NationStates Jolt Archive

Could people of all religions or non-religions please help me by suggesting damage that same-sex marriages cause...

They hurt people's feelings.

how do they hurt peoples feelings? thats doesnt make sense... wouldnt the banning of same-sex marriages hurt more?

They don't hurt anyone. But, of course, no one realizes that.

If only...

Marriage is, in fact, a religious institution, and the government should have no say in it one way or the other. On the other hand, homosexuals are deserving of equal rights under the law. The best solution is for government to stop licensing marriage altogether. If it's absolutely necessary to have a legal equivalent of marriage, civil unions ought to be issued to all couples, straight and gay.

Marriage is, in fact, a religious institution, and the government should have no say in it one way or the other. On the other hand, homosexuals are deserving of equal rights under the law. The best solution is for government to stop licensing marriage altogether. If it's absolutely necessary to have a legal equivalent of marriage, civil unions ought to be issued to all couples, straight and gay.

I agree completely

they make it seem OK that people have nasty sex that certain people find very immoral.

otherwise they protect the family and property rights of long term same sex couples that heterosexual couples take for granted.

how do they hurt peoples feelings? thats doesnt make sense... wouldnt the banning of same-sex marriages hurt more?
Of course. It's idiotic. It's the only reason people have to ban gay marriage is that they don't want to have to tolerate it. It's pathetic. I can debate with anti-abortionists, pro-death penalty people, free marketers, socialists, gun control people, gun rights people, and respect all their positions.

But I have no respect for anyone that would want to ban gay marriage. None at all.

They cause the breakdown of society
[/sarcasm]

None whatever. If anything, gay marriages bring benefits to society by creating a more equitable envronment.

im sorry, but everyone in this forum, except for a few, are homophobes. it shouldn't matter to u one way or another wut someone dus in they're own personal life. last time i checked this was a free country, meaning ppl could choose wut to do in they're lives without anyone else telling them they couldnt. Im seeing less of that now and just more prejudice against ppl who r different than us.

Because when same-sex marriages happen, the force-field will break down and humanity will be susceptible to alien attack. (pretend the Netherlands don't exist)

Marriage is, in fact, a religious institution, and the government should have no say in it one way or the other. On the other hand, homosexuals are deserving of equal rights under the law. The best solution is for government to stop licensing marriage altogether. If it's absolutely necessary to have a legal equivalent of marriage, civil unions ought to be issued to all couples, straight and gay.

Marraige is a social institution. The government is a social institution. Marraige does not exist because of religion, it like government exists to fufill social purposes. Arguments about whether or not the current recognition of marraige by specific governments is good, bad or indifferent, are not relevent to deciding whether or not any such recognition should include marraiges where both parties are the same sex.

I've thought this over a bit, and it does seem wrong. for hundreds of years, marriage has been Man and woman, not man and man, or woman and woman. why change now? after so long, it, to me, is against society.

I honestly dont really mind the fact that gay people arent allowed to get married due to the fact that marriage itself is a union between man and women. But dont forget that social unions were also voted against, meaning people just dont want gays to be happy. I find it funny how we take the time to set up a buisness plan that welcomes imigrants, but we find it our duty to make gay americans unhappy.

Marraige is a social institution. The government is a social institution. Marraige does not exist because of religion, it like government exists to fufill social purposes. Arguments about whether or not the current recognition of marraige by specific governments is good, bad or indifferent, are not relevent to deciding whether or not any such recognition should include marraiges where both parties are the same sex.

What I'm saying, though, is that such recognition should not exist. Even assuming that marriage, as you say is a social institution is a religious one, it's still a personal matter, and should not be subject to legislation.

There is no damage caused from same sex marriages. There is a lack of seperation between Church & State when same sex marriage is concerned. I don't think the government should create and pass laws that ban gay marriages. Marriage is a religious/church oriented act.

Then at the same time, we have a society full of narrow-minded bigots who seem to think that whatever they find acceptable or unacceptable should be. This is a free coutry, and you have the right to do what makes you happy. Society and government should not intervene in a person's personal life. If being gay is what makes someone happy, so be it. Let them be happy, let them get married, let them have a happy, loving, caring marriage without all the scrutiny and interference.

I've thought this over a bit, and it does seem wrong. for hundreds of years, marriage has been Man and woman, not man and man, or woman and woman. why change now? after so long, it, to me, is against society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

If you want another source, I'll find it. Am lazy.

Arguing from tradition is silly. "Slavery has been going on since before the age of the Roman empire. Why change now? After so long, to me, it is against society."

Keep in mind that I'm not an anti-gay religious nut and that I am bisexual when you read my views.

Ok, first off, religious marriage should be left how it is. Government doesn't need to, and shouldnt at all, have a say in religion as long as the religion isn't going killing and seriously injuring people. If the religion says they can't marry, then they can't get married, we have to respect that. But under the governmental institution, they should be able to legally marry. If we can't get married by the government, then straight couples shouldn't be able to either and have them just get civil unions, then have it all equal and such how the founding fathers wanted it in the first place.

I've thought this over a bit, and it does seem wrong. for hundreds of years, marriage has been Man and woman, not man and man, or woman and woman. why change now? after so long, it, to me, is against society.
I know Fnordish beat me to it, but shouldn't we be working towards a better society?

they make it seem OK that people have nasty sex that certain people find very immoral.

otherwise they protect the family and property rights of long term same sex couples that heterosexual couples take for granted.

They used the same logic against interracial marriage, and they were wrong. And it doesn't matter what certain people find immoral. I believe that categorizing and discriminating against people for what they do in their bedrooms to be immoral also, but I will never support an amendment that that keeps you from saying what you want.

How in the hell are property rights involved here?

And your belief that a homosexual couple cannot raise a child as well as a heterosexual couple shows how little you understand people. In fact, I would say that the trouble homosexual couples would have to go through to obtain a child proves their commitment to raising a healthy child. If you are worried they might turn the child gay, I think they have a pretty good view of what happens when you force a lifestyle on someone.

Keep in mind that I'm not an anti-gay religious nut and that I am bisexual when you read my views.

Ok, first off, religious marriage should be left how it is. Government doesn't need to, and shouldnt at all, have a say in religion as long as the religion isn't going killing and seriously injuring people. If the religion says they can't marry, then they can't get married, we have to respect that. But under the governmental institution, they should be able to legally marry. If we can't get married by the government, then straight couples shouldn't be able to either and have them just get civil unions, then have it all equal and such how the founding fathers wanted it in the first place.

Civil Unions are separate but equal. Do you suppose we should enforce Gay Churches so that homosexuals cannot corrupt churches. Should we start building Gay Subdivisions so that gay couples can't corrupt fine heterosexual neighborhoods?

Christians must realize that they have to either assign their own personal meaning to marriage or allow government to abandon marriage altogether. The government cannot represent them in this matter.

They used the same logic against interracial marriage, and they were wrong. And it doesn't matter what certain people find immoral. I believe that categorizing and discriminating against people for what they do in their bedrooms to be immoral also, but I will never support an amendment that that keeps you from saying what you want.

How in the hell are property rights involved here?

And your belief that a homosexual couple cannot raise a child as well as a heterosexual couple shows how little you understand people. In fact, I would say that the trouble homosexual couples would have to go through to obtain a child proves their commitment to raising a healthy child. If you are worried they might turn the child gay, I think they have a pretty good view of what happens when you force a lifestyle on someone.
i believe you need to read my response again.

Breast cancer.

I've thought this over a bit, and it does seem wrong. for hundreds of years, marriage has been Man and woman, not man and man, or woman and woman. why change now? after so long, it, to me, is against society.
For hundreds of years marriage made a woman a man's property. We changed that. For hundreds of years marriage was between two people of the same color. We changed that. Change is part of society. Not changing is, to me, against society.

i believe you need to read my response again.

You are correct, my apologies.

I've thought this over a bit, and it does seem wrong. for hundreds of years, marriage has been Man and woman, not man and man, or woman and woman. why change now? after so long, it, to me, is against society.
You mean at some times and places such marraiges have for hundreds of years on end been the norm (or that is what you need to mean in order to be accurate). Need I point out the longevity of witch burning practises to prove that length of time doing something does not justify continuence? One man, one woman is a marraige type that some societies practise alongside or exclusive to others, the regularity with which it does or does not occur, at all , in isolation , or alongside other marraige forms doesnt prove anything about what marraige types should be practised.

I honestly dont really mind the fact that gay people arent allowed to get married due to the fact that marriage itself is a union between man and women.
Actually that's only one type of marraige form. Other forms have and currently do exist.

What I'm saying, though, is that such recognition should not exist. Even assuming that marriage, as you say is a social institution is a religious one, it's still a personal matter, and should not be subject to legislation.

Yes but that view is irrelevent to this discussion. The question is what harm do gay marraiges do, not should the government recognise gay marraige, or marraige at all? The question (so far as I can ascertain) presupposes that all other positions are equal because the issue is not approval for marraige or state intervention in marraige generally, but a rather about the possible harmful effects of a particular type of marraige. I believe that the issue being raised by the question is (perceptions of) the comparison between homosexual and heterosexual marraige types, rather than attitudes towards marraige generally. So basically (to me) the question is shorthand for 'are there harmful effects specific to gay marraige'? I think that neither this discussion nor a discussion about marraige recognition by governments are benefited by combining the two. I just dont think it does either topic justice if you know what I mean...

Marriage is a religious/church oriented act.
Not true, although marraige can be a religious church orientated act, it is not always necessarily so.

I'm thinking of starting a church where gays can get married. I would like to see that. For anyone of any religious convictions and for any race or gender. Just to piss of the right-wing bible thumpers

I'm thinking of starting a church where gays can get married. I would like to see that. For anyone of any religious convictions and for any race or gender. Just to piss of the right-wing bible thumpers
There's already Buddhism. But they don't count for religious freedom. :rolleyes:

How often do I need to repeat myself?

"And fire shall rain from the skies, and the seas shall become as blood.
The rightious shall fall before the wicked, and all of creation shall tremble before the burning standards of Hell!"

You want to know what will happen?!

Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling.
Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes.
The dead rising from the grave.
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria.

You want to know what will happen?!

Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling.
Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes.
The dead rising from the grave.
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria.
Don't forget the rather large marshmallow people.

I'm thinking of starting a church where gays can get married. I would like to see that. For anyone of any religious convictions and for any race or gender. Just to piss of the right-wing bible thumpers

They have gay churches, y'know. Our church was sold to one (created a lot of controversy; so amusing to see the old ladies whispering in horror over their beloved church building being sold to the homosexuals. giggle). Metropolitan-something-or-other. I think it's...er...what do you call a string of churches scattered around a nation, all with the same name (First Baptist, etc.)? I was going to say "franchise", but that's not right...

This post needs some bloodshed. :rolleyes: :sniper: Teach that smiley to roll his eyes at me.

They have gay churches, y'know. Our church was sold to one (created a lot of controversy; so amusing to see the old ladies whispering in horror over their beloved church building being sold to the homosexuals. giggle). Metropolitan-something-or-other. I think it's...er...what do you call a string of churches scattered around a nation, all with the same name (First Baptist, etc.)? I was going to say "franchise", but that's not right...

This post needs some bloodshed. :rolleyes: :sniper: Teach that smiley to roll his eyes at me.
That would be the Metropolitan Community Church
http://www.jesus.com

The idea of "Gay Marriage" is a product of gay stubbornness. Why do gay people 'need' that anyway? Aren't they happy just by being together with their couples or by being tolerated just like any other minority in our society?

Probably gay people want some recognition. But for a society to recognize gay people as a good part of it, would be only in a majorly gay society, which is impossible, because even if gays tried to raise their children gay in a highly concentrated gay area, nature calls heterosexual instincts. Therefore, gays will never be completely recognized. That's why there won't be an approval of gay marriage, society doesn't really want that to happen.

Let's think like nature for a second: Nature doesn't recognize homosexual beings more than heterosexual beings, because the only way to have offspring is between heterosexual couples. Nothing else can happen.

Gay people are being capricious by wanting already much more than tolerance, which is full recognition and then being able to have kids. The last one is like a bear wanting to fly. A bear simply cannot fly. If they want kids, that's just too capricious. Too artificial. Only cloning could help them.

The idea of "Gay Marriage" is a product of gay stubbornness. Why do gay people 'need' that anyway? Aren't they happy just by being togethe with their couples or by being tolerated just like any other minority in our society?

Probably gay people want some recognition. But for a society to recognize gay people as a good part of it, would be only in a majorly gay society, which is impossible, because even if gays tried to raise their children gay in a highly concentrated gay area, nature calls heterosexual instincts. Therefore, gays will never be completely recognized. That's why there won't be an approval of gay marriage, society doesn't really want that to happen.

Let's think like nature for a second: Nature doesn't recognize homosexual beings more than heterosexual beings, because the only way to have offspring is between heterosexual couples. Nothing else can happen.

Gay people are being capricious by wanting already much more than tolerance, which is full recognition and then being able to have kids. The last one is like a bear wanting to fly. A bear simply cannot fly. If they want kids, that's just too capricious. Too artificial. Only cloning could help them.

Your logic is quite erroneous on several points, I would consider rethinking it.

The idea of "Black Marriage" is a product of black stubbornness. Why do black people 'need' that anyway? Aren't they happy just by being togethe with their couples or by being tolerated just like any other minority in our society?

Probably black people want some recognition. But for a society to recognize black people as a good part of it, would be only in a majorly black society, which is impossible, because even if blacks tried to raise their children black in a highly concentrated black area, nature calls for white instincts. Therefore, blacks will never be completely recognized. That's why there won't be an approval of black marriage, society doesn't really want that to happen.

Black people are being capricious by wanting already much more than tolerance, which is full recognition and then being able to have kids.

-Edited as food for thought

The idea of "Black Marriage" is a product of black stubbornness. Why do black people 'need' that anyway? Aren't they happy just by being togethe with their couples or by being tolerated just like any other minority in our society?

Probably black people want some recognition. But for a society to recognize black people as a good part of it, would be only in a majorly black society, which is impossible, because even if blacks tried to raise their children black in a highly concentrated black area, nature calls for white instincts. Therefore, blacks will never be completely recognized. That's why there won't be an approval of black marriage, society doesn't really want that to happen.

Black people are being capricious by wanting already much more than tolerance, which is full recognition and then being able to have kids.

-Edited as food for thought

Exactly... I was going to let him figure out the errors in his logic on his own, but this points it out very well.

http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html ---for the religious nutjobs out there.

Could people of all religions or non-religions please help me by suggesting damage that same-sex marriages cause...

They cause Democratic candidates for president to lose elections because knuckle dragging GOP chimps use the issue to mobilize their base and get out the vote the way they always do by appealing to fear, hatred, and prejudice.

Once there was a Republican president who called on Americans to find the better angels of our nature. Now Republicans can't elect candidates unless they tear down, attack, and above all, make Americans afraid.

They cause no damage to you, because marriage occurs between the two people in love, not the whole world butting into their business.

gay marriage makes the morons of America feel icky. as Americans, we are apparently obligated to abridge the rights of any group that makes our resident morons feel icky, particularly when they tell us that their God feels icky as well.

It causes damage to the egos of "holier-than-thou"s

Probably gay people want some recognition. But for a society to recognize gay people as a good part of it, would be only in a majorly gay society, which is impossible, because even if gays tried to raise their children gay in a highly concentrated gay area, nature calls heterosexual instincts.
Yo! Homosexual people come in males and females, and they can get together for the purpose of reproducing. It's hardly impossible by any means.

Yo! Homosexual people come in males and females, <snip>


Must ... resist ... obvious .... lame ... joke :headbang:

Must ... resist ... obvious .... lame ... joke :headbang:
Okay, now I'm curious. If it's obvious, it's not to me.

It is gross looking at two men being all affectionate to one another in public,
it could very well cause normal people's eyes to burn out of their heads.

Okay, now I'm curious. If it's obvious, it's not to me.
A play on the word, 'come'. (The key word in my post was `lame'. *embarassed emoticon*.)

Must ... resist ... obvious .... lame ... joke :headbang:

Oh! Oh! The lame joke is "No, they don't. Because they're homosexual." Right?

Oh! Oh! The lame joke is "No, they don't. Because they're homosexual." Right?
*Hands FI a cigar.*

I've thought this over a bit, and it does seem wrong. for hundreds of years, marriage has been Man and woman, not man and man, or woman and woman. why change now? after so long, it, to me, is against society.
You could say the same about slavery in the early 19th century.

Parts of the ancient world permitted gay marriage. Spain, Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark permit it now. Those countries are not collapsing.

but we find it our duty to make gay americans unhappy.
Yeah, it's nothing more than homophobia. If the ballots in those infamous 11 states had been about a ban on homosexuality, I'm almost sure that they would have passed. For the vast majority of the anti-gay marriage crowd, a vote agaist it is a seen as a vote against homosexuality in general.

The idea of "Black Marriage" is a product of black stubbornness. Why do black people 'need' that anyway? Aren't they happy just by being together with their couples or by being tolerated just like any other minority in our society?

Probably black people want some recognition. But for a society to recognize black people as a good part of it, would be only in a majorly black society, which is impossible, because even if blacks tried to raise their children black in a highly concentrated black area, nature calls for white instincts. Therefore, blacks will never be completely recognized. That's why there won't be an approval of black marriage, society doesn't really want that to happen.

Black people are being capricious by wanting already much more than tolerance, which is full recognition and then being able to have kids.

-Edited as food for thought

That's not the same, you can't make a good comparison with racism and my point (which is not homophobic, since when not supporting gay weddings is?).

Nature made us to be straight, but not necessarily white, as being white or not, people are not only born with being whatever race they are, it is 100% hereditary, unlike other things which are not 100% hereditary. People are NOT born gay, too few could have some probability to be 'born', but it's not a fact that a "gay" parent will have a genetically gay son, just like if I have cancer, diabetes, or intelligence, and a highly effective immunological system, it's not a fact that my son will have those.

Black people can have children on their own, and even with other races, so I don't see any problem with that, since nature makes it possible. It's not like something is wrong with homosexuals, but they can't have children because something isn't right either, something is missing. And I’m not talking about morals here. It's just not meant to be. Black people, Latinos, Arabs, Jews, Whites, Asians, etc. Are meant to be, they can even mix themselves. Gay people, since they can't procreate, are not meant to be. It's natural selection. Period.

We can be all ok with them, I have gay friends, but seriously, why would nature want them to "procreate". As I just said, it's not meant to be. One thing is the right to privacy (that is, to do whatever you want in your room with anyone you want), and another thing is a minority forcing the majority to give them not only tolerance, but recognize them as something great to us, and children just because they are capricious against nature. I bet most people here like to celebrate life, not death, just like our ability to 'create' life, which is impossible for gay couples, that are not meant to have continuity (unless of course, they mate with the opposite sex).

I know this sounds too right-wingy, which is not my ideology, but the fact is that if gay people start getting married, children will see it as an OK thing to do. A child ALWAYS needs the female and the male ideal to grow perfectly sane. That is, a mother and a father, not two mothers or two fathers. Ask Freud, he knows that stuff, and it's proven.

(AIDS could come in, but that's a separate debate)

Yo! Homosexual people come in males and females, and they can get together for the purpose of reproducing. It's hardly impossible by any means.

Is it possible naturally? So, hypothetically it may be. But seriously, there's no place where there will be 99% gay people, unless they just decided to move where there are too few people. And then, they would have to organize to... either make gay men mate with gay women (which is like trying to make straight men mate with straight men, or straight women with straight women!) or, artificially, use cloning or with in Vitro. But that's not naturaly possible! That's the LEAST likely scenario, and the only (impossible) way to make it possible. (And we get to a contradiction here, so, again, we deduct that it is impossible)

Your logic is quite erroneous on several points, I would consider rethinking it.

For example? (and the black/gay example was lame, race is one thing, sexual prefference is another... As I wrote above)

If you're gonna say I have some flaws, tell me which. Perhaps i'm ignoring something.

It is gross looking at two men being all affectionate to one another in public,
it could very well cause normal people's eyes to burn out of their heads.

I agree literally on the first, and metaphorically on the second, which literally could mean, affect psychologically to most people that don't really wanna see that, and secondly, could make people go violent against gay people, which I don't think is what they really want.

And just to clarify that I'm not a right-wing redneck, I do support stem cell research, euthanasia, eugenics, and I'm pro-choice (in most scenarios, not all), I'm against animal suffering in any way, or the destruction of nature. I guess I'm neither a leftist, since I'm not for gay stuff, and less for affirmative action, since it harms black people much more than if it didn't exist.

Is it possible naturally? So, hypothetically it may be. But seriously, there's no place where there will be 99% gay people, unless they just decided to move where there are too few people. And then, they would have to organize to... either make gay men mate with gay women (which is like trying to make straight men mate with straight men, or straight women with straight women!) or, artificially, use cloning or with in Vitro. But that's not naturaly possible! That's the LEAST likely scenario.
Yes, seriously. Whether it would occur naturally or not is irrelevant, since human nature has already put itself in opposition to Nature millennia ago. And it needn't be forced at all --some people would willingly give up their time and effort to give a couple a child.

It is gross looking at two men being all affectionate to one another in public,
it could very well cause normal people's eyes to burn out of their heads.

What are you, three years old?

That's not the same, you can't make a good comparison with racism and my point (which is not homophobic, since when not supporting gay weddings is?).

Nature made us to be straight, but not necessarily white, as being white or not, people are not only born with being whatever race they are, it is 100% hereditary, unlike other things which are not 100% hereditary. People are NOT born gay, too few could have some probability to be 'born', but it's not a fact that a "gay" parent will have a genetically gay son, just like if I have cancer, diabetes, or intelligence, and a highly effective immunological system, it's not a fact that my son will have those.

Black people can have children on their own, and even with other races, so I don't see any problem with that, since nature makes it possible. It's not like something is wrong with homosexuals, but they can't have children because something isn't right either, something is missing. And I’m not talking about morals here. It's just not meant to be. Black people, Latinos, Arabs, Jews, Whites, Asians, etc. Are meant to be, they can even mix themselves. Gay people, since they can't procreate, are not meant to be. It's natural selection. Period.

I just wondered why you think that people are not born gay. Would anyone choose to be gay in a world where they are discriminated against etc etc. So why can't some people be naturally gay and some be maturally, just like some people have blue eyes and some have a different colour.
I know you can argue that if this were the case then gay people would have died out a long time ago, but its it possible that because society was even more oppresive then that people suppresed it.

Anyway I don't think that gay marriages do any harm, and there are many logical reasons to introduce it, for example if one of the couple were on a life support machine and it was to be decided whether to switch it off then surely it should be up to the person who they spent the last 20 years, however if they are not married because they couldn't be then this can't happen.

Hope that that made sense

okay, Yidd, you want somebody to break it down for you?

The idea of "Gay Marriage" is a product of gay stubbornness. Why do gay people 'need' that anyway? Aren't they happy just by being together with their couples or by being tolerated just like any other minority in our society? Aren't they happy just by being together with their couples


why do straight people need to be married? aren't they happy enough just being together in couples? why should they want all the legal rights that go along with marriage?

or by being tolerated just like any other minority in our society?

all minority groups (and majority groups) in this country deserve the legal right to choose their partner in life, with both parties consenting to the union. there is no reason to deny any minority or majority this right.


Probably gay people want some recognition.

not really. most gay people want equal rights, and don't much care about recognition in society.


But for a society to recognize gay people as a good part of it, would be only in a majorly gay society,

why is that? our society recognizes men as a good part of society, even though men are in the minority compared to women. our society recognizes that people of minority ethicities bring strengths to our society, and that minority individuals are a good part of society. why should there need to be a gay majority for us to recognize homosexuals as the contributing members of society that they already are?

which is impossible, because even if gays tried to raise their children gay in a highly concentrated gay area, nature calls heterosexual instincts.

incorrect. our current anthropological and biological data suggest that human beings, like all primates, have evolved to be naturally predisposed toward bisexuality and polyandry. our heterosexual and monogamous society is an artificial construct that directly contradicts our natural design. whether or not that is a good thing is debatable, and i am certainly not going to claim that humans should base society on pure natural instinct, but the fact remains that homosexual behavior is as supported by "nature" as heterosexual behavior.


Therefore, gays will never be completely recognized. That's why there won't be an approval of gay marriage, society doesn't really want that to happen.

actually, 2/3 of American society wants homosexuals to have access to civil unions. roughly half of American society wants homosexuals to have marital rights. not to mention the fact that America was specifically designed by the founders to prevent "society" from taking away the rights of minorities; "society" didn't want black and whites to be allowed to marry, but our Constitution required that those rights be granted. "society" didn't want women to be allowed to vote, but it was TS for society on that one, too. just because the majority wants to oppress the minority doesn't mean they win...that's the beauty of the way American law is designed.


Let's think like nature for a second: Nature doesn't recognize homosexual beings more than heterosexual beings, because the only way to have offspring is between heterosexual couples. Nothing else can happen.

again, "Nature" doesn't "recognize" either sexual orientation as paramount. please understand that reproductive fitness is NOT defined by how many babies you can pump out, it is defined as the ability to get one's genetic code into the next generation, and there are many situations in which homosexual orientation will increase reproductive fitness. also, please remember that if homosexuality were not a valid evolutionary trait then it would not be displayed in the dozens of species in which it has been observed.


Gay people are being capricious by wanting already much more than tolerance, which is full recognition and then being able to have kids.

you're kidding, right? you think gay people are being capricious by asking that they receive the same rights and privaledges as all citizens of their nation?


The last one is like a bear wanting to fly. A bear simply cannot fly. If they want kids, that's just too capricious. Too artificial. Only cloning could help them.
so i guess infertile heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry, then, huh? nature doesn't want them to marry, according to you, and since they can't make babies they don't deserve to be seen as equal members of society. oh, and people (like me) who don't ever want to have kids, we must not be real humans either...we shouldn't be allowed to marry. and women who are past menopause shouldn't be allowed to marry, since they can't have kids.

or hey, how about we recognize that marriage is about more than breeding? why are homophobes so eager to reduce marriage to a baby production line? are you really that incapable of comprehending love, companionship, respect, and the desire to have a life-mate for reasons other than passing on your own genes? why should our country base its definition of marriage upon the opinions of people who are unable to grasp those values, or who think that sex is the most important function of human existence?

A play on the word, 'come'. (The key word in my post was `lame'. *embarassed emoticon*.)
:D :D :D
great! go on, some people here understand your jokes ;)

Gay people, since they can't procreate, are not meant to be. It's natural selection. Period.

You believe in evolution, but if you were speaking about creation, I would say "god made them". As you are speaking about evolution, you will agree with me that evolution isn't either moral or immoral, it is amoral. Therefore you made absolutely no point :)

Marriage is, in fact, a religious institution

Not anymore, it isn't. A religious ceremony means nothing without the State issued marriage license.

A child ALWAYS needs the female and the male ideal to grow perfectly sane. That is, a mother and a father, not two mothers or two fathers. Ask Freud, he knows that stuff, and it's proven.


Hmmmm ...

Jeffrey Dahmer
Charles Manson
Charles Whitman
David Berkowitz
Jim Jones
Jerry Falwell
Richard Speck
Lizzy Borden
John Wayne Gacy
Ted Kazinski
Timothy McVeigh
H.H. Holmes
Elizabeth Bathory
Beverley Allitt
Dozens of pedophile priests


All products of male/female, mother/father homes. I could go on for hundreds more.

Now ... let's see the list of nasty serial killer/mass murderer types who had 2 fathers or 2 mothers only ...

<crickets chirp>

Hmmmm

A child ALWAYS needs the female and the male ideal to grow perfectly sane. That is, a mother and a father, not two mothers or two fathers. Ask Freud, he knows that stuff, and it's proven.
Nobody nowadays really considers Freud as proof of anything. After all, Freud never did experiments, he only speculated.

A child ALWAYS needs the female and the male ideal to grow perfectly sane. That is, a mother and a father, not two mothers or two fathers. Ask Freud, he knows that stuff, and it's proven.

My father left my mother and moved to England when I was four, he stopped child support when I was 18, I haven't talked to him for about 8 months. I was raised by my mother only. I'm not complaining because my mother raised me far better than most of the two parent households in my hometown. My sanity my be open to interpretation, but that doesn't change the fact that I will graduate college in May with a dual degree in Finance and Business Economics. I don't want to toot my own horn, but I turned out fine.

or hey, how about we recognize that marriage is about more than breeding? why are homophobes so eager to reduce marriage to a baby production line? are you really that incapable of comprehending love, companionship, respect, and the desire to have a life-mate for reasons other than passing on your own genes? why should our country base its definition of marriage upon the opinions of people who are unable to grasp those values, or who think that sex is the most important function of human existence?

Exactly. Most of the people who argue against marriage use their reason to justify the conclusion, instead of using their reason to formulate a conclusion. And it creates quite a hypocritical argument.

What I am referring to is the massive amounts of people who say that they are protecting marriage, yet later carve marriage down to nothing more than reproduction. So to believe them, we are supposed to keep their right to mindlessly fornicate sacred.

For all you Bible thumpers out there, remember that the first woman was created for COMPANIONSHIP, not baby making. Eve was also made from the parts of a man.

That's not the same, you can't make a good comparison with racism and my point (which is not homophobic, since when not supporting gay weddings is?).

Nature made us to be straight, but not necessarily white, as being white or not, people are not only born with being whatever race they are, it is 100% hereditary, unlike other things which are not 100% hereditary. People are NOT born gay, too few could have some probability to be 'born', but it's not a fact that a "gay" parent will have a genetically gay son, just like if I have cancer, diabetes, or intelligence, and a highly effective immunological system, it's not a fact that my son will have those.

Black people can have children on their own, and even with other races, so I don't see any problem with that, since nature makes it possible. It's not like something is wrong with homosexuals, but they can't have children because something isn't right either, something is missing. And I’m not talking about morals here. It's just not meant to be. Black people, Latinos, Arabs, Jews, Whites, Asians, etc. Are meant to be, they can even mix themselves. Gay people, since they can't procreate, are not meant to be. It's natural selection. Period.

We can be all ok with them, I have gay friends, but seriously, why would nature want them to "procreate". As I just said, it's not meant to be. One thing is the right to privacy (that is, to do whatever you want in your room with anyone you want), and another thing is a minority forcing the majority to give them not only tolerance, but recognize them as something great to us, and children just because they are capricious against nature. I bet most people here like to celebrate life, not death, just like our ability to 'create' life, which is impossible for gay couples, that are not meant to have continuity (unless of course, they mate with the opposite sex).

I know this sounds too right-wingy, which is not my ideology, but the fact is that if gay people start getting married, children will see it as an OK thing to do. A child ALWAYS needs the female and the male ideal to grow perfectly sane. That is, a mother and a father, not two mothers or two fathers. Ask Freud, he knows that stuff, and it's proven.

(AIDS could come in, but that's a separate debate)
Race is a valid comparison:
a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics -MW (http://www.m-w.com)
Gay people are a race by extension.

Read: http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html

Being gay is not a choice, having two gay parents is no different than having two straight parents as far as raising a child is concerned. Homosexuality is natural, seeing as how it happens in nature all the time.

Read:
http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4352011/

The fact is gay people can have children, but just not with a member of the same sex. However, if you are going to let infertile couples or even people who don't want children to get married then this argument is bunk. Besides, orphanges are filled with kids, wouldn't a loving family, even a gay one, be a better place for them?

And as far as privacy goes, so as long as you don't have to see something that makes you uncomfortable, its ok to deny rights to that group? Yeah, you know what why don't we give them seperate water fountains too? You don't know what that mouth has touched. :rolleyes: This country has a long history of the minority forcing the majority to give them rights.

Allowing same sex marriage would be giving equal protection under the law to a group of people that hurt no one. To say "Won't somebody please think of the children" is a plee to emotion and red herring anyway. Children will be straight or gay becuase they are straight or gay. No amount of seeing two guys holding hands is going to turn them queer.

And we shouldn't ask Freud becuase he was wrong, and the opposite has actually been proven.

Not anymore, it isn't. A religious ceremony means nothing without the State issued marriage license.

And that's the problem. Government has, for a long time, been violating the establishment clause by licensing marriage.

And that's the problem. Government has, for a long time, been violating the establishment clause by licensing marriage.

Then get your own damn country.

Then get your own damn country.

No, you get YOUR own damn country, we have the constitution on our side.

Then get your own damn country.
That's one of the stupidest responses I've ever heard. If everyone had their own damn country, the world would be fragmented and we would all die because who is going to run our own damn countries? One person is supposed to single-handedly run the water system, electricity, roads, education... I could go on.

Then get your own damn country.
Because someone disagrees with YOUR viewpoints they aren't allowed to live in the same country as you? Give me a break. :rolleyes:

That's not the same, you can't make a good comparison with racism and my point (which is not homophobic, since when not supporting gay weddings is?).

Nature made us to be straight, but not necessarily white, as being white or not, people are not only born with being whatever race they are, it is 100% hereditary, unlike other things which are not 100% hereditary. People are NOT born gay, too few could have some probability to be 'born', but it's not a fact that a "gay" parent will have a genetically gay son, just like if I have cancer, diabetes, or intelligence, and a highly effective immunological system, it's not a fact that my son will have those.

Black people can have children on their own, and even with other races, so I don't see any problem with that, since nature makes it possible. It's not like something is wrong with homosexuals, but they can't have children because something isn't right either, something is missing. And I’m not talking about morals here. It's just not meant to be. Black people, Latinos, Arabs, Jews, Whites, Asians, etc. Are meant to be, they can even mix themselves. Gay people, since they can't procreate, are not meant to be. It's natural selection. Period.

We can be all ok with them, I have gay friends, but seriously, why would nature want them to "procreate". As I just said, it's not meant to be. One thing is the right to privacy (that is, to do whatever you want in your room with anyone you want), and another thing is a minority forcing the majority to give them not only tolerance, but recognize them as something great to us, and children just because they are capricious against nature. I bet most people here like to celebrate life, not death, just like our ability to 'create' life, which is impossible for gay couples, that are not meant to have continuity (unless of course, they mate with the opposite sex).

I know this sounds too right-wingy, which is not my ideology, but the fact is that if gay people start getting married, children will see it as an OK thing to do. A child ALWAYS needs the female and the male ideal to grow perfectly sane. That is, a mother and a father, not two mothers or two fathers. Ask Freud, he knows that stuff, and it's proven.

(AIDS could come in, but that's a separate debate)

You certainly can make a comparison with racism, gay people ARE a minority group, and have no choice with the sexual orientation they have been given.

I would like to argue the fact nature makes you straight, as time and time again, nature does not. There is evidence of homosexuality in nature, and there has been startling evidence brought to light in human genetics to show it is very natural. To say something is unnatural would make you assume it is man-made. How can you engineer your own sexuality? Surley "choosing" to be gay would be quite a ludicrous choice considering the stigma, abuse, violence and second-class treatment you often recieve. It would be a good idea if you could really back up your claims over human genetics. Having studied it myself, it is a lot more complicated than either being something or not. Yes, there are environmental factors at play here, but that happens in most traits with some governance in genes. Just because somebody does not mean they reach their genetic potential in intelligence or height, does not make this unnatural, and the same goes for sexuality.

How kind of you to "agree" to black people having children. Because they can do it naturally then this makes it fine. Of course black people can have children. They were certainly doing it before white people ever bothered them, and took away their rights. There would be no white race without Africans, because it is common scientific belief that whites came from Africa. If it wasn't okay, there would be white race.

Gay people can't have children because they are two men. This isn't the issue here, the issue is same sex marriage. This is the arguement Catholics use time and time again, and it's absolutley ridiculous. People are so scared of sex and their own sexuality that they can't talk about it as a personal passion, or something which is fine to enjoy. "No, honestly, believe me, I'm only doing it because I want kids". Please tell me if every time you ahve had sex, you have done it with the sole intention to procreate?

I'm sure gays and lesbians all over the world will breathe a huge sigh of relief that you think we should be "OK" with them. What makes you think they care what you think? They have come through far much more hostility and oppression just to allow people to be "OK" with them. They don't want "OK". They want acceptance in society, just as every thinking, feeling human being on this planet wants to be. It's the crass, unscientific, boring, over-used arguements like your own which are holding this back. Ignorance if you want it made simple.

I like the way you call white, straight and whatever else you label yourself as "great". That is the kind of thing people said about blacks when they were beginning to get rights. Well, we will be OK with them, but they will never be as great as us. How they have proved you wrong. You'd better watch out, gay people will become great and already have been. You never even know you maye have gay children one day. *Shock* How WILL you cope?

You are saying that the only value to life is to copulate and produce children. What about all those greats who never did? Elizabeth the First? Mother Theresa? Jesus Christ? You are telling me these people had no value?

You worry that if gay people marry, kids will see it as right? So it's better to allow kids to grow up thinking its wrong? If kids grow up seeing that two men, or two women can love each other, then they will accept it and I hope to God this silly, close minded arguement will come to an end. You say you are not right-wing, but your arguement stinks of someone who is, and quite frankly not just towards gay people. You may like to think you are cool and all for rights of the individual, but really you are a fearful, close-minded individual by the sounds of your post. You are a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Yes, children do need two parents, but it rarely happens nowadays in the West. A gay couple would love a child just as much as a straight couple. If you want to have a perfect world, then I suggest you go back to sleep, burying your head in the sand hoping that one day we will all wake up to some utopia, is rather childish. It's never going to happen, we MUST make the best of what we have. Let gay people have the most from their lives, and for God's sakes let them be happy.

Finally, Freud actually boiled everything down to sex, so really you have conflicted yourself. I dont think Freud mentioned anything about the desire to have children, and if he did it was in a sexual context.

I'm not even going to raise myself to the AIDs arguement. Most people who have it, caught it from straight sex. And within marriage. Period.

Let's drop the ad hominen, ok? It's not that hard to debate by attacking the argument, not the debater.

Unfree People
Forum Moderator

That's not the same, you can't make a good comparison with racism and my point (which is not homophobic, since when not supporting gay weddings is?).
'Not supporting' isnt relevent, opposition is. I dont believe for a moment that you have a legitimate sound argument for opposing homosexual marraige, if you did, you would quite simply be the only opposed person I have yet encountered, who does have a legitimate sound argument for opposing homosexual marraige. So either you are mistaken, homophobic, or unique in my experiance with regards to your position on homosexual marraiges.

Nature made us to be straight, but not necessarily white, as being white or not, people are not only born with being whatever race they are, it is 100% hereditary, unlike other things which are not 100% hereditary.
Stop and try to work out what you are on about. Firstly nature made everything the way it is if nature made anything the way it is. Nature is not an equivalent terminology for hereditary. Hereditary aspects do not work in isolation to the enviroment, indeed as constituent parts of the enviroment, how could they? Regardless what has 'nature' got to do with it. You realise that nature (in the context you appear to be attempting to use it) is a categorical label, and not a thinking entity, or measurement of quality? Some natural things you might want to avoid, plague, ebola, TB, maleria....and the list could go on......

People are NOT born gay, too few could have some probability to be 'born', but it's not a fact that a "gay" parent will have a genetically gay son, just like if I have cancer, diabetes, or intelligence, and a highly effective immunological system, it's not a fact that my son will have those.
Prove that people are not born gay. At any rate, people are not born 'tall' either. If you are tall it is not a fact that your son will also be tall.

Black people can have children on their own, and even with other races, so I don't see any problem with that, since nature makes it possible.
Nature makes ebola a possible, but I think I'd rather wipe that out before I bothered worrying about which consenting adult is marrying which consenting adult. Evidently nature made homosexual sex possible, and also nuclear bombs and Easter Eggs..., evidently homosexuals can have their own children, and even with people of other ethnicities.

It's not like something is wrong with homosexuals, but they can't have children because something isn't right either, something is missing.
Actually I doubt very much that is true. I'm not aware of high rates of infertility amongst homosexual people.

And I’m not talking about morals here. It's just not meant to be. Black people, Latinos, Arabs, Jews, Whites, Asians, etc. Are meant to be, they can even mix themselves. Gay people, since they can't procreate, are not meant to be. It's natural selection. Period.
Gay people can procreate, and even if they could not, they would not in and of itself (according to 'natural selection' theory) lead to the conclusion that you have arrived at.

We can be all ok with them, I have gay friends, but seriously, why would nature want them to "procreate".
does not want or not want, nature cannot form a want of any kind.

As I just said, it's not meant to be.
Meant by whom?

One thing is the right to privacy (that is, to do whatever you want in your room with anyone you want), and another thing is a minority forcing the majority to give them not only tolerance, but recognize them as something great to us, and children just because they are capricious against nature.
This is irrelevent, what are you talking about?

I bet most people here like to celebrate life, not death, just like our ability to 'create' life, which is impossible for gay couples, that are not meant to have continuity (unless of course, they mate with the opposite sex).
As you point out they can create life. Even if they could not, this would not in and of itself lead to the conclusion that you appear to believe it would lead to.

I know this sounds too right-wingy ideology, but the fact is that if gay people start getting married, children will see it as an OK thing to do.
Firstly you offer no evidence to indicate that if certain marraige types happen 'children' (do you mean all children, more than 1 child, large numbers of children, small numbers of children) will suddenly view that as an OK thing to do, however if they did, so what?

A child ALWAYS needs the female and the male ideal to grow perfectly sane. That is, a mother and a father, not two mothers or two fathers. Ask Freud, he knows that stuff, and it's proven.
Firstly you may wish to slavlishly believe everything Freud said (a position which in light of a particular quote of his, could undermine your own), however I know for a fact that he was an early innovater in a much since improved apon field. Secondly as a matter of empiracal fact, children can grow up perfectly healthy, happy and 'well adjusted' in just about any configuration of household you can imagine, including one with two females and a child/children, or one with two males and a child/children.

(AIDS could come in, but that's a separate debate)
Then why even make the comment...? :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

If you want another source, I'll find it. Am lazy.

Arguing from tradition is silly. "Slavery has been going on since before the age of the Roman empire. Why change now? After so long, to me, it is against society."

Well, slavery was bad and cruel. but same sex marriages is a minor issue, and shouldn't be paid too much attention to. Yes, there may have been same sex marriages a long time ago, however, those were rare. and besiedes, only rich people could have slaves. Marriage between man and woman should only be a small issue, and it's not like people are whipping gay people. But, since Canada and u.s are free countries, people should do what they want, and if people want to be gay/lesbian, then why should we and the government make a huge deal about it? I think, though, that they should get married somewhere else, not in the church where everybody opposes same sex marriages

Marriage between man and woman should only be a small issue, and it's not like people are whipping gay people.
Yeah, um, actually, it's called anti-gay abuse. It happens a LOT, and often goes as far as mobs killing people they think are "evil" and "gay".

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/special/gay.html

This is President of Irelandville and I wold like to state that same-sex marriages should be allowed in all states and i would just like to say an quote from the constitution and i quote "A marriage is between two people"

Sincerely,The Presidnet Of Irelandville

a lot of this seems to come down in the choice of words. Marriage has the religious link, etc etc, so SOME christians don't like it. Civil ceremony detaches it from religion, so that might be more "acceptable" to some people.

And that's the problem. Government has, for a long time, been violating the establishment clause by licensing marriage.
It's not a violation. Marraige doesnt come from religion, marraige is not caused by religion. Marraige is a social institution, the government is a social institution, where is the violation?

Well, slavery was bad and cruel. but same sex marriages is a minor issue, and shouldn't be paid too much attention to.
I completely agree, same sex marraiges are in the scheme of things somewhat unimportant, at least they are nothing important enough to bother forming an opposition to, nothing worth protesting against, and nothing worth voting/legislating against (at State level) and absolutely nothing worth amending the entire Constitution over...why the big issue, either you want a same sex marraige, or it's irrelevent to you.

Yes, there may have been same sex marriages a long time ago, however, those were rare. and besiedes, only rich people could have slaves.
What do you mean by this...? Rarity or commonality doesnt prove right or wrongness...

Marriage between man and woman should only be a small issue, and it's not like people are whipping gay people.
Well actually I might dispute the latter...and yes for all but the participants and their friends, kin and loved ones, in any particular marraige, it should the smallest of issues, that is no issue.

But, since Canada and u.s are free countries, people should do what they want, and if people want to be gay/lesbian, then why should we and the government make a huge deal about it? I think, though, that they should get married somewhere else, not in the church where everybody opposes same sex marriages
The point is that religious marraige celebrants dont have to perform a marraige if they dont want to, and churches are private property, so if they dont want to let someone get married in their church, the owners dont have to allow them to. It's really not an issue. The various religious ceremonies that people may choose to go through when they get married, are neither necessary nor sufficient in order to establish a marraige.

Well, slavery was bad and cruel. but same sex marriages is a minor issue, and shouldn't be paid too much attention to. Yes, there may have been same sex marriages a long time ago, however, those were rare. and besiedes, only rich people could have slaves. Marriage between man and woman should only be a small issue, and it's not like people are whipping gay people. But, since Canada and u.s are free countries, people should do what they want, and if people want to be gay/lesbian, then why should we and the government make a huge deal about it? I think, though, that they should get married somewhere else, not in the church where everybody opposes same sex marriages


It's still not giving long term gay relationships the same rights as straight ones. You may not be whipping gays, but neither were Africans in South Africa during the apartheid, they were just second class citizens. If the curch is a part of the stae then they will have no choice but to marry them. Regardless, there are churches beggining to accept this now. The huge deal is people wanting the same legal rights that are given to married couples. And wanting to have a ceremony to celebrate the fact they are commited.

Firstly, I find that I cannot tolerate the use of the word "homophobe," because it is not an actual word; it has no logical meaning, except to suggest a phobia for things that are other than normal. The word "homo" does not refer solely to homosexuals. The common usage of the word irritates me.

Pertaining to the issue of "gay" marriage, I cannot support it, because it would mean a cultural redefinition of the marriage institution, which is not necessary; in short, I do not approve of catering to a minority at the expense of our nation's culture. Argue in any way you like, marriage was originally based on the unique results of a sexual relationship between a male and a female (notice the word "unique"). When two males or two females can produce children through "sex," (falsely so called) then, and only then, will my view be changed.

Values exist for a reason - to allow eccentric, wild-eyed liberals to force change on us for absolutely no reason (remember the "catering to a minority" part?), would be unacceptable. Thank God the resolution is going absolutely no where.

Why is that? Why is it that the only things active liberal scums can do to enforce their views are to push for radical cultural changes and show support for judges who illegally offer marriage licenses to same-sex couples? Why the authoritarianism? I wonder if they, as a whole, have ever thought of firstly gaining public support for their foolish notions. Shouldn't we give the people what they demand? (And since we can't give all people the things they want, let's focus on an overwhelming majority.)

But, the Democrats will continue to pry this issue into the front and center, in a lame attempt to weaken the Bush administration - why wasn't this as big as it is now when Clinton was in office? The answer is obvious: a Democrat was in office, so there was no need to promote the disagreement.

But in reality, this issue is laughable - it should be treated as being of the same class as the "let's amend the Constitution so Arnold can be president" movement.

Sincerely,
A Disgusted American Citizen.

Well, slavery was bad and cruel. but same sex marriages is a minor issue, and shouldn't be paid too much attention to. Yes, there may have been same sex marriages a long time ago, however, those were rare. and besiedes, only rich people could have slaves. Marriage between man and woman should only be a small issue, and it's not like people are whipping gay people. But, since Canada and u.s are free countries, people should do what they want, and if people want to be gay/lesbian, then why should we and the government make a huge deal about it? I think, though, that they should get married somewhere else, not in the church where everybody opposes same sex marriages

Not everybody opposed same-sex marriages. Some churches celebrate them.

Firstly, I find that I cannot tolerate the use of the word "homophobe," because it is not an actual word; it has no logical meaning, except to suggest a phobia for things that are other than normal. The word "homo" does not refer solely to homosexuals. The common usage of the word irritates me. Oh, don't be such a stickler! This 'common usage' has become so common that it has, in fact, made its way into credited dictionaries and is a valid use of the English language.

Pertaining to the issue of "gay" marriage, I cannot support it, because it would mean a cultural redefinition of the marriage institution, which is not necessary; in short, I do not approve of catering to a minority at the expense of our nation's culture. Oh, whoo, let's deny rights to the minority because our 'culture' mandates it so! At that rate, let's disenfranchise blacks again - after all, we did really kill the southern culture in getting rid of their discriminatory laws. Let's deny rights and autonomy to women, since it completely killed the US's culture of white, property-owning males. Let's, while we're at it, make sure that minorities never have any rights again - because, see, that would be denying the oppressive culture of the majority.

Argue in any way you like, marriage was originally based on the unique results of a sexual relationship between a male and a female (notice the word "unique"). When two males or two females can produce children through "sex," (falsely so called) then, and only then, will my view be changed. So a marriage is only validated if it produces children? Oops, better make laws against allowing barren women to get married. And force divorces or children on couples who haven't procreated.

Values exist for a reason - to allow eccentric, wild-eyed liberals to force change on us for absolutely no reason (remember the "catering to a minority" part?), would be unacceptable. Thank God the resolution is going absolutely no where. Absolutely no reason? We're trying to make the world a more fair and tolerant place. We're trying to make it not "ok" to beat gays, to hate them, to treat them unfairly - we're trying to give them equal treatment under the law - we're trying to better their existence, and make the entire world a better place while we're at it. People who think gays are going to hell, and think it's ok to treat them badly because of that, need to crawl back into their holes and stop trying to make people revert to the dark ages.

Why the authoritarianism? Ah hahahaha, you call us authoritarian for trying to BETTER PEOPLE'S EXISTENCE? If anything, laws denying equal treatment to other people are overly authoritarian and cruel.

But, the Democrats will continue to pry this issue into the front and centerOnce again, you're displaying your ignorance like it's something to be lauded. WHO is pushing a constitutional amendment to discriminate against gays? Not Democrats!

why wasn't this as big as it is now when Clinton was in office? Haha. Come on, do a little research. One reason so many people hated Clinton was because of his promotion of "don't ask, don't tell" policies.

But in reality, this issue is laughable - it should be treated as being of the same class as the "let's amend the Constitution so Arnold can be president" movement. Yeah, it is laughable to want to treat gays as inferior because of something they can't help, something that's part of human nature, something that's historically rampant and something that harms no one.


You have no right to be disgusted with America, they have agreed with you that gays deserve to be treated like dirt under your feet.

Firstly, I find that I cannot tolerate the use of the word "homophobe," because it is not an actual word; it has no logical meaning, except to suggest a phobia for things that are other than normal. The word "homo" does not refer solely to homosexuals. The common usage of the word irritates me.

Chambers Concise Dictionary:
Homophobe n a person with a strong aversion to homosexuals.

Pertaining to the issue of "gay" marriage, I cannot support it, because it would mean a cultural redefinition of the marriage institution, which is not necessary; in short, I do not approve of catering to a minority at the expense of our nation's culture. Argue in any way you like, marriage was originally based on the unique results of a sexual relationship between a male and a female (notice the word "unique"). When two males or two females can produce children through "sex," (falsely so called) then, and only then, will my view be changed.

The US government has never and hopefully will never be a regulator of culture. It must neither hold back a particular culture or advance a particular culture, it must simply allow for a free growth. So the government can recognize no laws that hinder of advance culture. If marriage has all of the cultural value as you say it does, it must be abandoned altogether.

And marriage was originally based on the ability of a man to get a woman pregnant and then control her. Since we now no longer recognize a male dominance in marriage there is no need to have a male or a female in the relationship, only two individuals.

Values exist for a reason - to allow eccentric, wild-eyed liberals to force change on us for absolutely no reason (remember the "catering to a minority" part?), would be unacceptable. Thank God the resolution is going absolutely no where.

Wrong in two ways.
First, the government cannot legislate based on values. Especially not religious values.
Second, if they could this is still the same idiotic argument that generation after generation has put forth. That values should never change, that things are exactly right as they are, and anybody who supports a change in values is crazy.

Why is that? Why is it that the only things active liberal scums can do to enforce their views are to push for radical cultural changes and show support for judges who illegally offer marriage licenses to same-sex couples? Why the authoritarianism?

No, authoritarianism would be creating laws to discern who can do something and who can't, I can't think of anybody who would support that.

I wonder if they, as a whole, have ever thought of firstly gaining public support for their foolish notions. Shouldn't we give the people what they demand? (And since we can't give all people the things they want, let's focus on an overwhelming majority.)

Wrong on two parts once again.

The founding fathers formed this country around the idea that minorities will not be regulated by the majority. That everyone will be treated equally disregarding what lifestyle they have.
Second, this has nothing to do with the majority as they will be unaffected by homosexual marriage in any way shape or form. They will continue to enjoy all the benefits, they will continue to be allowed to marry in church, and they can continue to not respect homosexual marriages.

But, the Democrats will continue to pry this issue into the front and center, in a lame attempt to weaken the Bush administration - why wasn't this as big as it is now when Clinton was in office? The answer is obvious: a Democrat's in office, no need to promote the disagreement.

If you are correct that a majority of the nation does not want gay marriage then any plan to use it to gain votes would be ludicrous. Also, it was Bush who announced his position on gay marriage weekly, and the Republican party who used churches to mold "PROTECT MARRIAGE" into a rallying cry.

"But in reality, this issue is laughable - it should be treated as being of the same class as the "let's amend the Constitution so Arnold can be president" movement."

Well at least we don't have to worry about the second most popular republican running for presidents. I personally wouldn't mind voting for Arnold just as long as I'm not voting against McCain.

Sincerely,
A Disgusted American Citizen.

Don't you mean "Disgusting American Citizen"

(sorry for the flame, but this guy is worth it)

It's so obvious! Other than the fact that the Bible WRITTEN BY GOD HIMSELF in plain English says it's wrong, the moment gay marriage is made legal, gay people will storm the streets and commit countless rapes! Homophobia is a rational fear because all gay people think about is getting into the pants of other men AND CHILDREN. You'll go to bed one night, thinking everything's fine, but in the morning, little Billy will wake up with a lisp and he'll know a lot more colors than he knew when he went to bed. Woman will burn their bras, cut their hair, vote, and insist on being called things like "Frank", "Steve", and especially "Adolf". Don't even get me started on what the confused pagans will do! The government is TRYING to protect you from these sickos who chose to be gay. THAT'S RIGHT! THEY CHOSE IT! THEY CHOSE TO STIGMATIZED AND BEAT UP IN HIGH SCHOOL JUST FOR THIS MOMENT! The time of reckoning is almost at hand, people! Today, gay marriage...tomorrow, EATING BABIES!

It's so obvious! Other than the fact that the Bible WRITTEN BY GOD HIMSELF in plain English says it's wrong, the moment gay marriage is made legal, gay people will storm the streets and commit countless rapes! Homophobia is a rational fear because all gay people think about is getting into the pants of other men AND CHILDREN. You'll go to bed one night, thinking everything's fine, but in the morning, little Billy will wake up with a lisp and he'll know a lot more colors than he knew when he went to bed. Woman will burn their bras, cut their hair, vote, and insist on being called things like "Frank", "Steve", and especially "Adolf". Don't even get me started on what the confused pagans will do! The government is TRYING to protect you from these sickos who chose to be gay. THAT'S RIGHT! THEY CHOSE IT! THEY CHOSE TO STIGMATIZED AND BEAT UP IN HIGH SCHOOL JUST FOR THIS MOMENT! The time of reckoning is almost at hand, people! Today, gay marriage...tomorrow, EATING BABIES!
lmao, that's hilarious. can I just point out that god didn't write the bible in english though? it was written by 'prophets' and 'disciples' in old hebrew...

It hurts my anus to think about their honeymoon.

THAT'S PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE MY GOOD SIR.

Marriage is a religious function. How? It takes place under a church and the vows are recited by a church official. There is no question that marriage is a religious ceremony...it is, and anyone who denies it is blind. With that said, homosexuality goes against Christianity and most other major religions. Marriage in America is primarily a Christian ritual. So why should the government make it legal for gays to be married in a Christian church when their beliefs go against those of the bible? That's basically spitting on the Christian religion...if gays want to be together, let them be joined in a civil union. But for gay marriages to be allowed in churches where homosexuality is considered a sin sounds stupid and disrespectful to me.

Marriage is a religious function. How? It takes place under a church and the vows are recited by a church official. There is no question that marriage is a religious ceremony...it is, and anyone who denies it is blind. With that said, homosexuality goes against Christianity and most other major religions. Marriage in America is primarily a Christian ritual. So why should the government make it legal for gays to be married in a Christian church when their beliefs go against those of the bible? That's basically spitting on the Christian religion...if gays want to be together, let them be joined in a civil union. But for gay marriages to be allowed in churches where homosexuality is considered a sin sounds stupid and disrespectful to me.

Some churches welcome gay marriages, you can get married in places other than churches. Government cannot recognize religion. Three major problems with your argument.

Marriage is a religious function. How? It takes place under a church and the vows are recited by a church official. There is no question that marriage is a religious ceremony...it is, and anyone who denies it is blind. With that said, homosexuality goes against Christianity and most other major religions. Marriage in America is primarily a Christian ritual. So why should the government make it legal for gays to be married in a Christian church when their beliefs go against those of the bible? That's basically spitting on the Christian religion...if gays want to be together, let them be joined in a civil union. But for gay marriages to be allowed in churches where homosexuality is considered a sin sounds stupid and disrespectful to me.
You misunderstand the issue here. The issue is that marriage is a state-sanctioned religious function - the state either needs to get out of it completely (ie, get rid of all the legal spousal benefits), or open it up to everyone. No one is trying to force churches to marry couples they don't want to - no one. It's not about that. It's about giving gays marriage licenses so that they may enjoy the same legal benefits of same-sex couples. And it is certainly not about denying gays equal treatment under the law.

This is just sad...

Marriage was a social institution long before religion went past "Ohhh, the gods made it rain!". Pair bonding actually exists in nature where two animals will live together and work for their mutual benefit for their entire lives, so, unless you're suggesting animals have religion, marriage is little more than a social institution.

However, this doesn't mean the government can tell the churches who to marry, it simply means civil marriage cannot be denied arbitrarily to any group on the basis of defunct 'morals'.

By the way, getting rid of civil marriage and replacing it with 'civil unions' is absurd, marriage was proporty of society long before there was anything like organized religion. You must also realize this means people like atheists cannot get married, then. You are once more arbitrarily denying something to a group based on defunct morals.

There is no valid arguement against allowing same-sex marriage, it is merely homophobia paired with group-think.

You misunderstand the issue here. The issue is that marriage is a state-sanctioned religious function - the state either needs to get out of it completely (ie, get rid of all the legal spousal benefits), or open it up to everyone.

Oh, my mistake. The thread title read "Same-Sex Marriages, what damage do they cause", so I thought I'd address that issue by saying same-sex marriages are disrespectful to religion. Must've missed the alternate thread title or topic question...my personal apologies.

Oh, my mistake. The thread title read "Same-Sex Marriages, what damage do they cause", so I thought I'd address that issue by saying same-sex marriages are disrespectful to religion. Must've missed the alternate thread title or topic question...my personal apologies.
It's not like I've read the whole thread either, heh. I just mean the issue at hand in contemporary American politics...

Besides, it's not like religion has a monoply on being disrespected. You want to go all out for disrespect, try being an athiest living in the middle of the bible belt.

Marriage is a religious function. How? It takes place under a church and the vows are recited by a church official. There is no question that marriage is a religious ceremony...it is, and anyone who denies it is blind.
Drinking wine is a religious function. How? It takes place under a church and the 'salute/blessing' is recited by a church official. There is no question that drinking wine is a religious ceremony, it is, and anyone who denies it is blind.

With that said, homosexuality goes against Christianity and most other major religions.
With that said truth is not a popularity contest, if only one person believed the truth regarding religious matters, the numbers of people who believed differently wouldnt make everyone else any less wrong or the person who believed correctly any less right. The fact homosexuality is not 'against all religions' and unless you can prove that those religions you intend to claim it is against and somehow more right, it matters not more that it's against some religions than it matters that it is not against others.

Marriage in America is primarily a Christian ritual.
Appeals to convention prove nothing, and the accuracy of your statement is (without further clarification from you) somewhat in doubt.

So why should the government make it legal for gays to be married in a Christian church when their beliefs go against those of the bible?
Either any two consenting adults can get married to each other and so government is neutral (ie not pandering to religion or baseless prejudice) on the matter, and it's up to individual churches to choose who they officiate for and allow the use of their facilities to, or the government is not neutral and instead panders to religious and otherwise baseless prejudice, and individual churches can only marry consenting adult couples composed of male and female constituents. You seem to be implying that legal recognition of a particular marraige form will somehow effect churches properties rights (ie their right to allow or not allow access to their facilities) and effect the right of certain religious officiators to 'not conduct services', can you explain why this would be so?

That's basically spitting on the Christian religion...if gays want to be together, let them be joined in a civil union.
Members of society getting on with their lives (including participating in a long standing social instititution), is not spitting on any religion.

But for gay marriages to be allowed in churches where homosexuality is considered a sin sounds stupid and disrespectful to me.
You realise that if the government recognises homosexual marraiges, the only way any homosexual marraige will occur in a church is if the lawful owners of the church permit the church to be so used, and the only way any church official will officiate for a homosexual marraige is if that official chooses to do so. So you are saying that churches must abide by your notion of sin regardless of their own religious beliefs, the same goes for church officials, and evidently you expect (despite the constitution) that the government will mandate this via legislation...does the phrase 'control freak' ring any bells...? :rolleyes:

I didn't see this before.


Marriage is a religious function. How? It takes place under a church and the vows are recited by a church official.

This, simply put, is completely untrue. There are civil marriages in which a couple is legally bound before a judge of the United States judiciary.

There is no question that marriage is a religious ceremony...it is, and anyone who denies it is blind.

Marriage at a church is a religious ceremony, marriage before a judge in a court is the signing of a legally binding contract.

With that said, homosexuality goes against Christianity and most other major religions.

That's debatable. I'm no theologist, but I've seen several argue that the part of Levicitus that condemns homosexuality (Well, in truth, it only condemns homosexual sex) was rejected by Jesus (Otherwise you wouldn't be allowed to eat pork or wear clothes with two types of thread) when he formed a 'New Covenant'.

Marriage in America is primarily a Christian ritual.

No, it is not. To claim it as so is quite ethnocentric and very selfish.

So why should the government make it legal for gays to be married in a Christian church when their beliefs go against those of the bible? That's basically spitting on the Christian religion...

The thing is, this isn't what anyone is arguing for. People are arguing in favor of a civil marriage in a court of law in front of a judge.

if gays want to be together, let them be joined in a civil union.

That is EXACTLY what we're arguing for, except for the fact that there is no such thing is a civil union, just civil marriages.

But for gay marriages to be allowed in churches where homosexuality is considered a sin sounds stupid and disrespectful to me.

Which is true, Churches are essentially private companies and the government cannot dictate policy to private companies outside things that show express physical or extreme psychological harm to the public.

Marriage is a religious function. How? It takes place under a church and the vows are recited by a church official. There is no question that marriage is a religious ceremony...it is, and anyone who denies it is blind.

my parents will be interested to hear that, given that they just celebrated their 29th aniversary...they were married in a totally secular ceremony, not in a church, with no religious officiation, and both of them believe God has no place in their union.


With that said, homosexuality goes against Christianity and most other major religions. Marriage in America is primarily a Christian ritual. So why should the government make it legal for gays to be married in a Christian church when their beliefs go against those of the bible?
the government isn't going to FORCE any churches to recognize gay marriage. that has never been the goal. just so you realize, though, there are already Christian churches that marry gays (i live next to one, as a matter of fact).


That's basically spitting on the Christian religion...if gays want to be together, let them be joined in a civil union. But for gay marriages to be allowed in churches where homosexuality is considered a sin sounds stupid and disrespectful to me.
no church will have to marry gays. since marriage in the United States is a secular institution, gay marriage and freedom of religion have nothing to do with one another.

Some claim that because marriage has always been between a man and a woman, it should stay that way.

That is only somewhat true. Many ancient societies, especially the ancient Greeks and Romans, believed that a relationship between two people of the same sex was more natural; that a man could only find his perfect soulmate in another man.

The idea of marriage is a religous institution. People may not like hearing this (and I mean no disrespect) but by narrowly defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman was a way for the early monotheistic religions to control and demonize ancient religions and ideologies; first by slowly perverting their meaning, than by claiming its "unholiness".

We live in a world of turmoil. The United States of America was created with the idea that all people were free. Though this may not actually ever be true (i.e. gay marriage, welfare, affirmative action, etc), the hope and idea of this perfect, equal society should be what we strive for. The dream may be an impossible one, might never come true, and sometimes the hope for that dream is all you'll ever have, but we should atleast try.

They dont cause any damage, except to a right-wing fundamentalists "Super-Christian" Ideals.

We live in a world of turmoil. The United States of America was created with the idea that all people were free. Though this may not actually ever be true (i.e. gay marriage, welfare, affirmative action, etc), the hope and idea of this perfect, equal society should be what we strive for. The dream may be an impossible one, might never come true, and sometimes the hope for that dream is all you'll ever have, but we should atleast try.

I like your attitude. When I'm in a good mood, I'm as idealist as you can get, and that is just the kind of stuff I like to hear.

Once again, it all comes down to martyr syndrom.

Many christians simply can't understand homosexuals NOT being forced to be married in churches, because they both want and expect to be acted against.

Nothing like opposition to make a cruel and false faith seem better...

And that's the problem. Government has, for a long time, been violating the establishment clause by licensing marriage.


How else could we allow atheists to marry?

Did you know that the title "Doctor" was established by the church and was a church granted title until the secular world took it over in the mid-1800s?

Many things began with the church. That doesn't mean it needs to stay there.

I've thought this over a bit, and it does seem wrong. for hundreds of years, marriage has been Man and woman, not man and man, or woman and woman. why change now? after so long, it, to me, is against society.

There were slaves for hundreds of years too. I guess we never should have gotten rid of that social ideal, either. After all, after so long, it was "against society" to free the slaves.

Dear Mr. Moonlight,

I would firstly like to apologize for my original post - not because anything contained therein was incorrect, but because I was emotionally tasked by the very nature of the issue, once again.

This is intended for you, but it is also intended for all those who overheard the exchange between us, and also for those who know and share your views.

Secondly, your quoting a dictionary did absolutely nothing to counter anything I said about the Latin homo, understanding that the context in which the word is used is still skewed and misinterpreted, and regardless of its popularity or common usage, it is still incorrect technical verbage and incorrect Latin.

"If you are correct that a majority of the nation does not want gay marriage then any plan to use it to gain votes would be ludicrous. Also, it was Bush who announced his position on gay marriage weekly, and the Republican party who used churches to mold "PROTECT MARRIAGE" into a rallying cry."

May I humbly subit to my friend that he (or she) is wrong about the political mentality (not necessarily of Republicans) of conservative activists who raise this "cry" - you see, it is in response to a very ugly challenge; if something is not done quickly, this nation will be lowered to yet another awful level. (I allude specifically to abortion.)

lmao, that's hilarious. can I just point out that god didn't write the bible in english though? it was written by 'prophets' and 'disciples' in old hebrew...

I *think* he was being sarcastic. :p

they make it seem OK that people have nasty sex that certain people find very immoral.

otherwise they protect the family and property rights of long term same sex couples that heterosexual couples take for granted.
But many straight people also have some "nasty" sexual appetites. Marriage doesn't stop that. Besides no one is demanding those who would be offended to take part.

1) Britney Spears get wed for exactly 24 hours.
2) Fox can produce 2 shows where people get hitched for ratings and possibly money (Who Wants to be a Golddigger? aka Who Wants to Marry a MultiMillionaire and Married by America)
3) Jennifer Lopez, Elizabeth Taylor and Larry King can go through more spouses like they were rolls of toilet paper.

But only loving homosexual couples can threaten the sanctity of marriage.

To quote John Stossell... "Give me a break."

:rolleyes:

Marriage is, in fact, a religious institution, and the government should have no say in it one way or the other. On the other hand, homosexuals are deserving of equal rights under the law. The best solution is for government to stop licensing marriage altogether. If it's absolutely necessary to have a legal equivalent of marriage, civil unions ought to be issued to all couples, straight and gay.

Marriage predates the religions that claim that made them. It has been changed many times over the past and I see no point in stopping it now.

It's a legal matter above anything else. Ceremonies in churches or anything, now those are legal matter and if the churches wish to deny homo-sexuals from having their marriage there, that is entirely fair. But otherwise homo-sexuals should have the right to be married.

Ofcourse here that is not a problem at all anymore so my standpoint is validated and I am contend.