, a family line. I don't want to get farther into this lest I get off topic. We're going into population decrease, etc. etc.
Ah. Then...get busy. Right now. Fuck for humanity, and there had better be children 9 months from now. If you want to preach to others how they had better be having kids, then you ought to set the example. Letting gay people marry will not suddenly send the world population plummeting.

If there's one problem with a religeous ideology is that it's set in stone, one isn't allowed to scratch it or touch upon it. Such self-righteousness has lead to many of the most grandiose attrocities known to our race; holy wars.

There's a reason for this, much like a greedy bookwriter, neurotic of plagarism, the average Christian (not all but simply, the average) is terrified of something similar, that someone that they believe to be perverse will take their religeon and slowly twist it until it's something that is not exactly the same as it was originally, so there will be a divide between two subsets of religeon ~ more tolerant religeous sects and less tolerant.

The originators are very self-righteous and protective of their religeon and they're terrified of yet another splinter group breaking off from them (even though there are already many) and 'corrupting the purity' (supposed) of their religeous body. So the average Christian sees it this way; it was their club when they started it off, it made them special because they were some beardy diety's sheep and everyone else? Lesser, misguided peons. Who could only be shown the light by believing exactly what they believe. Thus, no threat. Simply assimilation.

Yet their club is being invaded and they feel it isn't their club anymore. That's what most religeons are, pretty much. I think we all remember the secret clubs that were around when we were kids, 'cool' kids would be a part of them and there would be numerous, people would want in and the owners of said clubs would view them as theirs. I think the fact that Children do this today more than adults speaks its own volumes but there you go.

So then, anything alien is an intrusion. Threatening to plagarize and take their club away from them.

That I can understand, as a gay person I can, even if I do think it's incredibly, soullessly selfish. Considering the facts at hand, I find that oddly ironic. The sad part really is that their religeon would gain much from a little tolerance and a new infusion of blood, it would halt the increasing stagnation that has throat-gripped most religeons for centuries now. I'm not particularly worried though because either things adapt and move with the times or the Universe throws rocks at them.

Way of the Dinosaurs and all that, yes?

Everytime a liberal tries to argue that being gay is right, and that it is genetic, is always ends up in personal attacks because they have no other evidence to show.

Genetic or not it does not mean that it is a choice. Early life experiences can make things not a choice.

For instance, you get food poisoning at age 6 after eating a hot dog. For the rest of your life you hate hot dogs. You could choose to eat them, but the fact that you detest them is not a choice.

This is of course simplifying the complicated concept of human sexuality, but then I'm not sure you could understand anything deeper.

Question: Could you choose to turn gay? Is being a heterosexual a choice?

The issue of gay marriage, as I've seen in numerous posts, is NOT solely based upon religion, but the happiness of two people. Sure, many religions state "man and woman" but are we restricted to to this narrow-minded idea. I don't remember who said it, but is it not better to have a happy gay couple or an abusive husband to wife?
Another thing, why does it matter? The relationship of two men or two woman does not affect you personally, so why do you have a say in this topic at all? Why do YOU get the decision in which YOU get to compromise their life, happiness, and liberty. We live in a society that has gone so far, yet we must stop at this point? Lets go back to 1900; woman could not vote, racism still rampaged across the nation like a wildfire (and still does in some areas, but thats another topic). But still why are we all attached so deeply to this topic? Maybe, just maybe, your theories are wrong.
Galen, the famous Greek doctor (130-200AD), believed that to cure the body of illness was to bleed the patient about a pint to a quarter of blood, which we all obciouls know is stupid and weakens the human immune system. However, doctors held onto this idea for hundred and hundred of years till about the 1800's. This shows that ideas can be wrong! And they can hurt people! Think for a second how many people died or were weakend from this absent minded theory. Now think of your theories. You're bleeding our society; let people be.
Really its not that hard, just accept it.

Everytime a liberal tries to argue that being gay is right, and that it is genetic, is always ends up in personal attacks because they have no other evidence to show.

And for the record, I'm a registered Republican.

Might I ask what you mean by that?

And by 'we', I meant the United States of America and caucasians in general.
ATTENTION: The United States is not Caucasion. Within 50 years white people won't even be the majority here. If you feel threatened by that, it is because you are an ignorant bigoted fool.

You ought to spend more time chatting with United White Front. I'm sure the two of you would get along marvelously.

Galen, the famous Greek doctor (130-200AD), believed that to cure the body of illness was to bleed the patient about a pint to a quarter of blood, which we all obciouls know is stupid and weakens the human immune system. However, doctors held onto this idea for hundred and hundred of years till about the 1800's. This shows that ideas can be wrong! And they can hurt people!

Just an interesting side note, cause I agree with everything you say. Bleeding is wrong most of the time, but there are a few diseases (malaria, hemochomotosis) where it can be beneficial. Leach medicine is still used in some places, though in the USA phlebotomy is the preferred method.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that same 'God' make all the animals that frolic in nature?

That tends to include the wolves and other pack animals that regular engage in homosexual activity. I'd say it's perfectly natural, just not conducive to being a breeder.
most pack animals do it gay style for one of two reasons
1.the alpha male showing dominance over other males
or
2. they just get really horny but cant get a woman because the alpha male has them all

now unless you are trying to equate your gayness to that of a pack animal
that makes no since in the "we are gay and in love argument"

Everytime a liberal tries to argue that being gay is right, and that it is genetic, is always ends up in personal attacks because they have no other evidence to show.
Dude, he showed you evidence. You ignored it.

Being gay is a choice. Again, there are no credible organizations that have said that is isn't.

What's a credible organization? The KKK?

most pack animals do it gay style for one of two reasons
1.the alpha male showing dominance over other males
or
2. they just get really horny but cant get a woman because the alpha male has them all

now unless you are trying to equate your gayness to that of a pack animal
that makes no since in the "we are gay and in love argument"

It's not just in pack animals. It's in birds, in fish, in whales, in pretty much ever animal species in subphylum vertebrata. Perhaps the most interesting is in the Penguin which as you may know mates for life. Homosexual penguins in effect "get married".

Dude, he showed you evidence. You ignored it.

correction: she!

:cool:

now unless you are trying to equate your gayness to that of a pack animal
that makes no since in the "we are gay and in love argument"
Read up on the bonobo monkeys. They are hardly "pack animals".

http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html

correction: she!

:cool:

No, I'm a he.

It's not just in pack animals. It's in birds, in fish, in whales, in pretty much ever animal species in subphylum vertebrata. Perhaps the most interesting is in the Penguin which as you may know mates for life. Homosexual penguins in effect "get married".

dude fish mate by the female putting eggs out than the male spraying on the eggs...now how to two gay fish get it on...alotta spraying in the same spot?

i am gonna put this in the subphylum goofy-as-hellebrata?

dude fish mate by the female putting eggs out than the male spraying on the eggs...now how to two gay fish get it on...alotta spraying in the same spot?

i am gonna put this in the subphylum goofy-as-hellebrata?

I apologize. I flippantly put fish and should not have done so. Let's restrict ourselves to Class Mammalia shall we. You know, the one humans fall in. Yep, pretty much every species.

I agree, however the UN proposal I made that said that marrige was just religous and all the rest is cival unions, not matter what.

I apologize. I flippantly put fish and should not have done so. Let's restrict ourselves to Class Mammalia shall we. You know, the one humans fall in. Yep, pretty much every species.
its cool i just thought i could put a little goofy in this serious conversation

its cool i just thought i could put a little goofy in this serious conversation

A little goofy is always a good thing. When stress sets in (like I dunno, during a hell week of exams) it gets hard to remember to laugh sometimes.

Why don't you make me the argument yourself instead of regurgitating mindless baseless facts?

They are not baseless. They are based on many years of psychological study. Although many psychological studies cited as fact are highly questionable (much of psychology in and of itself is up to interpretation as we do not have as thorough an understanding of the psyche as we do of the physical world), the results and studies cited on this site have all produced consistent corroborative evidence that very strongly supported certain hypotheses, enough so that they could nearly be considered fact because of the long durations of the studies (ten years in some cases).

And before another person gets it wrong...

Gay marriage is wrong, and that's a fact. = OPINION
My opinion is that gay marriage is wrong. = FACT

I support gay marriage. It comes down to a basic right of equality. There is no perfect example or analogy that can be used to persuade opponents of gay marriage to support it. If it existed this wouldn't be an issue. But it comes down to the most basic of modern rights: equality. You may not believe that gays deserve the right to marriage, but that doesn't change the fact that they should have the same rights as everyone else. Banning gay marriage would be similar to preventing women's suffrage, prohibiting the rights of immigrants to North America, or preventing black people from using public services. Only going halfway and letting gay people receive common law unions would be like letting women work but not vote, letting immigrants receive minimum wage but not health insurance provided to natives, or having separate washrooms for people of different ancestral descents.

The only stipulation I would make is that a church or member of the clergy would not have to perform a gay marriage if they didn't want to. Enforcing one group and freeing the reins on another is not the solution.

What ever happened to tolerance and acceptance people?

I'm Gay, and I will happily admit it. I support gay marriage one hundred per cent, but I do not wish to, at this stage, get married myself.

I may qualify that later.

OFK seems to be rather misguided and filled with hatred. For me, and for all of the queer community world wide, being gay is NOT A CHOICE. Why would I choose to be in a minority, a minority that has been traditionally- and still is- persecuted for the lifestyle that it apparently is, for being an 'abomination against humanity'. I do not feel that I am an abomination against humanity. In fact, I feel that my values, beliefs, ethos and the way I lead my life are moral and show a committment to humanity.

There have been some awful mistruths spoken about the gay/ queer community, some on this thread, from people who have demonstrated that they have no intelligent contributions to make.

When one talks about population growth and the reasons for sexual intercourse, one must take into account that the world can only sustain 270 million Americans with their consumerist trends indefinitely- not the 6 billion worldwide population. We would need many, many earths for us all. So when you start rattling off about the need to sustain population, you really are just showing ignorance at global development.

OFK also talks about liberals- so what! I also happily admit I am a Liberal. In fact, I am a card carrying member of the Liberal Party in Australia- I don't know where this thread was initiated, but for those of you who are Americans, the term Liberal in Australia is very different in it's meaning in the English speaking world, to what George Bush criticises John Kerry as being.

I am a Liberal, I support gay rights, obviously, and there is no need for blanant hatred and ignorance in this world. As Socrates said, "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."

The only stipulation I would make is that a church or member of the clergy would not have to perform a gay marriage if they didn't want to. Enforcing one group and freeing the reins on another is not the solution.

Dude or dudette you totally rock. And you are right, no clergy member should every be forced to perform a ceremony they don't believe in. Of course, they already have that right so its not really in question.

Okay, let me start by saying that i am a Christian, and i support Gay Marriage. Now, here is a pg taken from a very well written essay (http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm).

Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives
A personal essay in hypertext by Scott Bidstrup
"We cannot accept the view that Amendment 2's prohibition on specific legal protections does no more than deprive homosexuals of special rights. To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability on those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint"

-Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in the decision overturning Colorado's Amendment 2 referendum






Ask just about anyone. They'll all tell you they're in favor of equal rights for homosexuals. Just name the situation, and ask. They'll all say, yes, gays should have the same rights in housing, jobs, public accomodations, and should have equal access to government benefits, equal protection of the law, etcetera, etcetera.

Then you get to gay marriage.

And that's when all this talk of equality stops dead cold.

More than half of all people in the United States oppose gay marriage, even though three fourths are otherwise supportive of gay rights. This means that many of the same people who are even passionately in favor of gay rights oppose gays on this one issue.

Why all the passion?

It's because there is a lot of misunderstanding about what homosexuality really is, as well as the erroneous assumption that gay people enjoy the same civil rights protections as everyone else. There are also a lot of stereotypes about gay relationships, and even a great deal of misunderstanding of what marriage itself is all about and what its purpose is.

The purpose of this essay, then, is to clear up a few of these misunderstandings and discuss some of facts surrounding gay relationships and marriage, gay and straight.

First, let's discuss what gay relationships are really all about. The stereotype has it that gays are promiscuous, unable to form lasting relationships, and the relationships that do form are shallow and uncommitted. And gays do have such relationships!

But the important fact to note is that just like in straight society, where such relationships also exist, they are a small minority, and exist primarily among the very young. Indeed, one of the most frequent complaints of older gay men is that it is almost impossible to find quality single men to get into a relationship with, because they're already all 'taken!'

If you attend any gay event, such as a Pride festival or a PFLAG convention, you'll find this to be true. As gays age and mature, just like their straight cohorts, they begin to appreciate and find their way into long-term committed relationships.

The values that such gay couples exhibit in their daily lives are often indistinguishable from those of their straight neighbors. They're loyal to their mates, are monogamous, devoted partners. They value and participate in family life, are committed to making their neighborhoods and communities safer and better places to live, and honor and abide by the law. Many make valuable contributions to their communities, serving on school boards, volunteering in community charities, and trying to be good citizens. In doing so, they take full advantage of their relationship to make not only their own lives better, but those of their neighbors as well.

A benefit to heterosexual society of gay marriage is the fact that the commitment of a marriage means the participants are discouraged from promiscous sex. This has the advantage of slowing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, which know no sexual orientation and are equal opportunity destroyers.

These benefits of gay marriage have changed the attitudes of the majority of people in Denmark and other countries where various forms of gay marriage have been legal for years. Polling results now show that most people there now recognize that the benefits far outweigh the trivial costs, and that far from threatening heterosexual marriage, gay marriage has actually strenghtened it.

So, having established the value of gay marriage, why are people so opposed to it?

Many of the reasons offered for opposing gay marriage are based on the assumption that gays have a choice in who they can feel attracted to, and the reality is quite different. Many people actually believe that gays could simply choose to be heterosexual if they wished. But the reality is that very few do have a choice -- any more than very few heterosexuals could choose which sex to find themselves attracted to.

Additionally, many people continue to believe the propaganda from right-wing religious organizations that homosexuality is about nothing but sex, considering it to be merely a sexual perversion. The reality is that homosexuality is multidimensional, and is much more about love and affection than it is about sex. And this is what gay relationships are based on -- mutual attraction, love and affection. Sex, in a committed gay relationship, is merely a means of expressing that love, just the same as it is for heterosexuals. Being gay is much more profound than simply a sexual relationship; being gay is part of that person's core indentity, and goes right the very center of his being. It's like being black in a society of whites, or a blonde European in a nation of black-haired Asians. Yes, being gay is just that profound to the person who is. This is something that few heterosexuals can understand unless they are part of a minority themselves.


The Arguments Against Gay Marriage
Well, of course there are a lot of reasons being offered these days for opposing gay marriage, and they are usually variations on a few well-established themes. Interestingly, a court in Hawaii has recently heard them all. And it found, after due deliberation, that they didn't hold water.
Here's a summary:

Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. Well, that's the most often heard argument, one even codified in a recently passed U.S. federal law. Yet it is easily the weakest. Who says what marriage is and by whom it is to be defined? The married? The marriable? Isn't that kind of like allowing a banker to decide who is going to own the money in stored in his vaults? It seems to me that justice demands that if the straight community cannot show a compelling reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied. And such simple, nebulous declarations, with no real moral argument behind them, are hardly compelling reasons. They're really more like an expression of prejudice than any kind of a real argument. The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to deny them is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights.

Same-sex couples aren't the optimum environment in which to raise children. That's an interesting one, in light of who society does allow to get married and bring children into their marriage. Check it out: murderers, convicted felons of all sorts, even known child molesters are all allowed to freely marry and procreate, and do so every day, with hardly a second thought, much less a protest, by these same critics. So if children are truly the priority here, why is this allowed? The fact is that many gay couples raise children, adopted and occasionally their own from failed attempts at heterosexual marriages. Lots and lots of scientific studies have shown that the outcomes of the children raised in the homes of gay and lesbian couples are just as good as those of straight couples. The differences have been shown again and again to be insignificant. Psychologists tell us that what makes the difference is the love and commitment of the parents, not their gender. The studies are very clear about that. And gay people are as capable of loving children as fully as anyone else.

Gay relationships are immoral. Says who? The Bible? Somehow, I always thought that freedom of religion implied the right to freedom from religion as well. The Bible has absolutely no standing in American law, as was made clear by the intent of the First Amendment (and as was very explicitly stated by the founding fathers in their first treaty, the Treaty of Tripoli, in 1791) and because it doesn't, no one has the right to impose rules anyone else simply because of something they percieve to be a moral injunction mandated by the Bible. Not all world religions have a problem with homosexuality; many sects of Buddhism, for example, celebrate gay relationships freely and would like to have the authority to make them legal marriages. In that sense, their religious freedom is being infringed. If one believes in religious freedom, the recognition that opposition to gay marriage is based on religious arguments is reason enough to discount this argument.

Marriages are for procreation and ensuring the continuation of the species. The proponents of this argument are really hard pressed to explain, if that's the case, why infertile couples are allowed to marry. I, for one, would love to be there when the proponent of such an argument is to explain to his post-menopausal mother or impotent father that since they cannot procreate, they must now surrender their wedding rings and sleep in separate bedrooms. That would be fun to watch! Again, such an argument fails to persuade based on the kinds of marriages society does allow routinely, without even a second thought, and why it really allows them - marriage is about love, sharing and commitment; procreation is, when it comes right down to it, in reality a purely secondary function.

The proponents of the procreation and continuation-of-the-species argument are going to have a really hard time persuading me that the human species is in any real danger of dying out anytime soon through lack of reproductive success.

If ten percent of all the human race that is gay were to suddenly, totally refrain from procreation, I think it is safe to say that the world would probably be significantly better off. One of the world's most serious problems is overpopulation and the increasing anarchy and human misery that is resulting from it. Seems to me that gays would be doing the world a really big favor by not bringing more hungry mouths into a world that is already critically overburdened ecologically by the sheer number of humans it must support. So what is the useful purpose to be served in mindlessly encouraging yet more human reproduction?

Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage. Well, that one's contradictory right on the face of it. Threaten marriage? By allowing people to marry? That doesn't sound very logical to me. If you allow gay people to marry each other, you no longer encourage them to marry people to whom they feel little attraction, with whom they most often cannot relate adequately sexually, bringing innocent children into already critically stressed marriages. By allowing gay marriage, you would reduce the number of opposite-sex marriages that end up in the divorce courts. If it is the stability of the institution of heterosexual marriage that worries you, then consider that no one would require you or anyone else to participate in a gay marriage. You would still have freedom of choice, of choosing which kind of marriage to participate in -- something more than what you have now. And speaking of divorce -- to argue that the institution of marriage is worth preserving at the cost of requiring involuntary participants to remain in it is a better argument for reforming divorce laws than proscribing gay marriage.

Marriage is traditionally a heterosexual institution. This is morally the weakest argument. Slavery was also a traditional institution, based on traditions that went back to the very beginnings of human history - further back, even, than marriage as we know it. But by the 19th century, humanity had generally recognized the evils of that institution, and has since made a serious effort to abolish it. Why not recognize the truth -- that there is no moral ground on which to support the tradition of marriage as a strictly heterosexual institution, and remove the restriction?

Same-sex marriage is an untried social experiment. The American critics of same-sex marriage betray their provincialism with this argument. The fact is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Denmark since 1989 (full marriage rights except for adoption rights and church weddings, and a proposal now exists in the Danish parliament to allow both of those rights as well), and most of the rest of Scandinavia from not long after. Full marriage rights have existed in many Dutch cities for several years, and it was recently made legal nationwide, including the word "marriage" to describe it. In other words, we have a long-running "experiment" to examine for its results -- which have uniformly been positive. Opposition to the Danish law was led by the clergy (much the same as in the States). A survey conducted at the time revealed that 72 percent of Danish clergy were opposed to the law. It was passed anyway, and the change in the attitude of the clergy there has been dramatic -- a survey conducted in 1995 indicated that 89 percent of the Danish clergy now admit that the law is a good one and has had many beneficial effects, including a reduction in suicide, a reduction in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and in promiscuity and infidelity among gays. Far from leading to the "destruction of Western civilization" as some critics (including the Southern Baptist, Mormon and Catholic churches among others) have warned, the result of the "experiment" has actually been civilizing and strengthening, not just to the institution of marriage, but to society as a whole. So perhaps we should accept the fact that someone else has already done the "experiment" and accept the results as positive. The fact that many churches are not willing to accept this evidence says more about the churches than it does about gay marriage.

Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all kinds of other horrible consequences. A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to create fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have 'slid' towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for over many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers.

If concern over the "slippery slope" were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market arms dealers, etc., are quite free to marry, and are doing so. Where's the outrage? Of course there isn't any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage issue.

Granting gays the right to marry is a "special" right. Since ninety percent of the population already have the right to marry the informed, consenting adult of their choice, and would even consider that right a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, since when does extending it to the remaining ten percent constitute a "special" right to that remaining ten percent? As Justice Kennedy observed in his opinion overturning Colorado's infamous Amendment 2 (Roemer vs. Evans), many gay and lesbian Americans are, under current law, denied civil rights protections that others either don't need or assume that everyone else along with themselves, already have. The problem with all that special rights talk is that it proceeds from that very assumption, that because of all the civil rights laws in this country that everyone is already equal, so therefore any rights gay people are being granted must therefore be special. That is most assuredly not the case, especially regarding marriage and all the legal protections that go along with it.

Sodomy should be illegal and was until very recently. Ah, the ol' sodomy law argument! Why was sodomy illegal in so many states for so long? Because conservative religionists (at whose behest those laws were enacted in the first place) historically blocked or vigorously resisted attempts to repeal them in every state, and were horrified when the U.S. Supreme Court recently overturned the ones that remained.

Indeed, those laws were very rarely enforced (though it did happen), yet there was very stiff and angry opposition to their repeal. Why? Because they were a great tool for a homophobe to use as a basis for legalized discrimination. "Why should I rent an apartment to you, an unconvicted felon?" "I can't have an admitted criminal on my staff." "You're an unconvicted felon. I want you out of my restarurant and off my property." "I don't want you around my children. You're a sex offender!" These were very real, actual arguments that were used frequently as a basis for legalized discrimination, using largely unenforced sodomy laws. So even though this particular moral crusade of the religionists using the power of the police has ended, at least for now, the sodomy laws that made them possible are still being pushed, and pushed hard. Crass politicians, including even president George W. Bush, see votes in homophobia, and continue to push for sodomy law reinstatement as a means of securing those votes. And such laws, which have thoroughly discriminatory effects by intention, will likely will be advocated for as long as politicians see votes in allowing conservative religionists to impose their morality on others, regardless of the violence this does to the intent of the Bill of Rights.

Heterosexuals would never stand for such intrusion into their private sex lives, of course, but the homophobes among them seem to see nothing wrong in using the power of the state to enforce their prejudices. State court systems, however, long ago began to see the violation of the Fourth Amendment in such laws, and nearly as many state sodomy laws were overturned as unconstitutional by state supreme courts as were repealed by state legislatures, before the recent U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence vs. Texas decision which very pointedly overturned all that remained.

Gay marriage would mean forcing businesses to provide benefits to same-sex couples on the same basis as opposite-sex couples. While this may or may not be true (based primarily on state labor laws), the reality is that many businesses already do offer these benefits to gay couples, and for sound business reasons. And experience has shown that when they do, the effect on their costs for offering these benefits is minimal - very rarely does the cost of benefits offered to gay couples cause the business' benefits costs to rise by more than 1.5%. This trivial cost is usually far more than offset by the fact that the company is seen as being progressive for having offered these benefits - making its stock much more attractive to socially progressive mutual funds and rights-conscious pension funds and individual investors, and thus increasing upwards pressure on its price. This is why so many corporations, including most of the Fortune 500, already offer these benefits without being required to do so - it's just good business sense.

Gay marriage would force churches to marry gay couples when they have a moral objection to doing so. This argument, usually advanced by churches that oppose gay marriage, is simply not true. There is nothing in any marriage law, existing or proposed, anywhere in the United States, that does or would have the effect of requiring any church to marry any couple they do not wish to marry. Churches already can refuse any couple they wish, and for any reason that suits them, which many often do, and that would not change. Some churches continue to refuse to marry interracial couples, others interreligious couples, and a few refuse couples with large age disparities and for numerous other reasons. Gay marriage would not change any church's right to refuse to sanctify any marriage entirely as they wish - it would simply offer churches the opportunity to legally marry gay couples if they wish, as some have expressed the desire to do - the freedom of religion would actually be expanded, not contracted.


The real reasons people oppose gay marriage
So far, we've examined the reasons everyone talks about for opposing gay marriage. Now, let's examine now the real reasons, deep down inside, that people oppose it, hate it, even fear it:
Just not comfortable with the idea. The fact the people aren't comfortable with the idea stems primarily from the fact that for many years, society has promoted the idea that a marriage between members of the same sex is ludicrous, mainly because of the objections raised above. But if those objections don't make sense, neither does the idea that gay marriage is necessarily ludicrous. Societies have long recognized that allowing civil rights to certain groups may offend some, and at times, even the majority. But that is why constitutional government was established -- to ensure that powerless, unpopular minorities are still protected from the tyranny of the majority. Simple discomfort with a proposal is no reasonable basis for not allowing it - how many Southern whites were once uncomfortable with allowing blacks to ride in the front of the bus, or allowing black children to attend the same schools as their own, or drink at the same drinking fountain? Half a century ago, those ideas were just as unthinkable - yet nowadays, hardly anybody sees them as a problem, seeing the fears as nothing more than racism, pure and simple.

It offends everything religion stands for. Whose religion? Many mainstream Christian denominations, to be sure, and definitely most branches of Islam and Orthodox Judaism, but outside those, most religions are unopposed to gay marriage, and many actually favor it. When the Mormon church arrogantly claimed to represent all religions in the Baehr vs. Lewin trial in Hawaii, the principal Buddhist sect in that state made it very clear that the Mormon church didn't represent them, and made it very clear that they support the right of gay couples to marry. That particular Buddhist sect claims many more members in Hawaii than does the Mormon church. In a society that claims to offer religious freedom, the use of the power of the state to enforce private religious sensibilities is an affront to all who would claim the right to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience.

Marriage is a sacred institution. This is, of course, related to the motive above. But it is really subtly different. It's based on the assumption that the state has the responsibility to "sanctify" marriages - a fundamentally religious idea. Here we're dealing with people trying to enforce their religious doctrines on someone else, but by doing it through weakening the separation of church and state, by undermining the Bill of Rights. Not that there's anything new about this, of course. But the attempt itself runs against the grain of everything the First Amendment stands for - one does not truly have freedom of religion if one does not have the right to freedom from religion as well. It would seem to me that anyone who feels that the sanctity of their marriage is threatened by a gay couple down the street having the right to marry, is mighty insecure about their religion and their marriage anyway.

Gay sex is unnatural. This argument, often encoded in the very name of sodomy statutes ("crime against nature"), betrays a considerable ignorance of behavior in the animal kingdom. The fact is that among the approximately 1500 animal species whose behavior has been extensively studied, homosexual behavior in animals has been described in at least 450 of those species. It runs the gamut, too, ranging from occasional displays of affection to life-long pair bonding including sex and even adopting and raising orphans, going so far as the rejection by force of potential heterosexual partners, even when in heat. The reality is that it is so common that it begs an explanation, and sociobiologists have proposed a wide variety of explanations to account for it. The fact that it is so common also means that it clearly has evolutionary significance, which applies as much to humans as it does to other animal species.

Making love to another man betrays everything that is masculine. Well, I've known (and dated) plenty of very masculine gay men in my day, including champion bull-riding rodeo cowboys and a Hell's Angel biker type, who, if you suggested he is a limp-wristed fairy, would likely rip your head off and hand it to you. There was a long-honored tradition of gay relationships among the tough and macho cowboys of the Old West, and many diaries still exist detailing their loving and tender relationships out on the range, and the many sacrifices they made for each other. Plenty of masculine, respected movies stars are gay - indeed, Rock Hudson was considered the very archtype of a masculine man. Came as quite a shock to a lot of macho-men to find out he was gay! So what's wrong with all these kinds of men expressing love for each other? Why is that so horrible about it? A society that devalues love devalues that upon which civilized society itself is based - love and commitment.

The core fear here is the fear of rape and a loss of control or status as a masculine man. This is instinctual and goes right to the core of our being as primates. If you examine what happens in many animal species, especially displays of dominance in other primate species, dominance displays often have sexual overtones. When, for example, in many species of primates, a subordinate male is faced with aggression by a dominant male, the dominant male will bite the subordinate, causing him to squeal in pain, drop the food or the female and present his rump. This is an act of submission, and it is saying to the whole troupe that the subordinate is just that - subordinate.

This happens in humans just as it does in other primates. It is the cause of homosexual rape in prisons. Homosexual intercourse in prisons is not an act of sex as much as it is an expression of dominance and a means of control. Nearly all of the men who aggressively rape other men in a prison setting actually revert to (often promiscuous) heterosexual sex once they're on the outside.

So is this something straight men should fear from gay men? Well, you can relax, all you straight guys. You've nothing to worry about. The vast majority of gay men prefer sex in the same emotional setting most of you do - as a part of the expression of mutual love, affection and commitment. We're not out to rape you or force you into a subordinate position. The majority of gay men don't want sex with you because we're looking for the same thing in a sexual relationship that you look for - the love and affection of a devoted partner. Since we're not likely to get that from you, you're not desirable to us and you have nothing to fear from us. The small minority of us (and it's a very small minority - less than 3%) who do enjoy sex with straight men understand your fears and are not going to have sex with you unless it's clearly and completely understood on both sides to be on a peer-to-peer basis and your requirement for full and complete consent and need for discretion is honored.

The thought of gay sex is repulsive. Well, it will come as some surprise to a lot of heterosexuals to find out that, to a lot of gays, the thought of heterosexual sex is repulsive! But does that mean the discomfort of some gays to heterosexual couples should be a reason to deny heterosexuals the right to marry? I don't think so, even though the thought of a man kissing a woman is rather repulsive to many homosexuals! Well then, why should it work just one way? Besides, the same sexual practices that gays engage in are often engaged in by heterosexual couples anyway - prompting the ever-popular gay T-shirt: "SO-DO-MY -- SO DO MY neighbors, SO DO MY friends."

They might recruit. The fear of recruitment is baseless because it is based on a false premise - that gay people recruit straight people to become gay. We don't. We don't recruit because we know from our own experience that sexual orientation is inborn, and can't be changed. Indeed, the attempts by psychologists, counselors and religious therapy and support groups to change sexual orientation have all uniformly met with failure - the studies that have been done of these attempts at "therapeutic" intervention have never been shown to have any statistically significant results in the manner intended, and most have been shown to have emotionally damaging consequences. So the notion that someone can be changed from straight to gay is just as unlikely. Yet there remains that deep, dark fear that somehow, someone might get "recruited." And that baseless fear is often used by bigots to scare people into opposing gay rights in general, as well as gay marriage.

The core cause of this fear is the result of the fact that many homophobes, including most virulent, violent homophobes are themselves repressed sexually, often with same sex attractions. One of the recent studies done at the University of Georgia among convicted killers of gay men has shown that the overwhelmingly large percentage of them (more than 70%) exhibit sexual arousal when shown scenes of gay sex. The core fear, then, for the homophobe is that he himself might be gay, and might be forced to face that fact. The homophobia can be as internalized as it is externalized - bash the queer and you don't have to worry about being aroused by him.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The opposition to gay marriage stems ultimately from a deep-seated homophobia in American culture, borne out of religious prejudice. While many Americans do not realize that that homophobia exists to the extent that it does, it is a very real part of every gay person's life, just like racism is a very real part of every black person's life. It is there, it is pervasive, and it has far more serious consequences for American society than most Americans realize, not just for gay people, but for society in general.


Why This Is A Serious Civil Rights Issue
When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, we are referring to matters of civil justice, which often can be quite serious - and can have life-damaging, even life-threatening consequences.
One of these is the fact that in most states, we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may have been estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and can and frequently do, totally ignore our wishes regarding the treatment of our partners. If a hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in most states. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results consciously intended to be as inimical to the interests of the patient as possible! Is this fair?

Upon death, in many cases, even very carefully drawn wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's hospital bed or grave. As survivors, estranged families can, in nearly all states, even sieze a real estate property that a gay couple may have been buying together for many years, quickly sell it at the largest possible loss, and stick the surviving partner with all the remaining mortgage obligations on a property that partner no longer owns, leaving him out on the street, penniless. There are hundreds of examples of this, even in many cases where the gay couple had been extremely careful to do everything right under current law, in a determined effort to protect their rights. Is this fair?

If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do. In court cases, a partner's testimony can be simply ruled irrelevant as heresay by a hostile judge, having no more weight in law than the testimony of a complete stranger. If a partner is jailed or imprisoned, visitation rights by the partner can, in most cases, can be denied on the whim of a hostile family and the cooperation of a homophobic judge, unrestrained by any law or precedent. Conjugal visits, a well-established right of heterosexual married couples in some settings, are simply not available to gay couples. Is this fair?

These are far from being just theoretical issues; they happen with surprising frequency. Almost any older gay couple can tell you numerous horror stories of friends and acquaintences who have been victimized in such ways. One couple I know uses the following line in the "sig" lines on their email: "...partners and lovers for 40 years, yet still strangers before the law." Why, as a supposedly advanced society, should we continue to tolerate this kind of injustice?

These are all civil rights issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the ecclesiastical origins of marriage; they are matters that have become enshrined in state laws by legislation or court precedent over the years in many ways that exclude us from the rights that legally married couples enjoy and even consider their constitutional right. This is why we say it is very much a serious civil rights issue; it has nothing to do with who performs the ceremony, whether it is performed in a church or courthouse or the local country club, or whether an announcement about it is accepted for publication in the local newspaper.


Conclusion
As we have seen, the arguments against gay marriage don't hold up to close scrutiny. Neither the arguments traditionally raised nor the real feelings of the opponents make much sense when held up to the cold, harsh light of reason and logic.
So let's get on with it. Let's get over our aversion to what we oppose for silly, irrational reasons, based on ignorance, prejudice and faulty assumptions, and make ours a more just and honorable society, finally honoring that last phrase from the Pledge of Allegance: "With liberty and justice for all."

thank you.

Hey do you guys know whats funny, there is 14 pages of people sharing thier views and then trying to force fed what they think is right or wrong, ist't that hilious, but wait there's more I have read through every single page trying desperately to understand why u guys are arguing (yeah vent that anger)
but the point of fourms, (stop me if i am wrong) is to voice ones mind the whole free speech thing. but some how there came out this wave of anger!

I think some of u guys need to relax, for some of u this is becoming a bit too personal.its a forum not a war!

but I am glad you guys can communicte!

Now, as to the naked-clothed question, I believe you have made another logical error. You again mistake free will with self-awareness.

I think the two kind of go hand in hand, but to each their own I guess

Again, I fail to see a very logical path to your conclusion. No offense, but you are now taking the preexisting institution, religion, and claiming that it was merely an excuse to keep the populace down.

Read into what you will. I'm not going to spend any more energy on this. I was mostly interested in how you people can justify your position. You all seem to think "Hey I'm right. Homosexuality is wrong because God says so." You've done nothing to prove otherwise. Frankly, I think using a book that has been translated quite a few times before making it into the english language is rediculous. I very much believe in God and a lot of the teachings in the Bible, but you have to take it with a grain of salt.

Why you ask? Well like any other story, whether it be religious in nature or not, tends to lose its original meaning as it is translated or told orally over and over again. That is because people "color" things they remember (Trust me on this. This is common knowledge in psychology, if not life in general). In short, all it would take to make something non-homophobic in nature into something homophobic is a couple of homophobes: One to plant the anti-homosexual seed, if you will; and a couple more to culture and develop that seed into something bigger. So if you ask me, to say the Bible is the definitive word on homosexuality is silly. If you hold it to be the word of God, that's fine, but remember this: it is the word of God written by the hand of man over and over again.

No, I think it's more along the lines of this: gay is not natural. Period. The sex organs are there to allow them to have children. Anything but intercourse between a (married, for the religious) man and a woman is an abuse of God's gift to us.

[I love smashing this arguement by Christians :)]

Hrhrmmm... If "God" only created our sex organs for procreation (as most Catholics constantly imply), then why did he bother making it pleasureful for us, thereby creating a reason to engage in sex for reasons not related to reproduction? I fail to see the logic in that.

I am a Liberal, I support gay rights, obviously, and there is no need for blanant hatred and ignorance in this world. As Socrates said, "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."

I don't think one necessarily has to be liberal to support gay marriage. I consider myself middle of the road myself. I just don't see anything wrong with it. Who are we to step on the rights of others? Also what's this big threat gay marriage presents to marriage? Isn't a divorce rate of roughly one-half more of a threat to marriage? Not that I see much to that issue either. After all how does someone else's marriage have any impact on yours? Honestly, I can't see any.

Might I ask what you mean by that?

And by 'we', I meant the United States of America and caucasians in general.

FYI, I'm Caucasian and Muslim. Also, there is a large Muslim community in the United States, so next time you decide to generalize like that...please, don't.

Hey do you guys know whats funny, there is 14 pages of people sharing thier views and then trying to force fed what they think is right or wrong, ist't that hilious, but wait there's more I have read through every single page trying desperately to understand why u guys are arguing (yeah vent that anger)
but the point of fourms, (stop me if i am wrong) is to voice ones mind the whole free speech thing. but some how there came out this wave of anger!

I think some of u guys need to relax, for some of u this is becoming a bit too personal.its a forum not a war!

but I am glad you guys can communicte!

While I will agree that a level head is important as it eh sharing of views, I refuse to agree that this is not personal. It is very person to those of us whose civil rights have been trampled on.

Don't you love how he mispelled communicate? It's so ironic. :D

And yes we (people discussing this issue not just gays, cuz I'm as straight as an arrow) can communicate. The real question is can Harderthenhell "communicte"?

every question one could have was answered by post earlier, so i don't know why you guys are still arguing, lol.

every question one could have was answered by post earlier, so i don't know why you guys are still arguing, lol.

Because some people don't read the thread and get stiffies from posting "GAYS R Ev1l!!1 OMG"?