NationStates Jolt Archive

I would like to hear logical, secular arguments about why gay marriage should be banned. Though on almost every issue I have seen reasons to agree with both sides, I haven't seen any good reasons to oppose gay marriage. Just a preview on what good arguments are:
-Any arguments about children will have to show that gay marriage somehow increases gay adoption
-If you just say it did something bad in some country you have to explain why it was gay marriage that caused those changes
-Any slippery slope arguments will have to explain why gay marriage will lead to that slope when things like interracial marriage won't

It's okay if you oppose it for religious reasons/ just not liking gays, so long as you realize that's your reason. I'm a bit of a homophobe myself.

Us homos arent allowed to express our love for each other becuase were a deviant, almost completely irregular lifeform, and as such cannot be treated or given similar human rights to socially acceptable humans because were "hand-over-childrens eyes-style-icky".

- Or at least, thats the best argument Ive heard.

Gay marriages make me cry myself to sleep every night.

Naah. ;)

You won't one because there isn't a logical secular reason to ban it.

You won't one because there isn't a logical secular reason to ban it.

Excuse me, I thought that reason i quoted in my last post was VERY VERY logical, actually - !!!

Excuse me, I thought that reason i quoted in my last post was VERY VERY logical, actually - !!!

Same here. ;)

Y'know, it was kind of stupid of me to start this when there's already a gay debate going. Even so, you'd think someone with real logical arguments would appear before me. I guess you people are right, there just aren't any good anti-gay marriage arguments. I sure hope I never have to debate this seriously.

As for the whole gays are deviants thing, I did hear somewhere that around 75% of gays are gay because of chemical imbalances, while only 25% of lesbians are. I think this is becuase, while in my opinion lesbians sound less stupid and are more fun to watch, gays make much more sense evolutionarily. Back when we were apes women could basically fuck their respective silverback whenever they wanted, but until men became silverbacks it was really hard to get laid. Thus, they were gay early on for the purpose of sexual practice. This sort of scenario plays itself out in chimps.

Shouldn't that catholic fanatic guy have been here by now? :mad: I'm bored and want something to laugh at.

gay marriage is wrong because its icky
gay marriage is wrong because in the past we have not let people of the same gender marry
gay marriage is wrong because jerry falwell says so
gay marriage is wrong because it gives straight men a funny feeling
gay marriage is wrong because only people who want and are capable of producing children together should be allowed to marry
gay marriage is wrong because god made adam and eve not adam and steve
gay marriage is wrong because if gay people can get married it makes my marriage cheaper.
gay marriage is wrong because.......THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

next topic?

Adam and Steve?

But seriously, if you want to think about it in a Christian way, didn't god not give Eve to Adam for a while? My guess is the reason he gave him Eve at all was because Adam wouldn't fuck him, and he wanted some amusement even if he couldn't get Adam.

By the way, good books for Christians:
-The Amber Spyglass
-Memnoch the Devil
-In the Name of Heaven
not sure about that last one, please tell me if I'm wrong.

While I do try to avoid extremes as it is the true cause of most of today's problems, I do think I understand why there is such violent opposition to gay marrage:

The married couples (hetero) could tend to beleve that if any set of people could get married that would weaken the meaning of traditional marrage. Not to compare the two, but imagine if the government let inter-family marrage?

Of course, this side of the argument cannot be defended without sounding like a scumball, so I'll close simply saying that I would be happy not seeing gay marrage come into existence, but I'm not going to care if it does.

Adam and Steve?

But seriously, if you want to think about it in a Christian way, didn't god not give Eve to Adam for a while? My guess is the reason he gave him Eve at all was because Adam wouldn't fuck him, and he wanted some amusement even if he couldn't get Adam.

OHMYGOD thats nasty!

lol

youve never heard that stupid adam and eve/adam and steve thing before?

people say it in an extremly smugly correct kind of tone.

Aah...the weakening marriage argument. I may be wrong about this, but marriage in today's culture seems to mean what happens after you find your true love. While it almost never happens like that, that seems to be the popular conception. In that case, why shouldn't we allow homosexuals to follow our culture instead of living outside of it. I would think those partaking in traditional marriages would be gratified that the lost homosexual souls are allowed to also partake in this ultimate institution of love. Doesn't the fact that true love sometimes can't ever end in marriage weaken the institution?

Oh by the way, why hasn't anyone caught on that I accused god of being gay? You should all be yelling at me.

The main arguments are icky! and tradition! but usually a combination of the two.

Just to refute the tradition argument, you know the only reason gays aren't traditionally allowed to marry is probably so that people like the pope wouldn't have to marry their altar boys.

Yet again, all a matter on an individual's society......if you society allows it or not. No questioning society, it pretty much governs much we do. =/

I'd have to say that the basis for a "tradition" of not allowing homosexuals to marry was more about the contractual basis of marriage to ensure that the concept of "women as property" was enshrined in law.

Another particularly cynical view is that the reason governments are opposed to changing the current discriminatory system is that they don't want to lose the extra tax revenue that they currently collect by treating same-sex partnerships as singles

Oh by the way, why hasn't anyone caught on that I accused god of being gay? You should all be yelling at me.

I've always been convinced of that myself, actually. Get thee behind me Satan? Love thy fellow man? I've never even touched a bible in my life and yet I know those quotes. XD But seriously, I'm pretty sure he's bi.

I've always been convinced of that myself, actually. Get thee behind me Satan? Love thy fellow man? I've never even touched a bible in my life and yet I know those quotes. XD But seriously, I'm pretty sure he's bi.

Everyone was bi back in biblical times. Practically all of the Greek gods nailed SOME guy at one point or another. :p

Everyone was bi back in biblical times. Practically all of the Greek gods nailed SOME guy at one point or another. :p

It's kinda because the PEOPLE were bi, most likely. XD Hey we do this, so our pantheon will do it too. Isn't that neat!?

Merry Christmas, Merry Yule, though that's a bit late, and I think everyone on the planet should simply find one person of each gender, and snuggle up to them. And thus, the whole world should snuggle up together and we'll all be better off for it.

I'd have to say that the basis for a "tradition" of not allowing homosexuals to marry was more about the contractual basis of marriage to ensure that the concept of "women as property" was enshrined in law.

well yeah
if 2 men get married who gets owned, if 2 women get married who is the owner?

plus it establishes the ownership of a woman's children and helps to insure that a man is paying for only the children he has chosen to father. (allowing him to crap out on any "bastard" children)

Y'know, it was kind of stupid of me to start this when there's already a gay debate going. Even so, you'd think someone with real logical arguments would appear before me. I guess you people are right, there just aren't any good anti-gay marriage arguments. I sure hope I never have to debate this seriously.

As for the whole gays are deviants thing, I did hear somewhere that around 75% of gays are gay because of chemical imbalances, while only 25% of lesbians are. I think this is becuase, while in my opinion lesbians sound less stupid and are more fun to watch, gays make much more sense evolutionarily. Back when we were apes women could basically fuck their respective silverback whenever they wanted, but until men became silverbacks it was really hard to get laid. Thus, they were gay early on for the purpose of sexual practice. This sort of scenario plays itself out in chimps.



Hmmm. Im not sure exactly what your sources are on that 75% chemical imbalance thing, but i cant help but think youre reffering to the Hypothamus-related work by Simon LeVay. (Even if youre not, im still going to briefly cover it!)

Oh yeah, im more or less copying and pasting from another site where i went on about this. I could only find this basic overview and not the full post, but here goes anyway:


In a nutshell, LeVays work is around the possibility of there being a genetic basis for homosexuality. He did a lot of extensive research on the hypothalamus and found out that homosexual men have hypothalamuses are smaller than heterosexual men's, and female's are smaller, also. Although its not rock-solid conclusive, its certainly one of the most debated works about homosexuality. (he says himself that its important not to take his work as proof that homosexuality is genetic, or anything like that).

Right, im going to post the link here for you guys to chew over for a bit: http://www.fact-index.com/g/ge/genetic_bas...osexuality.html Since all the research seems to have been done on various deceased hospital patients, theres no way of finding out if the hypothalamus in these patients are innate, or if they developed over time.

The politics of all this (and im taking this solely from that site here) is that if homosexuality was eventually proved to be genetic then acceptance would increase, and this sounds believable when a lot of anti-homosexuality people tend, more often than not, to say that its a choice.

Aah...the weakening marriage argument. I may be wrong about this, but marriage in today's culture seems to mean what happens after you find your true love. While it almost never happens like that, that seems to be the popular conception. In that case, why shouldn't we allow homosexuals to follow our culture instead of living outside of it. I would think those partaking in traditional marriages would be gratified that the lost homosexual souls are allowed to also partake in this ultimate institution of love. Doesn't the fact that true love sometimes can't ever end in marriage weaken the institution?

Oh by the way, why hasn't anyone caught on that I accused god of being gay? You should all be yelling at me.

Institutions are only strong because they are mutally exclusive.. marriage is the fondation for the faimly unit.. the family unit as we know it today will be dramatically altered if gay marriage becomes common place.. the family unit already suffers because people think so little of marriage that they can disolve it at the first sign of trouble.. Children already suffer greatly from the great divorse rate. Its not just about "true love" .. its about societies core being the family. If this isn't the reason why marriage is so important why then dont we allow poligamist marriages (or inter-marriage or underaged marriage etc.)? If it were just about love.. marriage would be far less exclusive

As for the whole gays are deviants thing, I did hear somewhere that around 75% of gays are gay because of chemical imbalances, while only 25% of lesbians are.

I resent that and your heteronormativity. "Imbalances" - please. :rolleyes:

gay marriage is wrong because only people who want and are capable of producing children together should be allowed to marry

So what about those heterosexual people who are unable to have children for a reason or another? Should they also not be able to marry? And the people who don't want to have any children? You point leads us to that that everyone who would want to get married should be tested if they can (and want/will) produce children and those who couldn't (or wouldn't), heterosexual or not, would be banned. You understand what I'm talking about? Insane.

And what about that point from the bible, that people should take the earth to their use and fill it with people? Isn't there already too much people in world, hasn't that been said many, many times? Don't we all know it?

And what is wrong with two people who love each other? Fuck the bible, fuck the christians, they're saying themselves that you should love each other and so says the bible, so what's wrong with them when two people really do lve each other? Try to make your minds, you idiots. Homo's won't do anything to you, they haven't been there to decide if you can marry each other or not, it's insane that heterosexual people can decide what the homosexual people can or cannot do. They're people too, not any different from you, you don't have any right to treat them differently.

And what about if you found out that your best friend, someone you know throughout, someone you know is a nice person, trustful and kind, would turn out to be homosexual? Would you just shout on his/her face that he/she is an abnormal freak that has no right to live? Or would you remeber that he/she has been homosexual all the time, all the time he/she has proven, that he/she is a nice, kind and trustful person and that there's nothing wrong with him/her?


..okay, yeah, I got token a little.. and English isn't my native language, sorry for the bad language.

I didn't really read all the stuff in the other thread, but I did read some of it, and for pro-creational reasons, I'm guessing. First of all, I don't have a degree is socialogy or anything like that, but just because some people aren't bring babies into the world, doesn't mean that heterosexual couples'll stop doing that, not that we necessarily need more babies to be brought into this world in the first place.
Mostly I think people just try to hide behind all sorts of things to disguise what honestly, in my opinion, is just bigotry; including things like religion and even science. Granted, I'm sort of biased because I'm a feminist, and so I jump to the opportunity to help anyone or group that I perceive as being oppressed. And that's what I think is going on with the homosexual population.
Sorry, I don't mean to offend. It's just a sensitive issue with me, as it is with a lot of people.

What's wrong is, it defys Gods laws and stuff like that, it says in the bible if you're gay ya' go to hell... it's as easdy as that
PWNED!?!?!

Aah...the weakening marriage argument. I may be wrong about this, but marriage in today's culture seems to mean what happens after you find your true love. While it almost never happens like that, that seems to be the popular conception. In that case, why shouldn't we allow homosexuals to follow our culture instead of living outside of it. I would think those partaking in traditional marriages would be gratified that the lost homosexual souls are allowed to also partake in this ultimate institution of love. Doesn't the fact that true love sometimes can't ever end in marriage weaken the institution?

What if your true love is your sister, or is under 12, or is your pet horse, or the character out of a novel, or is dead?

Homo's won't do anything to you, they haven't been there to decide if you can marry each other or not, it's insane that heterosexual people can decide what the homosexual people can or cannot do. They're people too, not any different from you, you don't have any right to treat them differently.


Necrophiliacs wont do anything to you, they haven't been there to decide if
you can have sex with your boy/girlfriend or not, it's insane that non-necrophiliacs can decide what the necrophiliacs can or cannot do. They're people too, not any different from you, you don't have any right to treat them differently.

Institutions are only strong because they are mutally exclusive.. marriage is the fondation for the faimly unit.. the family unit as we know it today will be dramatically altered if gay marriage becomes common place.. the family unit already suffers because people think so little of marriage that they can disolve it at the first sign of trouble.. Children already suffer greatly from the great divorse rate. Its not just about "true love" .. its about societies core being the family. If this isn't the reason why marriage is so important why then dont we allow poligamist marriages (or inter-marriage or underaged marriage etc.)? If it were just about love.. marriage would be far less exclusive
Main Entry: fam·i·ly
Pronunciation: 'fam-lE, 'fa-m&-
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -lies
1 : a group of individuals related by blood, marriage, or adoption
2 : a group of usually related individuals who live together under common household authority and esp. who have reciprocal duties to each other

gay couples are still families...

Lots of weak arguments here. I wouldn't bother with the nampy-pamby rights stuff because it's too easy to substitute something else that's currently thought immoral by the vast majority of people and the argument fails to work. In which case i would conclude that the argument wasn't self-contained

I think a more robust way to argue for gay marriage is based on the legal side. Such couples can end up building a home together with all the complications this entails should the relationship end. With true marriage (a legal union) they have a nice set of laws to fall back on to ensure a more or less fair deal in these circumstances, which seems fair.

Most of the other immoral things i've come up with for the other arguments don't apply here -- you don't jointly build a home with children, pets, dead bodies, etc.

You could with your sister tho', so hey...

Necrophiliacs wont do anything to you, they haven't been there to decide if
you can have sex with your boy/girlfriend or not, it's insane that non-necrophiliacs can decide what the necrophiliacs can or cannot do. They're people too, not any different from you, you don't have any right to treat them differently.
there's a huge difference between fucking a non-consenting corpse and fucking a consenting, living human being. hell, maybe there should be a kind of organ donor program where people can donate their bodies for the sexual pleasure of necropheliacs after they die.

not that necrophilia is even a sexual orientation, like homosexuality is. necrophilia often stems from fear of beign judged... someone can't judge you if they're dead.

What if your true love is your sister, or is under 12, or is your pet horse, or the character out of a novel, or is dead?
your sister? well, you shouldn't have kids with her, what with the increase in mutations and all.
under 12? wait until they're emotionally mature enough to consent to a lifelong commitment or hell, even to sex.
character in a novel? didn't exist in the first place. by all means, meet someone and encourage roleplaying...
dead? well, if they consented to allowing you to fuck their dead body, then sure, go for it.

gay marriage is wrong because its icky
gay marriage is wrong because in the past we have not let people of the same gender marry
gay marriage is wrong because jerry falwell says so
gay marriage is wrong because it gives straight men a funny feeling
gay marriage is wrong because only people who want and are capable of producing children together should be allowed to marry
gay marriage is wrong because god made adam and eve not adam and steve
gay marriage is wrong because if gay people can get married it makes my marriage cheaper.
gay marriage is wrong because.......THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

next topic?

You know, if you think about from the point of view of something not human...sex is pretty icky anyway. Assuming you meant it that way of course. But really, whoever's getting it on, when you get right down to it, it's kind of a gross process.

there's a huge difference between fucking a non-consenting corpse and fucking a consenting, living human being.

Thank you! You took the words right from my mouth... and I'm afraid that's petit larceny. You shall be fined in the amount of six cookies. :D

AND....what about straight couples that can't have kids for medical reasons? Should they not be allowed to marry?

there's a huge difference between fucking a non-consenting corpse and fucking a consenting, living human being. hell, maybe there should be a kind of organ donor program where people can donate their bodies for the sexual pleasure of necropheliacs after they die.

not that necrophilia is even a sexual orientation, like homosexuality is. necrophilia often stems from fear of beign judged... someone can't judge you if they're dead.


yeah..necrophilia is like dendrophilia, pedophilia, and all those other odd -philias out there --- it's kind of unfair when you really look at it

You won't one because there isn't a logical secular reason to ban it.

I am not against gay marriage BUT a logical, secular arguement could be that if gay marriage is allowed, what stops NAMBLA from pushing for an abolishment of the age restriction. Then we'll have 40 year olds "marrying" 10 year olds. I believe in personal freedoms, but some things are just too far. Man & Man or Woman & Woman, fine. Boy & Boy or Girl & Girl, fine. Man & Boy or Woman & Girl, no.

yeah..necrophilia is like dendrophilia, pedophilia, and all those other odd -philias out there --- it's kind of unfair when you really look at it
what's dendrophilia?

I am not against gay marriage BUT a logical, secular arguement could be that if gay marriage is allowed, what stops NAMBLA from pushing for an abolishment of the age restriction. Then we'll have 40 year olds "marrying" 10 year olds. I believe in personal freedoms, but some things are just too far. Man & Man or Woman & Woman, fine. Boy & Boy or Girl & Girl, fine. Man & Boy or Woman & Girl, no.
what stops them? that children aren't physically or emotionally mature enough for such commitments or physical contact? even the ones who claim that they're ready generally aren't.

Thank you! You took the words right from my mouth... and I'm afraid that's petit larceny. You shall be fined in the amount of six cookies. :D
are oatmeal chocolate chip and rasin cookies good?

I am not against gay marriage BUT a logical, secular arguement could be that if gay marriage is allowed, what stops NAMBLA from pushing for an abolishment of the age restriction.

Age and consent. Simple as that. Children are not legal persons in the same way as adults and cannot consent. That discussion has no bearing on gay marriages.

What's wrong is, it defys Gods laws and stuff like that, it says in the bible if you're gay ya' go to hell... it's as easdy as that


Ah hang on a second. I bet youre wearing mixed fabric clothes. Oh, and while im at it, youre judging homosexuals, something which your Biblical saviour Jesus Christ said was a sin. So obviously, youre going to hell for judging your fellow man.

OWNED!

There's no substantial reason to ban gays from getting joined in a union. For political purposes, I'll call it "joined", rather than "married", so that the radical right can't say its 'defying' their tradition. Banning gay civil unions is complete discrimination, almost along the same lines as when back in the 60's, African Americans were not allowed in certain places, just because of their skin color. People cannot choose their sexuality, just like how people cannot choose their skin color, or gender, or any kind of biological variable. Although America coins itself "land of the free", it is really a huge misnomer given the circumstances.

Stopping short of saying gay marriage is wrong in general, I'd like to say why it's wrong for the United States, where I'm a citizen. Other countries, of which I'm not a part, can take whatever stance they'd like; it's none of my business. In the U.S., the majority of the citizens still profess a Christian belief system, which is a religion that does not approve of homosexuality. In Deuteronomy, the Bible in a long set of rules says basically for men to not have sexual relations with other men, family, or animals. It is pretty straight forward. Furthermore, the Christian leaders such as the Pope who Christian Americans look to for leadership oppose homosexuality. While the minority is to receive rights in America, that does not mean the majority should be stripped of theirs. Until the majority changes their opinion, their will and preference should be honored. For anyone who thinks the majority in the U.S. is for homosexuality, ask yourself why a Presidential candidate is yet to prance around on television promoting the practice whole heartedly. The fact is, if a candidate did that, he'd be destoryed in the polls. I likely won't pay attention in this thread again, so if you address me for a reply, you likely won't get one. However, I wanted to just throw this opinion out for y'all to discuss. Thanks.

what stops them? that children aren't physically or emotionally mature enough for such commitments or physical contact? even the ones who claim that they're ready generally aren't.
Children can be easily influenced, brainwashed if you will.

Age and consent. Simple as that. Children are not legal persons in the same way as adults and cannot consent. That discussion has no bearing on gay marriages.
Gays are not allowed to married, so they cannot consent to marriage. In some states were sodomy is allowed, even if they consent, the law says no. So I'd say children not being able to consent to marriage is just the same as gays not being able to consent to marriage.

Gays are not allowed to married, so they cannot consent to marriage. In some states were sodomy is allowed, even if they consent, the law says no. So I'd say children not being able to consent to marriage is just the same as gays not being able to consent to marriage.

The ability to consent is still there.

BAM!

Gays are not allowed to married, so they cannot consent to marriage. In some states were sodomy is allowed, even if they consent, the law says no. So I'd say children not being able to consent to marriage is just the same as gays not being able to consent to marriage.

If you're completely blind and ignorant to the reasons behind it, then, yes, it would be the same thing, not to mention that you forget the ability to consent, which children don't have at all. :rolleyes:

So I'd say children not being able to consent to marriage is just the same as gays not being able to consent to marriage.

Vacuous ignoramus. Do you fail to grasp the simple premise that is the basic rights of people being stripped away? Gay people SHOULD be entitled to the basic adult human rights. This makes the comparison with children flawed because a. children cannot get married on thier own consent, and b. children have child's rights.

Once you see the difference between how children cannot get married, and homosexuals cannot get married, you can post again.

As for Gabriella, shes made it very clear she came here only to spout, and not to defend her beliefs, so the fun in ripping her apart is redundant.

Children can be easily influenced, brainwashed if you will.

so where do gays come from if straight people brainwash their kids into being straight?

so where do gays come from if straight people brainwash their kids into being straight?

Tell me you have no idea what youre going on about. Admit it now, I know you clearly dont.

I am not against gay marriage BUT a logical, secular arguement could be that if gay marriage is allowed, what stops NAMBLA from pushing for an abolishment of the age restriction.

What's stopping them now?

"Shall we push for an abolishment of age restrictions?"
"No, we have to wait until same-sex marriages are made legal."
:rolleyes:

Pah, stupid question. Whether it is banned or not concerns the law. The law concerns what is right and what is wrong. Things that concern right and wrong are matters of morals. Any sense of morals is a completely subjective, made-up thing. So it's not logical, and it can't be logical.

What's wrong is, it defys Gods laws and stuff like that, it says in the bible if you're gay ya' go to hell... it's as easdy as that


And what about the people who aren't christians and don't believe in god? And in bible they mostly mean the boy whores in the temples when they talk about gays and how it's wrong. Jesus didn't say anything about gays, Jesus told people to love each other. And bible is a fucking 2000 year old book ! Divorces are legal, too, though bible (if I remember correctly) doesn't approve them.

plus it establishes the ownership of a woman's children and helps to insure that a man is paying for only the children he has chosen to father. (allowing him to crap out on any "bastard" children)

it lets men believe that their children are theirs.....

The ability to consent is still there.

BAM!
The "ability to consent" is arbitrary. People just say 18 is old enough, or 16, depending on the matter and the state. There's no reason why kids can't marry, other than an arbitrary withholding of their "right" to marry.

And what about the people who aren't christians and don't believe in god? And in bible they mostly mean the boy whores in the temples when they talk about gays and how it's wrong. Jesus didn't say anything about gays, Jesus told people to love each other. And bible is a fucking 2000 year old book ! Divorces are legal, too, though bible (if I remember correctly) doesn't approve them.

Jesus said that no sin is greater then another, and we all sin, will sin, and have sinned, so we all fall short of the glory of G-d. But through him in faith we will be saved, regardless of sin. So, yes, Jesus said to love and forget, because we are all wrong.

And that part about Divorce being against the bible, its true in the old testament, except for cases of Adultry, but in the new Testament, it kinda says the laws aren't the same anymore, and also says that anyone that visions a woman not his in a sexual way has committed adultry. So in a way it says that divorce is okay, as long as its with reason.

Jesus said that no sin is greater then another, and we all sin, will sin, and have sinned, so we all fall short of the glory of G-d. But through him in faith we will be saved, regardless of sin. So, yes, Jesus said to love and forget, because we are all wrong.

And that part about Divorce being against the bible, its true in the old testament, except for cases of Adultry, but in the new Testament, it kinda says the laws aren't the same anymore, and also says that anyone that visions a woman not his in a sexual way has committed adultry. So in a way it says that divorce is okay, as long as its with reason.
I believe Jesus said it's okay only if you're getting cheated on, but even then you're not allowed to remarry.

I believe Jesus said it's okay only if you're getting cheated on, but even then you're not allowed to remarry.

Jesus said that when you become born again you die. And when you die, the contract of the Laws no long is upon you. So, if you are dead to the world and the laws are for the mortal world. No longer are you bound by the old laws. Only the new Laws of, There is only one G-d and you are to worship him, and do onto others as you would have others do upon you.

Jesus said that when you become born again you die. And when you die, the contract of the Laws no long is upon you. So, if you are dead to the world and the laws are for the mortal world. No longer are you bound by the old laws. Only the new Laws of, There is only one G-d and you are to worship him, and do onto others as you would have others do upon you.
Yes, but there's the part where the Rabbi's ask him what happens if a man marries, divorces, and remarries, is he married to one, the other, or both in Heaven? And Jesus was like that shouldn't be happening, but...

so where do gays come from if straight people brainwash their kids into being straight?

"If it wasn't for my horse, I would have never gone to college." To paraphrase Lewis Black, the American Medical Association does not know what causes aneurysms. Statements like this causes aneurysms. Do not think about what Festivals said for more than 3 minutes or blood will spurt out your nose and you will be recently departed.

While I did mention brainwashing, it had nothing to do with telling their kids to be straight. I support gay marriage.

Vacuous ignoramus. Do you fail to grasp the simple premise that is the basic rights of people being stripped away?

**Colossal Sigh**
I am not against gay marriage BUT...
Now kindly shut up. I support gay marriage but I was attempting to try and make a reasonable argument for the other side. It was flawed, but I figured I'd give it the ol' college try.

The ability to consent is still there.

BAM!
True, but try thinking of it from a philosophical sense. Ever hear the question, "If a tree in the forest falls, does it make a sound?" How about this (poorly) modified version; "If you are not allowed to do the act you can consent to, can you really consent at all?" You make a valid point, but I think my point is good too.

What's stopping them now?

"Shall we push for an abolishment of age restrictions?"
"No, we have to wait until same-sex marriages are made legal."
:rolleyes:

NAMBLA has made attempts at this before, in California.

"True, but try thinking of it from a philosophical sense. Ever hear the question, "If a tree in the forest falls, does it make a sound?" How about this (poorly) modified version; "If you are not allowed to do the act you can consent to, can you really consent at all?" You make a valid point, but I think my point is good too.

First of all, obviosuly the tree makes a sound, because there are little cute furry woodland creatures to hear it. It's sheer arrogence to think that only human beings can decide what makes sounds and what doesn't :p

Secondly, one can consent if one has reason and logic. Various philosophers have argued over when a human being is old enough to have these skills-numbers between conception and middle age-but the definition for said age as it lies in the US is 18.

As for beastiality and such, once again, philisophically, do non-human animals have the reason and logic required to consent?

Right. A few things on this argument:

- If you examine the bible carefully there is no mention of ceremony where it refers to marriage in the old testament. The only mention we get is when Jesus attends a wedding in Canna (which I can't spell). Common law marriage is likely to be marriage in God's eyes, the pomp, circumstance and tax relief are human dogma.
- Marriage is the wrong word in my opinion. In the UK the the Civil Partnership Act is being tossed about for consideration. Which basically allows ceremony and entitle's gay couples to the same rights as heterosexual couples (such as inheritance, hospital and tax rights). I think dressing it up as marriage which is a religious insitution isn't the greatest idea in the world. It's about couple's rights not about religious beliefs.

Something that really confuses me with the USA is that they harp on about the seperation of church and state yet allow Christian beliefs to change their laws. They can't be that seperate then!

First of all, obviosuly the tree makes a sound, because there are little cute furry woodland creatures to hear it. It's sheer arrogence to think that only human beings can decide what makes sounds and what doesn't :p

What if we move to tree to an area with no animals? What if we set the tree to fall when we're gone and there aren't any little cute, furry woodland creatures to hear it?

What if we move to tree to an area with no animals? What if we set the tree to fall when we're gone and there aren't any little cute, furry woodland creatures to hear it?

Ah, but we still have knowledge of said tree, and the knowledge that it would fall.

In asking the question itself, it makes the tree make a sound-because even in it's most abstract form, sound comes into play when thought on. And so, in thinking about the tree, and in thinking about it falling, one creates the sound. In the most abstract sense, of course.

And if you ask "well, what if nobody thought of the tree or of it falling?" Then the question is none-existant and, thus, moot. Or, to go even farther, if nobody acknowledges the tree, then does it must not exist. ;)

Interesting thing about Gay marriage...Gay men seem to have a hard time keeping in with the bounds of marriage. A British health magazine proclaimed an averaged of 8 outside, "relationships," per Gay man in a, "Commitment." Which also raises an interesting health issue: As Homosexuals tend to, "get involved," with a lot of people, there is a high STD count in the Homosexual community.

More food for thought: I cannot recall if it is San Francisco or that other place in America (It's name of the state escapes me...it's midnight and I'm tired) where Gay Marriage was legalized...the first divorces are already comming in.

Wow...so soon?

As for adopting children...personally, I feel that such is doing a great dis-service to the children. Studies show that both dads and moms nurture in different ways, and that both form the best combination.

Side note: Ever notice how many Gays say, "Which is better...A loving Homosexual family, or a dsyfunctional heterosexual family?" Why do they compair the best of one world to the worst of another? I demand a fair test of the best and worst of both worlds.

Can two Gay fathers raise a girl to be Woman? How will the help her with her period and whatnot?

How about two Lesbians raise a boy to be a man?

How can a Gay father teach his son who to care for a woman?

Or a Lesbian mother tell a girl what to look for, and how to care for, a man?

Some say that there is no real difference...but how long have these studies gone on for? Other studies show that some problems (In general, maybe not Homosexual parenting specifically) occur later in life. Find me a child raised by Homosexuals, and analysis him or her through life. How do we know Homosexual paranting doesn't have some bad, "side-effects," down the road? It's too new of a phenomenon to say 100% for either side.

One potential side effect, however, is an increase in the number of Homosexual in the population. Although Homosexuality has never been proven natural, some suggest it might be something, "implanted," in the human psyche...by past experiances or whatnot. As such, Homosexual parenting = Failure to teach one's (same gender) offspring how to live with and care for the opposite sex =Turn, instead, to a person of the same gender = Increase in Homosexual population.

Gee, I've *never* seen those arguments before. :rolleyes:

Gee, I've *never* seen those arguments before. :rolleyes:
Then you should be able to counter them...oh, wait...but you haven't...

*Waits for this to sink in.*

Then you should be able to counter them...oh, wait...but you haven't...

*Waits for this to sink in.*
oh wait I'll have a crack at it

What if your true love is your sister, or is under 12, or is your pet horse, or the character out of a novel, or is dead?


None of those (besides perhaps your sister, but I'm not impaling myself on that one) can give informed conscent, ergo they do not equate to relationships between conscenting adults.

Interesting thing about Gay marriage...Gay men seem to have a hard time keeping in with the bounds of marriage. A British health magazine proclaimed an averaged of 8 outside, "relationships," per Gay man in a, "Commitment." Which also raises an interesting health issue: As Homosexuals tend to, "get involved," with a lot of people, there is a high STD count in the Homosexual community..


A british health magazine? Firstly, who cares. Sociologically speaking does this surprise you? It shoudln't. Are you sure it's a credible study?

More food for thought: I cannot recall if it is San Francisco or that other place in America (It's name of the state escapes me...it's midnight and I'm tired) where Gay Marriage was legalized...the first divorces are already comming in..


Again, who cares. With the amount of marriage/divorce mills and the turnover rate of many hetero relationships, taking the moral high ground here won't serve you well.



As for adopting children...personally, I feel that such is doing a great dis-service to the children. Studies show that both dads and moms nurture in different ways, and that both form the best combination..


Studies have shown it makes no difference whether one parent nurtures differently than the other.

Side note: Ever notice how many Gays say, "Which is better...A loving Homosexual family, or a dsyfunctional heterosexual family?" Why do they compair the best of one world to the worst of another? I demand a fair test of the best and worst of both worlds..


I've never heard this, ever. Why do you compare the parenting skills of couples by the fact their genitals don't match as being superior parents?



Can two Gay fathers raise a girl to be Woman? How will the help her with her period and whatnot? .


Yes.

How about two Lesbians raise a boy to be a man?.


Yes.

How can a Gay father teach his son who to care for a woman?.


I didn't realize any father taught his son this? LOL

Or a Lesbian mother tell a girl what to look for, and how to care for, a man?.


Again. LOL *wipes tear from eye*


Some say that there is no real difference...but how long have these studies gone on for? Other studies show that some problems (In general, maybe not Homosexual parenting specifically) occur later in life. Find me a child raised by Homosexuals, and analysis him or her through life. How do we know Homosexual paranting doesn't have some bad, "side-effects," down the road? It's too new of a phenomenon to say 100% for either side..



Here's something for you. The vast majority of homosexuals were raised in heterosexual environments.

One potential side effect, however, is an increase in the number of Homosexual in the population. Although Homosexuality has never been proven natural, some suggest it might be something, "implanted," in the human psyche...by past experiances or whatnot. As such, Homosexual parenting = Failure to teach one's (same gender) offspring how to live with and care for the opposite sex =Turn, instead, to a person of the same gender = Increase in Homosexual population.

Homosexuality has been proven natural a very long time ago. The question is whether it it religiously moral/natural. The conclusion you make is derived on the other brainfarts listed above so...LOL.

Stopping short of saying gay marriage is wrong in general, I'd like to say why it's wrong for the United States, where I'm a citizen. Other countries, of which I'm not a part, can take whatever stance they'd like; it's none of my business. In the U.S., the majority of the citizens still profess a Christian belief system, which is a religion that does not approve of homosexuality. In Deuteronomy, the Bible in a long set of rules says basically for men to not have sexual relations with other men, family, or animals. It is pretty straight forward. Furthermore, the Christian leaders such as the Pope who Christian Americans look to for leadership oppose homosexuality. While the minority is to receive rights in America, that does not mean the majority should be stripped of theirs. Until the majority changes their opinion, their will and preference should be honored. For anyone who thinks the majority in the U.S. is for homosexuality, ask yourself why a Presidential candidate is yet to prance around on television promoting the practice whole heartedly. The fact is, if a candidate did that, he'd be destoryed in the polls. I likely won't pay attention in this thread again, so if you address me for a reply, you likely won't get one. However, I wanted to just throw this opinion out for y'all to discuss. Thanks.
You speak as if gay marriage would be mandatory!

Interesting thing about Gay marriage...Gay men seem to have a hard time keeping in with the bounds of marriage. A British health magazine proclaimed an averaged of 8 outside, "relationships," per Gay man in a, "Commitment." Which also raises an interesting health issue: As Homosexuals tend to, "get involved," with a lot of people, there is a high STD count in the Homosexual community.

More food for thought: I cannot recall if it is San Francisco or that other place in America (It's name of the state escapes me...it's midnight and I'm tired) where Gay Marriage was legalized...the first divorces are already comming in.
The myth that gay people are more promiscuous is just that... a media myth.

Remember that many straight people have ridiculously short marriages too. And the few homosexuals that are divorcing are a tiny percentage of the overall total.

PS, it's Massachusetts.

OKay i used to be one of those people that was like god made adam and eve not adam adn steve but you know something these people have made their own decisions and have to live with it. I do not support marriage between the two but the whole civil union is good where they can benefit each other. As a matter of fact i used to date a man that used me so people wouldn't thing he was gay. Okay these people are being beat lets show some respect they are the ones that made the decision so lets make the decision not to be violent ot them.

Seems to me that there is a whole lot of hate in this world. And on this site.
I say that LOVE is good. Who cares if it's a man and a woman... or man and man? There is nothing wrong with two people loving each other... and why is it my business or YOURS to tell two people that they can't be together just because you think it's "ICKY"????

PS, it's Massachusetts.
DAMN RIGHT! :p

Seems to me that there is a whole lot of hate in this world. And on this site.
I say that LOVE is good. Who cares if it's a man and a woman... or man and man? There is nothing wrong with two people loving each other... and why is it my business or YOURS to tell two people that they can't be together just because you think it's "ICKY"????
I think gefilte fish is blechy. I know many people who do, too. Let's outlaw gefilte fish!

what's dendrophilia?


supposedly, dendrophilia is the desire to have sex with a tree. (I don't care to know the precise mechanics of that)

What possible reason can they have, other than rorting the welfare system? I stand corrected your honor.

Out of all your responses, the following four are most interesting.

Again, who cares. With the amount of marriage/divorce mills and the turnover rate of many hetero relationships, taking the moral high ground here won't serve you well.

Studies have shown it makes no difference whether one parent nurtures differently than the other.

I've never heard this, ever. Why do you compare the parenting skills of couples by the fact their genitals don't match as being superior parents?

Homosexuality has been proven natural a very long time ago. The question is whether it it religiously moral/natural. The conclusion you make is derived on the other brainfarts listed above so...LOL.
1.) As most first heterosexual marriages last 10 years and Homosexual marriage lasts, say, 18 months....

2.) Yes, I know about these studies. I have some questions for you. (1) see your response to the British magazine. (2) How long have these tests gone on for. Considering some reactions to problems occur down the road, give me a complete study of the Child's life.

3.) You misinturpret. I said, "Take a good Heterosexual family environment, and a good homosexual family environment, and test them both."

4.) Really? It has? You think they'd have told us by now, if such was the case. Homosexuality is such a big issue, you'd think I scientist would run right now, up with the documents. Natural? I demand proof.

Oh, and you Pro-Homosexual members, congratulations on your victory in Canada. Yes, and...ohhh...is'nt it cute! Now that Homosexual marriage is out of the way, it's little brother NAMBLA (http://216.220.97.17/) gets to get in the spotlight. Oh, and isn't that just precious...they're using the same argument the Homosexual were using.

Makes ya want to throw up.

Out of all your responses, the following four are most interesting.


4.) Really? It has? You think they'd have told us by now, if such was the case. Homosexuality is such a big issue, you'd think I scientist would run right now, up with the documents. Natural? I demand proof.



Makes ya want to throw up.
ok one more time just for you

r-l, nchrl)
adj.

1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.
4.
1. Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people.
2. Having a particular character by nature: a natural leader.
3. Biology. Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex.
5. Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions. See Synonyms at naive.
6. Not altered, treated, or disguised: natural coloring; natural produce.
7. Faithfully representing nature or life.
8. Expected and accepted: “In Willie's mind marriage remained the natural and logical sequence to love” (Duff Cooper).
9. Established by moral certainty or conviction: natural rights.
10. Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate.
11.
1. Related by blood: the natural parents of the child.
2. Born of unwed parents: a natural child.
12. Mathematics. Of or relating to positive integers, sometimes including zero.
13. Music.
1. Not sharped or flatted.
2. Having no sharps or flats.


n.

1.
1. One having all the qualifications necessary for success: You are a natural for this job.
2. One suited by nature for a certain purpose or function: She is a natural at mathematics.
2. Music.
1. The sign () placed before a note to cancel a preceding sharp or flat.
2. A note so affected.
3. A yellowish gray to pale orange yellow.
4. Games. A combination in certain card and dice games that wins immediately.
5. An Afro hairstyle.


It exists in nature (humans and otherwise) therefore it is natural

understand?

I just realized I'd forgotten some.
A british health magazine? Firstly, who cares.
People with morals and those who know that multiple partners is a big factor in STDS.

Yes.

Yes.
I'm sorry, I should have said, "successfully and correctly."

I didn't realize any father taught his son this? LOL

Again. LOL *wipes tear from eye*
Excuse me? Kindly stop acting perverted. I wasn't talking about intercourse. These are other kinds of love in the world that I speak of...but you obviously know nothing of them.

Here's something for you. The vast majority of homosexuals were raised in heterosexual environments.
I knew that. Certain experiances can alter ones psyche. Be it a divorce, constant fighting, attacking, etc.

More food for thought: 10% of the population of the planet is Homosexual. Within this, there exists a male to female ratio of 9:1. Considering nature attempts to create a balance, you'd think it'd be 5:5, 6:4, etc. Also, upon interviewing, most Lesbians admit to selecting their lifestyle. There hava also been Homosexual individuals who have cast off that life, and become Heterosexual...but the rest of the Homosexual community tries to muffle them, lest their plans be foiled.

Excuse me? Kindly stop acting perverted. I wasn't talking about intercourse. These are other kinds of love in the world that I speak of...but you obviously know nothing of them.


Yeah obviously :rolleyes: :p
:fluffle:

ok one more time just for you


It exists in nature (humans and otherwise) therefore it is natural

understand?
Alright...give me scientific evidence it is produced by nature.

marrige is more of a legal ceramony than a religious one
and theres supposed to be a seperation of church and state.

Alright...give me scientific evidence it is produced by nature.
Existance in animals ... or would you like me to find the like 10 page long list of animals that habitualy partake in homosexual actions.

Also I really dont have to ... all it has to do is EXIST in nature ... not be CAUSED by it

As most first heterosexual marriages last 10 years and Homosexual marriage lasts, say, 18 months....

Don't pull statements out of nowhere. I want to see statsistics backing that up. As I recall (and I realize that I very well COULD be incorrect; feel free to correct me if I am), it's a small percentage of gay marriages that are being divorced.

Oh, and you Pro-Homosexual members, congratulations on your victory in Canada. Yes, and...ohhh...is'nt it cute! Now that Homosexual marriage is out of the way, it's little brother NAMBLA gets to get in the spotlight. Oh, and isn't that just precious...they're using the same argument the Homosexual were using.

Wow... just... wow. Words fail me. No gay person I know supports NAMBLA at all. At all. You make ME want to throw up.

How can a Gay father teach his son who to care for a woman?.I didn't realize any father taught his son this? LOLExcuse me? Kindly stop acting perverted. I wasn't talking about intercourse. These are other kinds of love in the world that I speak of...but you obviously know nothing of them.

I didn't see this as a perverted statement at all. Sir, are you living in the real world? Have you seen the current batch of teenagers (which I regret to say I am a part of)? Our parents aren't tellin' us much about much at all.

More food for thought: 10% of the population of the planet is Homosexual. Within this, there exists a male to female ratio of 9:1. Considering nature attempts to create a balance, you'd think it'd be 5:5, 6:4, etc. Also, upon interviewing, most Lesbians admit to selecting their lifestyle. There hava also been Homosexual individuals who have cast off that life, and become Heterosexual...but the rest of the Homosexual community tries to muffle them, lest their plans be foiled.

Statistics again. From a credible source. In the meantime, I'll go find ones that prove that (the selecting lifestyles) wrong. If I can, that is. I HIGHLY doubt that's true.

Oh, and you Pro-Homosexual members, congratulations on your victory in Canada. Yes, and...ohhh...is'nt it cute! Now that Homosexual marriage is out of the way, it's little brother NAMBLA (http://216.220.97.17/) gets to get in the spotlight. Oh, and isn't that just precious...they're using the same argument the Homosexual were using.

Makes ya want to throw up.


I am so sick and tired of this stupid slippery slope fallacy. Homosexual marriage is between two consenting adults. Note the words CONSENTING and ADULTS. NAMBLA can say whatever they want, but their arguements are meaningless because CHILDREN are not developed enough to be able to give TRUE CONSENT.

Gay marriage does NOT equal pedophilia, it does NOT equal beastiality, it does NOT equal polygamy, it does NOT equal incest.

It DOES equal two loving adults choosing to spend their lives together. That sounds so harmful doesn't it.

Alright...give me scientific evidence it is produced by nature.

How about the fact that its been observed in pretty much every mammalian species we've studied?

How about the fact that its been observed in pretty much every mammalian species we've studied?
lol and like I said even so (and I think it is convincing) the test for being natural in this case is if it EXSISTS not CAUSED so as long as there is one single animal that is homosexual it is natural (unles he wishes to argue that animals dont exist in nature ...)

I just realized I'd forgotten some.

People with morals and those who know that multiple partners is a big factor in STDS.



I think he was saying who cares what a British health magazine says. They are hardly an academically authoritative source.


More food for thought: 10% of the population of the planet is Homosexual. Within this, there exists a male to female ratio of 9:1. Considering nature attempts to create a balance, you'd think it'd be 5:5, 6:4, etc. Also, upon interviewing, most Lesbians admit to selecting their lifestyle. There hava also been Homosexual individuals who have cast off that life, and become Heterosexual...but the rest of the Homosexual community tries to muffle them, lest their plans be foiled.

Since you seem to be so sure of these numbers, could you kindly provide us with their source so that we could check them out for ourselves? Otherwise, we are going to have to assume that you have made them up--like the majority of statistics that get posted on these boards.

lol and like I said even so (and I think it is convincing) the test for being natural in this case is if it EXSISTS not CAUSED so as long as there is one single animal that is homosexual it is natural (unles he wishes to argue that animals dont exist in nature ...)


Oh, I wouldn't be surprised to get the arugement that humans aren't really animals and we are above "nature" so it doesn't matter what those lower creatures do. It certainly wouldn't be the first time I've heard such dribble.

And on a semi-tangent. . .don't you just love how the people who usually fight so hard against evolution are often the ones who try to use it to prove that gays are against nature? Not that that has been done here (that I've noticed). Still, I've even seen people arguing against evolution on one forum try to quote it on another--proving, in the process, that they have NO clue what its all about.

What if your true love is your sister, or is under 12, or is your pet horse, or the character out of a novel, or is dead?


Laws for the good of the gene pool in most places prohibit the first...its a matter of preventing genetic weakness. Under 12 year olds are not legally able to enter into a binding contract, thus cannot marry. Your horse is property under the law, not a person under the law. The same goes for a character out of a novel. Dead people by being dead cannot give consent to such a thing and thus you cannot marry them.


Those arguments are fallacious.

Oh, I wouldn't be surprised to get the arugement that humans aren't really animals and we are above "nature" so it doesn't matter what those lower creatures do. It certainly wouldn't be the first time I've heard such dribble.
Yeah then we end up pulling out the deffinition of nature ... and so on so forth words and evidence are on our side ... might as well have fun with it if he/she insists on going throug the motions again

What's wrong with two people loving each other? My (heterosexual)neighbours love eachother, and even produced a baby!! That's makes me very icky! But who am I to judge? So gay people do things I don't like? So what?
It's a bit strange that if someone doesn't like the idea of gay relationships, it should be banned all the way! I don't like fat people....
You are responsible for your own life, not for the life of some one else.
Live and let live!
Make tea, not war!
Peace man!

Laws for the good of the gene pool in most places prohibit the first...its a matter of preventing genetic weakness. Under 12 year olds are not legally able to enter into a binding contract, thus cannot marry. Your horse is property under the law, not a person under the law. The same goes for a character out of a novel. Dead people by being dead cannot give consent to such a thing and thus you cannot marry them.


Those arguments are fallacious.

Ugh.

As much as I HATE to raise this one... women were regarded as property under the law as recently as a couple hundred years back. Remember the term "goods and chattels"? Well... chattels=women.

=(

Ugh.

As much as I HATE to raise this one... women were regarded as property under the law as recently as a couple hundred years back. Remember the term "goods and chattels"? Well... chattels=women.

=(


I fail to see what this has to do with Freoria's post. Women are NOT regarded as property and thus, by modern standards, can give consent.

But this does bring up an interesting point for all of those who like to use the "but marriage has always been just a man and a woman" arguement. Marriage has change--A LOT--over the years. Women aren't property. Interreligious marriages happen. Interracial marriages happen. Divorce is legal. A woman isn't forced to marry her rapist. Traditions that cannot adapt will one day die.

Ugh.

As much as I HATE to raise this one... women were regarded as property under the law as recently as a couple hundred years back. Remember the term "goods and chattels"? Well... chattels=women.

=(

I thought chattel equalled cattle. The words derive from the same Latin root (capitale).

Oh... Batala...?

What if your true love is your sister, or is under 12, or is your pet horse, or the character out of a novel, or is dead?

Sister: Used to be legal and ENCOURAGED in some societies, despite the fact that it's not geneticly sound practice.

Under 12: Used to be common practice in a LOT of societies that we regard as civilized. Not healthy, but then, at the time, children had no laws to protect them. ANIMALS got legal protection before children did, come to think of it.

Pet Horse: You're reaching, kiddo. Though I've known of some people who engaged in sexual activities with animals, they never claimed to love them as far as I know.

Character Out of A Novel: Heh, not even within the realm of possibility, as a fictional character does not exist outside of one's imagination.

Dead: A dead person is an inanimate object. Nuff said about that.

I'm fairly amused with your amazing lack of tact and intelligence in using these arguements. That one line alone led me to judge you as being beneath my contempt. Your glaring lack of respect for not just homosexuals, but anyone reading this thread is simply amazing. I can't tell if you think we are all that stupid that such a statement might convince us of the evils inherent in allowing homosexual marriage or if it is just that you are mildly retarded.

I have also assessed you to be one of those sadly misinformed souls who thinks that marriage is simply a religious rite to sanctify breeding rather than the legal joining of property rights and power of attourney that it actually is. Wake up and smell reality.

In about thirty years, no one will know what the big deal was in the first place. For now, those caught in the middle are left to be stiffled, as is the good ol' American way.

Cheers to that.

I'm still waiting here, where is a reasonable anti-gay arguement?

That gay people really want the marriage laws changed so they can marry 12 year old boys?

That gay people want the marriage laws so that they can make your marriage feel "cheapened"? (If you're that insecure about your marriage, this isn't the forum you should be visiting)

Is it that gay people are genetically horses and therefore shouldn't be allowed to get married?

I haven't seen a decent arguement in this thread yet, it is tiresome. Perhaps all of the people against gay marriage could just answer this question then: What does it matter to you if they get married?

I'm still waiting here, where is a reasonable anti-gay arguement?

That gay people really want the marriage laws changed so they can marry 12 year old boys?

That gay people want the marriage laws so that they can make your marriage feel "cheapened"? (If you're that insecure about your marriage, this isn't the forum you should be visiting)

Is it that gay people are genetically horses and therefore shouldn't be allowed to get married?

I haven't seen a decent arguement in this thread yet, it is tiresome. Perhaps all of the people against gay marriage could just answer this question then: What does it matter to you if they get married?

Narn, I suspect you will be waiting for a very long time. I have yet to see a single logical arguement against gay marriage and I have debated the issue almost incessantly for months. I hope you aren't holding your breath.

You see, even for those who are Christian, there is no real water in the "against" arguement. Christ urged people to love and respect one another, not treat them like crap. He repeatedly gave good, active examples of kindness and love, like his stepping in to protect a prostitute from an angry crowd who wanted to put her to death. So because the central figure of their religion was loving and respectful to all and hated no one, there will be no documentation of him saying "fags suck, nothing I said applies to them, so knock yourselves out".

Instead, they have to delve back into the Old Testament for vague, mistranslated references saying that homosexuality is bad. But then, that's the same part of the Bible that documents that cleanshaven guys who ate lobster and pork were going to fry in hell and that slavery was just peachy. We all know where that arguement goes.

So all we are left with is knuckle-dragging assertions that gays are bad and that they don't deserve the same basic legal rights as any other minority group -- with no logical arguements to back these protestations up besides fallacious "only breeders can marry" chest-thumpings. This is all too reminscent of hearing people trying to deny black people their rights based on a bunch of unsubstantiated claims to their genetic inferiority.

That is, all of it, rubbish.

1.) As most first heterosexual marriages last 10 years and Homosexual marriage lasts, say, 18 months....

Source please. Let me guess, because a few gays got divorced early in Massachusetts, this is the "majority"?

People with morals and those who know that multiple partners is a big factor in STDS.

More food for thought: 10% of the population of the planet is Homosexual. Within this, there exists a male to female ratio of 9:1. Considering nature attempts to create a balance, you'd think it'd be 5:5, 6:4, etc. Also, upon interviewing, most Lesbians admit to selecting their lifestyle. There hava also been Homosexual individuals who have cast off that life, and become Heterosexual...

but the rest of the Homosexual community tries to muffle them, lest their plans be foiled.
1. What has group sex got to do with gay marriage?

2. I have difficulty believing that for every lesbian there are 9 gay men. Source? Please provide sources for your other claims. I have never heard of anyone choosing to be gay. Why would they choose a sexuality that will bring them under constant attack?

3. And what, my friend are these "plans". It's amusing how paranoid conservatives are about the "homosexual agenda". It's just like the "Jewish conspiracy".

Well, the only semi-good secular argument I have heard (which is still not a great one, in my opinion, but at least uses a bit of actual reason) is that if gay people are allowed to be married, they get benefits like insurance. If more people have to be covered by insurance, either the corporation has to pay more or the workers have to pay more to cover the additional people.

Interesting thing about Gay marriage...Gay men seem to have a hard time keeping in with the bounds of marriage. A British health magazine proclaimed an averaged of 8 outside, "relationships," per Gay man in a, "Commitment." Which also raises an interesting health issue: As Homosexuals tend to, "get involved," with a lot of people, there is a high STD count in the Homosexual community.

Quite aside from the idiocy of this point, why should you an obviously staunch hetero like you be worried about an increase in STDs in the gay community?

As for adopting children...personally, I feel that such is doing a great dis-service to the children. Studies show that both dads and moms nurture in different ways, and that both form the best combination.

I understand that you mean to compare families based upon "good" couplings between heterosexuals and homosexuals. However, regardless of the optimum outcome for the children, this argument falls over when you consider existing legalities.

I was raised by an alcoholic father and an overworked, rarely-present mother - so in essence, I raised myself. The last thing my father taught me



One potential side effect, however, is an increase in the number of Homosexual in the population. Although Homosexuality has never been proven natural, some suggest it might be something, "implanted," in the human psyche...by past experiances or whatnot. As such, Homosexual parenting = Failure to teach one's (same gender) offspring how to live with and care for the opposite sex =Turn, instead, to a person of the same gender = Increase in Homosexual population.[/QUOTE]

Out of all your responses, the following four are most interesting.


1.) As most first heterosexual marriages last 10 years and Homosexual marriage lasts, say, 18 months.....

Whoa... how long have gay marriages been around? Rather small statistical group dontcha think? Secondly, what motivation do homosexuals have to stay together? Society at best tolerates homosexuality but it does not encourage homosexual couples (see gay marriage/civil rights rationale and as an aside adoption rights, even of next of kin.) I'd think with all the "little perks" to heterosexual couple the divorce/infidelity rate amongst them would be nil.

2.) Yes, I know about these studies. I have some questions for you. (1) see your response to the British magazine. (2) How long have these tests gone on for. Considering some reactions to problems occur down the road, give me a complete study of the Child's life..

Firstly I do not consider some British magazine as the last word. IMHO most of these so called studies of homosexuality are about proving something else than being an actual study, going to the point of intellectual dishonesty. Judging from the tone of your POV and that you are citing a periodical, I can't help but to wonder what else it puts a spin on.

3.) You misinturpret. I said, "Take a good Heterosexual family environment, and a good homosexual family environment, and test them both.".

Well to do that objectively would mean to take several children and raise them twice in each family. The research however does not make any corellation between sexual orientation nor gender of parents and developmental problems in children.

4.) Really? It has? You think they'd have told us by now, if such was the case. Homosexuality is such a big issue, you'd think I scientist would run right now, up with the documents. Natural? I demand proof..

Well, to be repetitive it has been documented in the animal kingdom but most of all, it has long been studied in humans. If you beleive it is unnatural you must therefore believe sexual orientation to be an act of choice. The chioce arguement dies with the fact it occurs in non-sentient animals but also in humans where it has once been considered a mental illness, and "treated" with little if any verifiable success. An interesting matter of choice.

Now let's move on to the "twin studies" which showed an occurence pattern of homosexuality in identical twins. This study showed sexual orientation is not a genetic trait in terms of the principles Mendelian genetics. In other words, coupled with the fact it is known homosexuality is not attributable to childhood trauma or any known social factor, it would seem homsexuality adn hetersoxuality are on equal footing as far as nature is concerned.


Oh, and you Pro-Homosexual members, congratulations on your victory in Canada. Yes, and...ohhh...is'nt it cute! Now that Homosexual marriage is out of the way, it's little brother NAMBLA (http://216.220.97.17/) gets to get in the spotlight. Oh, and isn't that just precious...they're using the same argument the Homosexual were using.

Makes ya want to throw up.

Funny, but the only people I see talking about NAMBLA are people like you and yes you make me want to throw up.

Firstly I do not consider some British magazine as the last word.
It was probably one of those "men's health" magazines, which does its very best to appeal to machismo. Homophobia is probably a part of it.

Quite aside from the idiocy of this point, why should you an obviously staunch hetero like you be worried about an increase in STDs in the gay community?

Quite frankly, until recently I was far more worried from getting cancer from the smoke caused by other people's cigarettes.
Perhaps those are the 'fags' people are so up in arms about? :confused:

Funny, but the only people I see talking about NAMBLA are people like you and yes you make me want to throw up.

I don't get it. Whats so bad about the North American Marlon Brando Lookalikes Association?

I don't get it. Whats so bad about the North American Marlon Brando Lookalikes Association?

haven't you heard? they want equal rights to marry. imagine what a fucking state we'll be in when the MBLs start breeding. fucking appalling. every decent right thinking citizen should be appalled.

fucking marlon brando lookalikes.

it just cheapens marriage between two normal gay guys

I am so sick and tired of this stupid slippery slope fallacy. Homosexual marriage is between two consenting adults. Note the words CONSENTING and ADULTS. NAMBLA can say whatever they want, but their arguements are meaningless because CHILDREN are not developed enough to be able to give TRUE CONSENT.

Gay marriage does NOT equal pedophilia, it does NOT equal beastiality, it does NOT equal polygamy, it does NOT equal incest.

It DOES equal two loving adults choosing to spend their lives together. That sounds so harmful doesn't it.

And what, pray tell, is wrong with polygamy or polygyny? Aren't they all consenting adults?

And what, pray tell, is wrong with polygamy or polygyny? Aren't they all consenting adults?
Dident say it was wrong

All he said was

Gay marrige != polygamy ... and that would be technicaly correct (if you had a gay poligamas marrige it would be close but still not quite the same)

I finally found the time to glance over that stupid NAMBLA page...as soon as I saw the words "mopey goth kid" pop up, I gagged. Lately, everyone seems to be acting like being the "mopey goth kid" in highschool was a bad thing. Anyway, I'll stop before I go off on a rant about the whole goth thing..

Adam and Steve?

But seriously, if you want to think about it in a Christian way, didn't god not give Eve to Adam for a while? My guess is the reason he gave him Eve at all was because Adam wouldn't fuck him, and he wanted some amusement even if he couldn't get Adam.

By the way, good books for Christians:
-The Amber Spyglass
-Memnoch the Devil
-In the Name of Heaven
not sure about that last one, please tell me if I'm wrong.

Yes clearly, it's the homosexuals that are perverts. Because the above statement was in no way, shape, or form, one of the more revolting statements I have EVER heard. Where is the "I think I might throw up," smiley?

Someone told me this a while back.

"Gay marriage will result in the loss of the human population, because gay couples can not reproduce and [gay marriage] would allow gay christians to basically abstain from reproducing, thus summoning the extinction of the human race by showing homosexuality as OK, brainwashing the kids and no one would ever reproduce and the world would die, a desolate and lifeless rock."

I dont remember who.

Well, the only semi-good secular argument I have heard (which is still not a great one, in my opinion, but at least uses a bit of actual reason) is that if gay people are allowed to be married, they get benefits like insurance. If more people have to be covered by insurance, either the corporation has to pay more or the workers have to pay more to cover the additional people.


Then why let anyone get married? If straight people get married, then corporations/insurance companies/workers have to cover more people.

And what, pray tell, is wrong with polygamy or polygyny? Aren't they all consenting adults?


I personally have no arguement against them as long as they are consenting. I was just pointing out that gay marriage does not automatically lead to that for all the people out there who equate them with gay marriage.

Procco, it is true that gay marriage is a factor in declining fertility rates (amongst others i.e. women in the workplace, higher standard of living, contraception) Doesn't take a mathematician to find out that 10 heterosexual couples will more than likely have more kids than 10 homosexual couples.

However the Earth is not going under when it comes to population. Africa, then Asia, then South America, have the highest fertility rates going. Western countries have the lowest. Therefore, the less we have, the more we need, the more immigrants we get. Loss in Western population yes, world population, no.

Someone told me this a while back.

"Gay marriage will result in the loss of the human population, because gay couples can not reproduce and [gay marriage] would allow gay christians to basically abstain from reproducing, thus summoning the extinction of the human race by showing homosexuality as OK, brainwashing the kids and no one would ever reproduce and the world would die, a desolate and lifeless rock."

I dont remember who.

Thanks for the laugh. That's really one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

A. You think gays are reproducing now?
B. Do you really think the world population doesn't need to shrink some anyways?
C. We don't make governmental decisions based on what one group of Christians thinks.

Sorry, but my Hershey Highway is an Exit Only. Although I don't understand how a man could look at another mans hairy asshole and find love, I suppose some guys are just too damn ugly, fat, inbred, or nerdy to attract anything but birds of their feather, which just endorses the adage "There is someone (or something) for everyone. " Indeed, it's a sad reflection of our society when so many people put so much time and energy into such a demented topic as this, when their resources could be better utilized helping with funding or manual labor so badly needed across the ocean as the body count continues to rise from the aftermath of the quakes and waves which have devestated their nations. My plane is leaving now, happy new year to all. :fluffle:

Then why let anyone get married? If straight people get married, then corporations/insurance companies/workers have to cover more people.

Yes, I know. I'm just saying it is the BEST argument I've heard, even though it's still pretty weak.

Sorry, but my Hershey Highway is an Exit Only. Although I don't understand how a man could look at another mans hairy asshole and find love, I suppose some guys are just too damn ugly, fat, inbred, or nerdy to attract anything but birds of their feather, which just endorses the adage "There is someone (or something) for everyone. " Indeed, it's a sad reflection of our society when so many people put so much time and energy into such a demented topic as this, when their resources could be better utilized helping with funding or manual labor so badly needed across the ocean as the body count continues to rise from the aftermath of the quakes and waves which have devestated their nations. My plane is leaving now, happy new year to all. :fluffle:

Well good for you and best of luck funding "love" staring at a hairy vagina.

Well good for you and best of luck funding "love" staring at a hairy vagina.
my sentiments exactly.

I just wondered, does the "not natural"-fraction ever complain about getting a blowjob from their female partners? Highly unnatural, that practice...

Last word on Gay marraige.

If you're against Gay marriage, don't marry a gay person.

But please shut the fuck up and let the rest of us do as we please.

Someone told me this a while back.

"Gay marriage will result in the loss of the human population, because gay couples can not reproduce and [gay marriage] would allow gay christians to basically abstain from reproducing, thus summoning the extinction of the human race by showing homosexuality as OK, brainwashing the kids and no one would ever reproduce and the world would die, a desolate and lifeless rock."

I dont remember who.
According to what you say, those unable to produce children, will make others not want to. Is that correct? That if gays got married then people would start becoming gay because it's okay for those who are already gay, and in love enough to get married with each other. That if gays marry kids will think being gay is okay. The media isn't already hyping up gays? As I recall Will and Grace was one of the top shows in the nation. That isn't telling kids that being gay is okay? Personally I have no problem with gay marriage. Marriage is a religious institution, it should be up to the clergy alone. As for civil unions, it should be as legal as inter-racial marriage. If a Chinese man can "marry" a French woman, then a Chinese man shuld be able to "marry" a French man. People are people, allowing marriage between blacks and whites didn't make every black person want to be with white people specifically, or vice versa. I see no distinction between the two. Just a different specific.

it seems to me that gay marriages are like interracial marriages, most people have a problem with it and they fight against it but sooner or later they realize there really isn't a problem with it and they just don't care about it anymore. The only reason anyone would not want gay marriages, the only real logical reason, is that taking to account all the numbers of gays having them marry would make it legal for them to due joint taxes and other joint things which might have a impacted on the economy. so its not really a matter of "unnatural" and right or wrong just more legal matters. but living in the US the land of the"free" and = there is no reason gays should not get married. in some places its legal for dogs to get married but not gays that seems really wrong to me. :(

I finally found the time to glance over that stupid NAMBLA page...as soon as I saw the words "mopey goth kid" pop up, I gagged. Lately, everyone seems to be acting like being the "mopey goth kid" in highschool was a bad thing. Anyway, I'll stop before I go off on a rant about the whole goth thing..

WTF? What are they trying to pin on goth now? FFS what's WRONG with these people? Are they just not getting laid or something? I'm so SICK of these constant smackdowns on gay, on goth and anything else that these asstards don't happen to like because it's different. As if any of these geniuses were "normal" themselves... WTH is normal anyway? Is normal stupid, bigoted and hateful? If so, I want no part of it.

Jesus wept...

in some places its legal for dogs to get married but not gays that seems really wrong to me. :(
Not to say you are wrong, but where can dogs get married? I'm just curious. Or was that a figure of speech?

Not to say you are wrong, but where can dogs get married? I'm just curious. Or was that a figure of speech?


Connecticut if i'm not mistaken.

Connecticut if i'm not mistaken.
Hmmm, odd.

Connecticut if i'm not mistaken.

You mean its legal for dogs to marry but not gays?!? What about pedophilia, necrophilia, and agrophilia? Are thsoe running rampant?

Because you know, where you find one, the others are DOOMEd to appear--its obvious!

</cattiness>

u know there a law in either the UK or France where, if u give up all that ur intittled to, and some other stuff. You can marry a dead person. I'm pretty sure its France but not 100%

wow, could this thread really be dead? I was having so much fun :(

www.stillspeaking.com

I think anyone reading and replying to this post should go to this web site. It is a religious one, but it is in support of gays and their marriages.

Also, there is going to be a march on the Phoenix AZ capital on the 10th of January in opposition to the ban gay marriage rules they are trying to put in the Constitution.

Then go to this site and read the reason why CBS and NBC refused to air the ad.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=101&e=3&u=/po/20041202/co_po/networksbanchurchsgayaffirmativead

Because if we allow the definition of legal marriage to be twisted in such a manner, movements for the "right" to other kinds of so-called marriage. Sure, lets let gays marry. After that, we can allow polygamy. I mean, guh-huh, shouldn't people also have the "right" to have more than one spouse, I mean equal rights for everyone! Heeheehee! Then, lets allow marriage between species! Sure, we should have the "right" to marry our cats and dogs, and in the name of "liberty", our goldfish! In fact, why don't we sponge off marriage benefits by taking a step further, in the name of "liberty" and "equal rights", by allowing marriage obsexual marriages. Sure, if someone wants to marry their pet rock, their television, or the scum forming in their bathtub, they have the "right" to marry it. We must be tolerant of all sexual preferences, whether they be for more than one, homosexual or obsexual...yeah...right. Hmmpf! Could someone please provide aa CONVINCING, logical and secular for gay marriage? Ugh... :headbang:

Because if we allow the definition of legal marriage to be twisted in such a manner, movements for the "right" to other kinds of so-called marriage. Sure, lets let gays marry. After that, we can allow polygamy. I mean, guh-huh, shouldn't people also have the "right" to have more than one spouse, I mean equal rights for everyone! Heeheehee! Then, lets allow marriage between species! Sure, we should have the "right" to marry our cats and dogs, and in the name of "liberty", our goldfish! In fact, why don't we sponge off marriage benefits by taking a step further, in the name of "liberty" and "equal rights", by allowing marriage obsexual marriages. Sure, if someone wants to marry their pet rock, their television, or the scum forming in their bathtub, they have the "right" to marry it. We must be tolerant of all sexual preferences, whether they be for more than one, homosexual or obsexual...yeah...right. Hmmpf! Could someone please provide aa CONVINCING, logical and secular for gay marriage? Ugh... :headbang:

One word, you fucking ignorant shit head

1) CONSENT

Learn it, love it, enjoy what it means, and fuck off, you insignificant little twit.

Here's a CONVINCING, logical, and seculat reason: they deserve the freedom to be with the one they love.

Originally Posted by Supremancy
Sorry, but my Hershey Highway is an Exit Only. Although I don't understand how a man could look at another mans hairy asshole and find love, I suppose some guys are just too damn ugly, fat, inbred, or nerdy to attract anything but birds of their feather, which just endorses the adage "There is someone (or something) for everyone. " Indeed, it's a sad reflection of our society when so many people put so much time and energy into such a demented topic as this, when their resources could be better utilized helping with funding or manual labor so badly needed across the ocean as the body count continues to rise from the aftermath of the quakes and waves which have devestated their nations. My plane is leaving now, happy new year to all.

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

Odd - most of the gay men I know are drop dead gorgeous; but, of course, there are a few bad apples in every crowd and some are fat, etc. Now, I noticed you didn't have anything to say about gay women and their hairy assholes. Besides, didn't you ever hear of a razor or waxing?

I know men and women that like their partner to be hairy and others that like them smooth and shaved. I suppose you think that is sick, too?

You mean its legal for dogs to marry but not gays?!? What about pedophilia, necrophilia, and agrophilia? Are thsoe running rampant?

Because you know, where you find one, the others are DOOMEd to appear--its obvious!

</cattiness>

Dogs getting married? I hope as long its to another dog of the opposite sex, then there isn't anything wrong with it. I mean, not allowing canine marriage is similar to not allowing marriage of others because of their race, even though its a little more on the extreme side of things. Erm...that's about as much gas as I can blow tonight... :p

gay marriage is wrong because its icky
gay marriage is wrong because in the past we have not let people of the same gender marry
gay marriage is wrong because jerry falwell says so
gay marriage is wrong because it gives straight men a funny feeling
gay marriage is wrong because only people who want and are capable of producing children together should be allowed to marry
gay marriage is wrong because god made adam and eve not adam and steve
gay marriage is wrong because if gay people can get married it makes my marriage cheaper.
gay marriage is wrong because.......THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

next topic?

So, should infertile couples not be allowed to marry?

And since when does Jerry Falwell dictate to the American people what is wrong?

www.stillspeaking.com

I think anyone reading and replying to this post should go to this web site. It is a religious one, but it is in support of gays and their marriages.

Also, there is going to be a march on the Phoenix AZ capital on the 10th of January in opposition to the ban gay marriage rules they are trying to put in the Constitution.

Then go to this site and read the reason why CBS and NBC refused to air the ad.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=101&e=3&u=/po/20041202/co_po/networksbanchurchsgayaffirmativead


I've got to admit, that's a really good commercial and they definitely have the same ideas I do about what Christianity should be as far as inclusion and tolerance and love for all. I've even seen that add running. I never before noticed the same sex couples though--there are two aren't there . . .two men are turned away and then there are two women in the big picture of everyone together at the end. I don't see why this is such a big issue for the networks--unless they are run by idiots as well. I also find it very irritating that NBC won't run the add--as was said in the article, they can make money off of Will and Grace by making capital out of the gay stereotypes (particularly Jack--by the way, I'm not complaing about that persay, I laugh my ass off) but they won't run an add about tolerance and inclusion?

It's amazing the hypocrisy. Still, glad to see that someone people are fighting it.

Dogs getting married? I hope as long its to another dog of the opposite sex, then there isn't anything wrong with it. I mean, not allowing canine marriage is similar to not allowing marriage of others because of their race, even though its a little more on the extreme side of things. Erm...that's about as much gas as I can blow tonight... :p

http://wigu.com/overcompensating/pictures/weddins.png

So, should infertile couples not be allowed to marry?
No that's fine. But gays will make all people, regardless of sexual orientation, stop reproducing.

Let me explain the difference between necrophilia/pedophilia/beastiality/etc and same-sex relationships:

same-sex relationships are consentual. none of the others are.

thank you and goodnight.

Necrophiliacs wont do anything to you, they haven't been there to decide if
you can have sex with your boy/girlfriend or not, it's insane that non-necrophiliacs can decide what the necrophiliacs can or cannot do. They're people too, not any different from you, you don't have any right to treat them differently.

Because if we allow the definition of legal marriage to be twisted in such a manner, movements for the "right" to other kinds of so-called marriage. Sure, lets let gays marry. After that, we can allow polygamy. I mean, guh-huh, shouldn't people also have the "right" to have more than one spouse, I mean equal rights for everyone! Heeheehee! Then, lets allow marriage between species! Sure, we should have the "right" to marry our cats and dogs, and in the name of "liberty", our goldfish! In fact, why don't we sponge off marriage benefits by taking a step further, in the name of "liberty" and "equal rights", by allowing marriage obsexual marriages. Sure, if someone wants to marry their pet rock, their television, or the scum forming in their bathtub, they have the "right" to marry it. We must be tolerant of all sexual preferences, whether they be for more than one, homosexual or obsexual...yeah...right. Hmmpf! Could someone please provide aa CONVINCING, logical and secular for gay marriage? Ugh... :headbang:

Read back through this thread. Do a search for slippery slope fallacy. You'll see why this is a pile of foodoo argument. It's already been hashed out multiple times. If you insist I'll show you to be wrong, again, but it would really save us both a lot of time if you will just go find out where its already been done.

Because if we allow the definition of legal marriage to be twisted in such a manner, movements for the "right" to other kinds of so-called marriage. Sure, lets let gays marry. After that, we can allow polygamy. I mean, guh-huh, shouldn't people also have the "right" to have more than one spouse, I mean equal rights for everyone! Heeheehee! Then, lets allow marriage between species! Sure, we should have the "right" to marry our cats and dogs, and in the name of "liberty", our goldfish! In fact, why don't we sponge off marriage benefits by taking a step further, in the name of "liberty" and "equal rights", by allowing marriage obsexual marriages. Sure, if someone wants to marry their pet rock, their television, or the scum forming in their bathtub, they have the "right" to marry it. We must be tolerant of all sexual preferences, whether they be for more than one, homosexual or obsexual...yeah...right. Hmmpf! Could someone please provide aa CONVINCING, logical and secular for gay marriage? Ugh... :headbang:

That's right... just keep banging your head like that. It explains the lack of logic and reason in your post, to be sure. This sounds so very much like the drivel I had to listen to as a child when people discussed interracial dating and marriage.

"OMG think of the children! They'll be so confused and not know if they're black or white! Nobody will ever employ them!!! They'll get rocks thrown at them in the streets!"

What a bunch of malarchy THAT turned out to be. If you cannot understand the importance of allowing homosexuals the right to legally marry, entitling them to the same basic legal rights as any other couple, then you are repeating the same mistakes as those who fought against interracial marriages AND you are saying that legalizing discrimination and prejudice is just fine. Should you get your way, this sets precedents FOR eroding civil rights and setting us on a path back towards social attitudes that encourage inequality.

Allowing gays to legally marry does not in any way harm or cheapen your own hetero marriages and lifestyles in any way whatsoever. What it does is make another step in a very positive direction towards making the American claim to "with freedom and justice for all" less of a glaring hypocracy. It's not "all men are created equal -- unless we don't like the way they do things" or "all men are created equal -- except for the ones that don't pray using the same name for god that we do". There's no EXCEPT or UNLESS about it.

It's ridiculous that we've had to make amendments specifying that certain social groups are entitled to the same rights and freedoms as anyone else, but if we MUST do this to force people to recognize and comply with something so simple and basic as "yes, women are included in all" and "yes, people who are not caucasian are ALSO included in all", the very LEAST we can do is make sure that some pigheaded bigot who cheated, intimidated and bought his way into office DOESN'T add some stupid amendment that says "no, sorry, all does not include gays -- you fags get to the back of the bus now".

You don't have to like gay people to understand the basic, elementary logic that if we fight to legalize discrimination and deprive a segment of our citizens their legal rights that we are opening the door to inequity and injustice. What comes next? Depriving people with brown eyes of their legal rights? Making it illegal for goths to marry rap fans? Not letting people who don't like Dwight Yokam's music teach elementary school?

Is it stupidity or ignorance we're dealing with here? It's getting hard to tell the difference.

No that's fine. But gays will make all people, regardless of sexual orientation, stop reproducing.

And how do you arrive at that staggering piece of illogical conclusion?

Let me explain the difference between necrophilia/pedophilia/beastiality/etc and same-sex relationships:

same-sex relationships are consentual. none of the others are.

thank you and goodnight.

It's also gender oriented cohort behavior, like that motivated by heterosexual orientation and very much unlike those other icky things people like to talk around. ;)

And how do you arrive at that staggering piece of illogical conclusion?
Merely a joke about a previous post.

It's also gender oriented cohort behavior, like that motivated by heterosexual orientation and very much unlike those other icky things people like to talk around. ;)



You know this is kind of sad. I graduated with honors from a liberal arts college that is considered by many to be on par with an Ivy League school. I have a major in biology and minors in music and chemistry. I'm currently working on my MD.

All that knowledge, and somehow when you talk, I still get confused and have to read bewwwie, bewwwie slowly :) I know it has to be giving fits to some of the more ignorant people on here (no, I won't name names).

Merely a joke about a previous post.

Got you, sorry for the confusion. Maybe I should quit posting at 2AM :)

Got you, sorry for the confusion. Maybe I should quit posting at 2AM :)
tis okay.

You know this is kind of sad. I graduated with honors from a liberal arts college that is considered by many to be on par with an Ivy League school. I have a major in biology and minors in music and chemistry. I'm currently working on my MD.

All that knowledge, and somehow when you talk, I still get confused and have to read bewwwie, bewwwie slowly :) I know it has to be giving fits to some of the more ignorant people on here (no, I won't name names).

Would you say I'm overqualified to be a labourer?:D

Would you say I'm overqualified to be a labourer?:D

Overqualified? I have no idea--to me qualifications recquire degrees, experience etc. and I don't know what of those you have so I cannot judge.

Too intelligent perhaps--but then maybe you are intelligent enough to enjoy manual labor and saving your mind for the things you love :)

Is that a diplomatic answer?

Gay marriage! the very thought is sooooo atrocious! I mean, at night, I lay in bed, trying to sleep, but I have these recurring nightmares of the apocolypse! The unity of penis and ass will make this country FALL! If gays get to marry, not only will they be happy, but this universe will surely end at the hand of Jesus Christ! it means THAT much to him.

But seriously, what's bad about gay marriage? Only one thing. It ain't legal yet.

Gay marriage! the very thought is sooooo atrocious! I mean, at night, I lay in bed, trying to sleep, but I have these recurring nightmares of the apocolypse! The unity of penis and ass will make this country FALL! If gays get to marry, not only will they be happy, but this universe will surely end at the hand of Jesus Christ! it means THAT much to him.

But seriously, what's bad about gay marriage? Only one thing. It ain't legal yet.
:gundge: <--gay rays attacking you in your slumber. (I've been trying to find a use for that ^_^)

Honestly I don't see a good anti-reason other than fear of change. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who would like to see a sensible apposing argument. My mind won't change but hey, maybe if you're charismatic enough you'll get somebody to change their mind eh? That incentive enough for those avid anti-gay marriage people to pull out the big guns?

Overqualified? I have no idea--to me qualifications recquire degrees, experience etc. and I don't know what of those you have so I cannot judge.

Too intelligent perhaps--but then maybe you are intelligent enough to enjoy manual labor and saving your mind for the things you love :)

Is that a diplomatic answer?

Uhh, well I was hoping you knew of an opening somewhere for something in my field...oh wait I don't have a field.

Uhh, well I was hoping you knew of an opening somewhere for something in my field...oh wait I don't have a field.

You sound like an anthopologist to me.

You sound like an anthopologist to me.

I barely went to highschool and college lol. :D


stupid me...

I find it very interesting that several people against gay relationships always mention the "butt-fucking" as the reason. Well, lesbians don't butt fuck with their penis. So, maybe you all would agree to let the girls get married. :confused:

To the guy who started this topic- it was doomed from the start as far as good-secular argument wise.
To the whole interfamily thing- inter family mariages actualy do have a good non-religous basis for being outlawed (many rare and often serious and/or debilitating diseases can be inherited by children since the conditions require both chromosomes that controle it to be the recessive ones, meaning it is greatly more likely for people with similar chromosomes to cause children to get those diseases).

I find it very interesting that several people against gay relationships always mention the "butt-fucking" as the reason. Well, lesbians don't butt fuck with their penis. So, maybe you all would agree to let the girls get married. :confused:

If you're refering to me, I was joking. The funny thing about people who are against gay marriage, is that they sometimes find lesbian porn hot. Go finger...uhh...figure.

No that's fine. But gays will make all people, regardless of sexual orientation, stop reproducing.

In this day and age, we do not need intercourse to reproduce. In fact, we don't need an x and y - read that men.

It is possible to get eggs to develop without sperm.

Now, I am not suggesting that everyone stop trying to have babies :-), but it is not necessary to have intercourse to make one.

If you're refering to me, I was joking. The funny thing about people who are against gay marriage, is that they sometimes find lesbian porn hot. Go finger...uhh...figure.

You weren't the only one. There have been several posts (this thread and others) referring to the act and siting it as a reason.

Didn't realize you were joking. How was I to know?

In this day and age, we do not need intercourse to reproduce. In fact, we don't need an x and y - read that men.

It is possible to get eggs to develop without sperm.

Now, I am not suggesting that everyone stop trying to have babies :-), but it is not necessary to have intercourse to make one.
And again that isn't my sentiment.

I'm bored so I'll throw in my 2 cents.

The only even semi-good reasons I have ever realy heard for why same-sex mariages should be illegal all had to do with church related issues. And if nobody complains about non-chrisians being married, why do they have to use religion as a reason now?

Also, to the people who keep saying that "It will cheapen my marriage", your marriage is between you, your spouse, and God, and I doubt that God will ever come to earth and say "Your marriage is cheap" to any of us. So, that leaves you and your spouse, and if either of you think of your marriage as "cheap" then you may be the ones who should not be allowed to get married.

And again that isn't my sentiment.

Well perhaps you could elaborate what your sentiment is.

I'm bored so I'll throw in my 2 cents.

The only even semi-good reasons I have ever realy heard for why same-sex mariages should be illegal all had to do with church related issues. And if nobody complains about non-chrisians being married, why do they have to use religion as a reason now?

Also, to the people who keep saying that "It will cheapen my marriage", your marriage is between you, your spouse, and God, and I doubt that God will ever come to earth and say "Your marriage is cheap" to any of us. So, that leaves you and your spouse, and if either of you think of your marriage as "cheap" then you may be the ones who should not be allowed to get married.
Indeed. How does the matter of other people cheapen your marriage? Does the woman cheating on her husband in Quebec cheapen the marriage between two people in Texas?

Ok This Kinda Hits Personal, 1 because i'm Bi, and 2 Because I'm Not christan and about half against christianity, don't kill me christans, like you can :D

Now, i don't see wahats so bad, if 2 guys wanna get merried and fuck all the live long day leet them, i also believe in 3-some mariges, or marriges involving 3 people. Look whats SO bad, look even if you do, do the unthinkable and abolish gay marriges, you can not abolish gays, they will get along without it, they will keeping on going, they will just live with each other.

Also it seems like the only reason, you wanna elimiate is, because of the pretend book made up by a psyco ;)

Well perhaps you could elaborate what your sentiment is.
Again that statement was made as a joke about a previous post. If you look on just the previous pages you will see that. Something to the effect of gays marrying will brainwash kids into thinking it's okay to be gay. Causing them to stop reproducing and making Earth a desolate rock.

Its reached a paranoia, too. Like, somehow, if a man's penis touches a man's butt, some kind of evil family destructo ray shoots out.

Its reached a paranoia, too. Like, somehow, if a man's penis touches a man's butt, some kind of evil family destructo ray shoots out.
My gay aura corrupts all those around me. During intercourse it engulfs the city, making everyone gay. I heard it on the T.V. so it must be true.

Half against Christianity? Well, thats something I've never heard before, but your call, so whatever.

Also, that thing right above this post sounds like something that should have been at the start of that movie "Saved".

Half against Christianity? Well, thats something I've never heard before, but your call, so whatever.

Also, that sounds like something that should have been at the start of that movie "Saved" or whatever it was called



Actully i'm totaly against, i jsut don't wanna get too flamed :rolleyes:

Actully i'm totaly against, i jsut don't wanna get too flamed :rolleyes:

Well, don't worry I don't plan to flame you and not many other people are up and on their computers at 3 am. I can honestly say that I don't realy feel concerned with what you think about Christianinty.

Oh crap, now I'm gonna get flamed too... eh, whatever.

What if your true love is your sister, or is under 12, or is your pet horse, or the character out of a novel, or is dead?

This is a ridiculous and darn near retarded argument. All of the above cases are either Non-consensual, non human, or don't exist. In what way do they compare to two people who choose to be with each other?

Actully i'm totaly against, i jsut don't wanna get too flamed :rolleyes:


You'll get your flames... WHEN YOU GO TO HELL!

Actully i'm totaly against, i jsut don't wanna get too flamed :rolleyes:
:mp5: :sniper: :mp5: BURN THE HEATHEN! Sorry, had to do it :d besides, why should it matter. Let the people on the internet think what they will, that is the glory of it, expressing yourself and not having to fear (to an extent of course)

This is a ridiculous and darn near retarded argument. All of the above cases are either Non-consensual, non human, or don't exist. In what way do they compare to two people who choose to be with each other?
heh, keep reading

Is that New Fuglies the crazy catholic guy I read about earlier?


Edit: I just now figured out the think about the book and the psycho

Is that New Fuglies the crazy catholic guy I read about earlier?


Edit: I just now figured out the think about the book and the psycho


I am not Catholic. :D

Edit: I just now figured out the think about the book and the psycho
lol, well done

What if your true love is your sister, or is under 12, or is your pet horse, or the character out of a novel, or is dead?

Ah, cosplay is a wonderful thing indeed...;)

What's so bad?

Jim Joe-Bob Billy-Bob Ray-Bob Willy-Bob Jay-Bob Sam-Bob Bob-Bob Jim-Bob Joe Johnson is of the opinion it disagrees with his interpretation of the Bible. Or, he thinks it's "icky."

Alas I must retire for the night, Happy New Year's Eve.

Hey g(u/a)ys, guess what? Spain just legalised same-sex marriages.

I have decided to have a crack at your challenge. That is to give a logical, non secular agument as to "why gay marriage should be banned".
Firstly, to be logical, one has to be detached themselves from any any emotional prejudice, and stick with the facts and apply logic, right?

Because, I didn't know what "secular" meant - I got out the Websters dictionary for clarification. Religious based. OK cool with that - you will find no religious basis in my conclusion.

Because we are dealing with logic, I thought I'd better clear up some other points too, just in case. Gay = homosexuals right? 2 men? (perhaps 2 woman)

What is Marriage? According to the trusty Websters: "the legal contract by which a woman and a man become wife and husband;"

OK - I think I found the first major problem. Says here that marriage requires 1 man & 1 woman.

Logical conclusion: Gay marriage cannot exist.

Doesn't mention anything about love.

Hey g(u/a)ys, guess what? Spain just legalised same-sex marriages.
Old news. I posted a thread when it was new.

I have decided to have a crack at your challenge. That is to give a logical, non secular agument as to "why gay marriage should be banned".
Firstly, to be logical, one has to be detached themselves from any any emotional prejudice, and stick with the facts and apply logic, right?

Because, I didn't know what "secular" meant - I got out the Websters dictionary for clarification. Religious based. OK cool with that - you will find no religious basis in my conclusion.

Because we are dealing with logic, I thought I'd better clear up some other points too, just in case. Gay = homosexuals right? 2 men? (perhaps 2 woman)

What is Marriage? According to the trusty Websters: "the legal contract by which a woman and a man become wife and husband;"

OK - I think I found the first major problem. Says here that marriage requires 1 man & 1 woman.

Logical conclusion: Gay marriage cannot exist.

Doesn't mention anything about love.
Seeing as the definition of marriage has changed a lot throughout history, It is a simple matter of changing it again. Besides, we have to go by the US government's definition of marriage and not webster's as it is the one that has direct consequences of the legalisation of gay marriage.

Nice try, though.

I have decided to have a crack at your challenge. That is to give a logical, non secular agument as to "why gay marriage should be banned".
Firstly, to be logical, one has to be detached themselves from any any emotional prejudice, and stick with the facts and apply logic, right?

Because, I didn't know what "secular" meant - I got out the Websters dictionary for clarification. Religious based. OK cool with that - you will find no religious basis in my conclusion.

Because we are dealing with logic, I thought I'd better clear up some other points too, just in case. Gay = homosexuals right? 2 men? (perhaps 2 woman)

What is Marriage? According to the trusty Websters: "the legal contract by which a woman and a man become wife and husband;"

OK - I think I found the first major problem. Says here that marriage requires 1 man & 1 woman.

Logical conclusion: Gay marriage cannot exist.

Doesn't mention anything about love.

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.

Next!

I have decided to have a crack at your challenge. That is to give a logical, non secular agument as to "why gay marriage should be banned".
Firstly, to be logical, one has to be detached themselves from any any emotional prejudice, and stick with the facts and apply logic, right?

Because, I didn't know what "secular" meant - I got out the Websters dictionary for clarification. Religious based. OK cool with that - you will find no religious basis in my conclusion.

Because we are dealing with logic, I thought I'd better clear up some other points too, just in case. Gay = homosexuals right? 2 men? (perhaps 2 woman)

What is Marriage? According to the trusty Websters: "the legal contract by which a woman and a man become wife and husband;"

OK - I think I found the first major problem. Says here that marriage requires 1 man & 1 woman.

Logical conclusion: Gay marriage cannot exist.

Doesn't mention anything about love.

So forced-marriage is acceptable? "We don't need no love, Websters didn't mention it..."

And Websters only defines how the word is used at the moment of print, not how it should/could evolve.

The call was for "Logical" argument. As for how words should/could evolve? This is not logic - this is speculation. (By extrapolation, my post may have been a cake recipe, given enough time for the words to "evolve")

In some cultures marriage is "arranged" (not sure about forced - is that what you mean?) Seems to work OK for them.

Unsure of US meaning vs dictionary meaning. Only going by the facts I have at hand.

Is the true question then, should the definition of "Marriage" be changed, to satisfy a minority requirement?

The call was for "Logical" argument. As for how words should/could evolve? This is not logic - this is speculation. (By extrapolation, my post may have been a cake recipe, given enough time for the words to "evolve")

In some cultures marriage is "arranged" (not sure about forced - is that what you mean?) Seems to work OK for them.

Unsure of US meaning vs dictionary meaning. Only going by the facts I have at hand.

By "logical" the original poster meant more thought out than "Gays are icky". Your logical argument had a false premise (the webster's definition is not the relevant one) and has to be more thought out. For starters, you'll have to explain with the current definition is the correct one and why it can't be modified.

But, hey, you did try...


Is the true question then, should the definition of "Marriage" be changed, to satisfy a minority requirement?
Well, it should.

14 pages later of logic and I feel like I'm on Vulcan talking to Spock.

Indeed. How does the matter of other people cheapen your marriage? Does the woman cheating on her husband in Quebec cheapen the marriage between two people in Texas?

Or how about the man beating his wife next door that you ignore because its "none of your business". Does that cheapen your marriage?

My gay aura corrupts all those around me. During intercourse it engulfs the city, making everyone gay. I heard it on the T.V. so it must be true.

If that is true, you must join me and the "gay conspiracy." Our mission: the total conversion of the world's population into sex slaves for our members. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!

I have decided to have a crack at your challenge. That is to give a logical, non secular agument as to "why gay marriage should be banned".
Firstly, to be logical, one has to be detached themselves from any any emotional prejudice, and stick with the facts and apply logic, right?

Because, I didn't know what "secular" meant - I got out the Websters dictionary for clarification. Religious based. OK cool with that - you will find no religious basis in my conclusion.

Because we are dealing with logic, I thought I'd better clear up some other points too, just in case. Gay = homosexuals right? 2 men? (perhaps 2 woman)

What is Marriage? According to the trusty Websters: "the legal contract by which a woman and a man become wife and husband;"

OK - I think I found the first major problem. Says here that marriage requires 1 man & 1 woman.

Logical conclusion: Gay marriage cannot exist.

Doesn't mention anything about love.


Easy solution. We are trying to change the definition of marriage to what it should be. A social contract between two people who love one another. Period. QED. It's like the war within many Christian groups right now. Currently the church is (or perceived to be) a bunch of self-righteous, arrogant, selfish, judgemental butt munches. However, there are people within its ranks who want to change it into a loving, caring, tolerant, charitable group of good people.

The call was for "Logical" argument. As for how words should/could evolve? This is not logic - this is speculation. (By extrapolation, my post may have been a cake recipe, given enough time for the words to "evolve")

In some cultures marriage is "arranged" (not sure about forced - is that what you mean?) Seems to work OK for them.

Unsure of US meaning vs dictionary meaning. Only going by the facts I have at hand.

Is the true question then, should the definition of "Marriage" be changed, to satisfy a minority requirement?


I think the true question is should the definition of marriage be changed to satisfy the requirements of the US consitution for due process and equality under the law. As been said before there is no 'excepting you homos' clause to "all men are created equal."

I totally don't buy the arguements against gay marriage... so my only 2 cents related an extremely witty blurb that hit the nail on the head:

Let's ban gay marriage so we can protect the sanctity of reality tv marriage!

...there are worse ways to decide to commit yourself to another person and heterosexual people do it all the time... Isn't that taring at the fabric of the family as the foundation of culture more than merely letting a "minority" population have the rights that come a long with legalized marriage?

And no, I don't think it necasarily opens the door for bigamy being sanctioned by law, not if an intelligent judge writes the opinion.

The real problem with Gay marrage (and i am Wiccan so i myself do not see this as a problem so do not think me a troll)
It is immoral,against the church, and not what people want to see. this is more or so the view of.. Bush and well.. mostly everyone who believes in God.
As for myself.. i could give a rats ass.. a gay guy is the only guy i can go to a clothing store with grab a pair of jeans and some shirt throw it on and say. hey man.. hows this look? and i will actually get a straight answer... tlak about you queer eye for tyhe straight guy right? other than that.. there is nothign wrong with it. if 2 guys want to get married go for it.. if two lesbians want to get it on.. hey cool.. im a pervert let me watch! lol sorry girls just a joke. anyhow you look at it.. in al l honesty as far as you dont like too see it in public.. guess what.. i dont really want to see some guy/girl with their tounge down the opposite sex either.. guess what.. it happens. every minute of everyday.. i think gay people are more.. quite about their relationships. i have never seen a gay couple kiss in public.. AND TV DONT COUNT!!! i see more teens trying to have sex in the mall then anything else. so.. yea.. anyhow.. thats my opinion... so..:P

Is the true question then, should the definition of "Marriage" be changed, to satisfy a minority requirement?
They want to change it to exclude a minority.

I totally don't buy the arguements against gay marriage... so my only 2 cents related an extremely witty blurb that hit the nail on the head:

Let's ban gay marriage so we can protect the sanctity of reality tv marriage!

...there are worse ways to decide to commit yourself to another person and heterosexual people do it all the time... Isn't that taring at the fabric of the family as the foundation of culture more than merely letting a "minority" population have the rights that come a long with legalized marriage?

And no, I don't think it necasarily opens the door for bigamy being sanctioned by law, not if an intelligent judge writes the opinion.
I WAS WAITING FOR SOMEBODY TO MENTION THAT! Sanctity of marriage...During the "National Sanctity of Marriage Week" what were popular shows? Shows such as Who Wants to Marry a Millionare, and My Big Fat Obnoxious Husband. Because that isn't portraying marriage incorrectly, that was love (was it?) but gays are wrong and shouldn't be allowed to marry because they'll ruin reality T.V. marriage. I think that's the real reasoning behind it.

Old news. I posted a thread when it was new.

*Pours oatmeal over Siljhouettes*

grabs a spoon

I think the true question is should the definition of marriage be changed to satisfy the requirements of the US consitution for due process and equality under the law. As been said before there is no 'excepting you homos' clause to "all men are created equal."

The Constitution read "all men are created equal", but slavery wasn't abolished for nearly 100 years following. Therefore, the Constitution can be adjusted to accomodate gay marriage as well.

The Constitution read "all men are created equal", but slavery wasn't abolished for nearly 100 years following. Therefore, the Constitution can be adjusted to accomodate gay marriage as well.
Here here

It isn't about rights, it's about what is RIGHT. Right for everyone, not just niche pressure groups.

It isn't about rights, it's about what is RIGHT. Right for everyone, not just niche pressure groups.

And how is equality for all ever wrong? How does gay marriage take ANYTHING away from the so called "majority"?

The Constitution read "all men are created equal", but slavery wasn't abolished for nearly 100 years following. Therefore, the Constitution can be adjusted to accomodate gay marriage as well.

The point I'm making is that it shouldn't have to be adjusted. IT ALREADY ALLOWS IT. It amazes me that people are so blind and so bigotted that they think the constitution only applies to their equality. The majority of our amendments have been to guarantee the rights of minorities--not because they are needed, but because so many are so selfish that they don't think "All men" includes EVERYONE.

Sshh Pracus you have a right to be heterosexual now shut up and be happy! :D

Sshh Pracus you have a right to be heterosexual now shut up and be happy! :D

But I don't want to be a heterosexual. I mean, politically I'm tolerant, but the actual sex act is revolting!

But I don't want to be a heterosexual. I mean, politically I'm tolerant, but the actual sex act is revolting!

You must, for God and Country... from what I've been able to gather.

*shrugs*

You must, for God and Country... from what I've been able to gather.

*shrugs*

Ah, but you know I'm out for the destruction of Christianity, the USA and life as we know it--afterall, I'm gay. :rolleyes:

Ah, but you know I'm out for the destruction of Christianity, the USA and life as we know it--afterall, I'm gay. :rolleyes:

So it's true.... :eek:

So it's true.... :eek:

Shhhh, don't tell anyone or they will take my tiara.

What's so bad about gay marriage?

As a straight man, I'm gonna say it's the ass sex.

/ow!

:D

Why do u need a secular argument against gay marriage.. your truely living a lie if you belive this country (the united states) is a secular state. Judicial systems, executive systems, currency all prove that religion plays a big role in government.. even if it is simply generalized ideas of religion, not identifying with one particular religion over another (except for taking the stand in any trial where you swear on the bible). To this reality I dont' feel you need a secular argument against gay marraige, especially when 80% of the country identifys themselves with some religious organization.

The best explanation ive heard in scientific terms against homosexual activity, (which essentially makes marriage or a union of them even more obsured) is that it is unnatural, because it is essentially deviant acitivity within nature. The purpose of life in terms of science is the passing on of genes (why all life forms can reproduce). To this point, since homosexual activity never produces life.. it is deviant activity and henceforth unnatural.

The best explanation ive heard in scientific terms against homosexual activity, (which essentially makes marriage or a union of them even more obsured) is that it is unnatural, because it is essentially deviant acitivity within nature. The purpose of life in terms of science is the passing on of genes (why all life forms can reproduce). To this point, since homosexual activity never produces life.. it is deviant activity and henceforth unnatural.

Then I guess most wolves are unnatural and deviant as well?

It isn't about rights, it's about what is RIGHT. Right for everyone, not just niche pressure groups.

Niche pressure groups like religious fanatics?

Homosexuality is hardly deviant - it's rather common in nature. Observed examples include bottlenose dolphins, gazelles, galahs, and walruses. If you're not satisfied, go to a zoo and observe the monkeys for a while.

There's a long history of homosexuality in mankind as well: Alexander the Great, Sappho, Leonardo da Vinci, James VI of Scotland, John Milton - even Christopher Marlowe was killed in a pub reputed to be a gay bar.

The best argument against gay marraige is that holy matrimony is between a man and a women, and that's how it should be. It is Christians who are against it, mainly, it isn't secular. Changing the rules of marriage would be kind of like the government changing something in Islam, and the government shouldn't be able to do that. For the record, I am a Christian, and I am against gay marriage. I think gays should be allowed to have civil unions in which they get all the same benefits as a married couple. If they want to have a ceremony, then they can.

Homosexuality is hardly deviant - it's rather common in nature. Observed examples include bottlenose dolphins, gazelles, galahs, and walruses. If you're not satisfied, go to a zoo and observe the monkeys for a while.

There's a long history of homosexuality in mankind as well: Alexander the Great, Sappho, Leonardo da Vinci, James VI of Scotland, John Milton - even Christopher Marlowe was killed in a pub reputed to be a gay bar.

it may have a long history.. but it is far from the norm.. very far..

Your trying to prove its not a deviant activity by showing the range at which it occurs across different species.. but looking at each species individually, as a matter of the percentage of the occurance.. It is essentially deviant.. occuring in a vast minority. This is true becuase esentially homosexual activity doesn't meet reproductive requirements.. as in no spread of genetic material. Without this the species can't move forward, so homosexual activity can never be anything but deviant.. otherwise the speices dosn't survive.

Homosexuality is hardly deviant - it's rather common in nature. Observed examples include bottlenose dolphins, gazelles, galahs, and walruses. If you're not satisfied, go to a zoo and observe the monkeys for a while.

There's a long history of homosexuality in mankind as well: Alexander the Great, Sappho, Leonardo da Vinci, James VI of Scotland, John Milton - even Christopher Marlowe was killed in a pub reputed to be a gay bar.


Even if it is recorded in nature, the statistical number of observed animals who practice homosexual activity pales in comparision to the number of heterosexual activity. A small number of which each individual species that partake in this manner is called deviant. Look at the numbers of human sexual orientation of the world versus the homosexual orientation. If the numbers dont mean deviant activity i dont know what is. Perhaps you should recheck what deviant means in the dictionary.


Long history doesnt suggest that it is normal. It just shows that deviance can survive long periods of time even though the genes arent past. And I dont think da vinci was homosexual, i believe michelangelo was.

To tell you the truth, we're extremely overpopulated, and we really don't need any excess procreation. And what does this mean you want gays to do? You want to force them to have sex with the other gender? That's real humane, jeezuz. How would you like to be forced to have sex with a member of your own gender?

People wanted a secular argument against gay marriage... by establishing that the advent of homosexual activity is a deviant activity in nature is to show that it is unnatural.. and as such has no justification to be institutionalized.. its not about what is humane.. Is it humane to stop people from having poligamistic relationiships ? or underaged relationships ?

Gay people don't believe in democracy apparently. What's wrong with gay marriage in the US is that everywhere there has been a vote on it, it has been rejected.

Maybe democracy doesn't work. Maybe the homosexuals should have looked to other groups, like the NRA, to make a common cause with. But no, they want to get their shit, and deny other people their lifestyle.

Bad luck homosexuals. The people have spoken.

Gay people don't believe in democracy apparently. What's wrong with gay marriage in the US is that everywhere there has been a vote on it, it has been rejected.

Maybe democracy doesn't work. Maybe the homosexuals should have looked to other groups, like the NRA, to make a common cause with. But no, they want to get their shit, and deny other people their lifestyle.

Bad luck homosexuals. The people have spoken.

Democracy is control over another's freedoms to some I guess. ;)

Democracy is control over another's freedoms to some I guess. ;)

as is all government.. to submit to a government is to surrender freedom in exchange for security.. and if democracy is majority rule.. then your even more correct.. the minority will always be surpressed.. Trick is to find your way into the majority

Democracy is control over another's freedoms to some I guess. ;)

Bingo.

as is all government.. to submit to a government is to surrender freedom in exchange for security.. and if democracy is majority rule.. then your even more correct.. the minority will always be surpressed.. Trick is to find your way into the majority


Considering the timing of those elections in the US and all the right wing religious propagandising and politicising that goes on down there I'd hardly call it democracy.

Considering the timing of those elections in the US and all the right wing religious propagandising and politicising that goes on down there I'd hardly call it democracy.

So you think that it's only democracy when your side wins. US elections are scheduled constitutionally. There is no "timing" , and both side propagandize. According to many people here, voting in the republicans again would have already given us a meltdown.

People vote, and they don't always vote the way you like. Live with it.

So you think that it's only democracy when your side wins. US elections are scheduled constitutionally. There is no "timing" , and both side propagandize. According to many people here, voting in the republicans again would have already given us a meltdown.

People vote, and they don't always vote the way you like. Live with it.

Oh please, it was huge election draw and secondly please explain why this decision is a valid ballot question.

Oh please, it was huge election draw and secondly please explain why this decision is a valid ballot question.

No, it wasn't a draw. One side one, definitively.

Anything is a valid ballot question. I didn't here you complaining when "should gay studies be funded" was put on the NYS ballot. So stop whinging.

People in the US, fundamentally, just don't like the idea of gay marriage. That is their choice. At least gays don't get killed here for being gay.

Note to you: Before bitching at the US, which is at least toying with the idea of civil unions, why don't you take your gay rights crap up in Europe, where many member nations have said no to both.

Ok, forgive the repetition but I couldn't bear reading the whole 16-17 pages, whatever. I think I gave up on 7.
Here are my plain and simple arguments.

1. Allowing gay marriage is totally different from allowing polygamist marriages because we're still talking about 2 people. 1+1=2. That's it.

2. It won't pave the way for marrying family. Two completely different things entirely. If your male cousin is gay, and you are too, you still can't marry him, and those who seek the right for gays to marry are not asking and will not ask for that.

3. It does not pave the way to marry pets. Pets don't speak human and cannot consent. Gay people are homo sapiens. Marriage is something for people, not animals. Gay people aren't animals so.. there we go.

4. It does not pave the way for marrying underage. Gay marriage, like it's hetero equal, is being asked for applicable to consenting ADULTS. If the damn kids are gay, they'll still have to wait until they turn whatever age their state requires to obtain a marriage licence.

5. The world is over populated. I add this because gays should be allowed to adopt, because alot of heteros are busy having sex and pro-creating children they can't care for.

6. The heterosexual marriage institution is a joke even to heterosexuals. It is abused and appalling. There will be no actual suffering of it's value.

7. If churches don't want to perform the bloody ceremony because it's against their beliefs, that's fine. There are pro-gay christian churches, and there's always city hall.

8. Noone's rights are being violated by allowing it. Treating gays as second-class citizens is basically like when blacks weren't allowed to vote. Voting is a right, and so is happiness and marriage. We stopped treating blacks that way, way later than we should have mind you, but it's time to stop treating gays that way too.

9. A million rules in the bible are no longer standing or followed by devoted christians. This is because society is a constantly changing thing, and as time progresses the world must either change with it or never progress or grow.

10. If heteros like me were to one day become the minority- you're bloody right I wouldn't sit by and let the majority tell me I couldn't get married or adopt or achieve that persuit of happiness that the bloody constitution guarantees to every man and woman.

the end.

No, it wasn't a draw. One side one, definitively.

Anything is a valid ballot question. I didn't here you complaining when "should gay studies be funded" was put on the NYS ballot. So stop whinging.

People in the US, fundamentally, just don't like the idea of gay marriage. That is their choice. At least gays don't get killed here for being gay.

Note to you: Before bitching at the US, which is at least toying with the idea of civil unions, why don't you take your gay rights crap up in Europe, where many member nations have said no to both.

If anything is a valid ballot question, why have leaders? I can't think of any country that has legalised same sex marriages that put it to a referendum and there is a big difference between funding allocations and civil rights questions.

If it is the people if the US' choice to not like the idea of something because it will ruin the sanctity of marriage or cheapen marriage why is it the government's role to protect you from how you view what is entirely in your control?

And as for civil unions which would likely be illegal in many states, they do not carry the same legal weight even within jurisdictions where they are legal.

No, it wasn't a draw. One side one, definitively.

Anything is a valid ballot question. I didn't here you complaining when "should gay studies be funded" was put on the NYS ballot. So stop whinging.

People in the US, fundamentally, just don't like the idea of gay marriage. That is their choice. At least gays don't get killed here for being gay.

Note to you: Before bitching at the US, which is at least toying with the idea of civil unions, why don't you take your gay rights crap up in Europe, where many member nations have said no to both.

WTF is "whinging"?

SOME people in the US don't like the idea. That doesn't make it right to deny people their constitutional rights. I don't like listen to you prattle on with your knuckle-dragging anti-gay garbage, but I'll defend your right to it to the death despite my loathing of your opinion. Why? Because even though I despise what comes out of your mouth, I treasure the right you have to say it.

People here ARE killed for being gay. It's not legal, but it happens. Ignorant backwooders like yourself take their dislike of gays farther than your rabid homophobic spew and kill gays in horrible ways, justifying it with out of date Bible passages that would place THEM in the abomination committing category if they didn't pick and choose as if the old testament were some dusty salad bar.

And no, honey, being a born and bred American, I'm NOT going to take it up with any European nation. AMERICA is MY country and I'll take it up here, where I live, thank you very much, you hypocritical Biblethumper. I'd expect a good Christian to at the very least get his documentation right.

it may have a long history.. but it is far from the norm.. very far..

Your trying to prove its not a deviant activity by showing the range at which it occurs across different species.. but looking at each species individually, as a matter of the percentage of the occurance.. It is essentially deviant.. occuring in a vast minority. This is true becuase esentially homosexual activity doesn't meet reproductive requirements.. as in no spread of genetic material. Without this the species can't move forward, so homosexual activity can never be anything but deviant.. otherwise the speices dosn't survive.

Another ignorant breeder vomits up the uncontrolled, mass breeding always equals success for a species. Joy. While this may be true in ecosystems where a species's numbers are low, you can hardly claim that humans suffer THAT particular problem. We DO however manifest every symptom of a species that has outbred its ecosystem in many countries. Leave the homosexuals to their happy non-breeding FFS and while you're at it, stop denying them their Constitutionally garanteed rights.

Just because some knuckledragging oil millionaire's ignorant, nasty son who cheated and bullied his way into the presidency through the fear and support of half a nation and a lot of electoral shenanigans says Gay Marriage is a social evil and spits all over his office while wiping his filthy bum with our Constitution and Bill of Rights doesn't make it right. No WONDER most of the world thinks we're a bunch of moronic jerk-offs....

Bad luck homosexuals. The people have spoken.

If people voted for the torture and killing of all children would you accept that?

...That doesn't make it right to deny people their constitutional rights...

...I'd expect a good Christian to at the very least get his documentation right...

Well, that's a great definition of "irony". Where exactly do you believe people have a constitutional right to get married? (Hint: there is one, but it kills your argument dead).

Insofar as gay marriage vs. constitution goes the tenth amendment is what governs: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That is, states reserve the right to enact laws within their own borders that do not infringe upon the constitution. Unfortunately for the gay agenda, sexual preference is not one of the recognized categories for which people are recognized as a distinct group for which the constitution ensures equal treatment.

So, any argument of gays having a constitutional right to marry is fundamentally incorrect. To get that right they'd need to amend the constitution and for that they'd need popular support...which they don't have and given their previous tactics, aren't likely to ever get.

The gay movement has been about getting in everyone else's face and demanding they accept, what many non-gay people believe to be, an abberant and deviant lifestyle. If they gay movement had an ounce of collective brains it would have recognized that pissing off the people who you're going to need to draw political support was not a good idea. Going around existing laws (like Newsome in SF) and simply declaring them to be null and void and do what you please is guaranteed to lose you much of the fence-sitting support you might have had.

Another ignorant breeder vomits up the uncontrolled, mass breeding always equals success for a species. Joy. While this may be true in ecosystems where a species's numbers are low, you can hardly claim that humans suffer THAT particular problem. We DO however manifest every symptom of a species that has outbred its ecosystem in many countries. Leave the homosexuals to their happy non-breeding FFS and while you're at it, stop denying them their Constitutionally garanteed rights.

Just because some knuckledragging oil millionaire's ignorant, nasty son who cheated and bullied his way into the presidency through the fear and support of half a nation and a lot of electoral shenanigans says Gay Marriage is a social evil and spits all over his office while wiping his filthy bum with our Constitution and Bill of Rights doesn't make it right. No WONDER most of the world thinks we're a bunch of moronic jerk-offs....

who are you talking about.. Europe ?.. there is nothing we've done they havn't.. IN fact we are saints compared to their histories.. Their secular governments are suppose to be models of intolerance and freedom ? I think most minority groups in eruope would vastly disagree with that notion.. especially in germany and Britain.. Maybe France is the bastion of intolerance you seek.. in fact it runs rampant.. especially against religious groups.

No in fact it is not Bush who is denying them these rights, because they've never had them.. only now are they trying to force what they couldn't get enacted into legislation through radical liberal judges, which clearly has only been to their disadvantage because now they've state consitutional amendments to contend with.. So consitutional rights you say ? Not for long.. because of thier silly attempt to force their wishes on a society not ready to accept gay marriage it will not be clearly writen into state constitutions across the country the "definition" of marriage

However, my argument was simply to give you the secular argument against gay marriage you were looking for. You wanted a reason why gay marriage should not be allowed, I helped establish it was unnatural.. deviant activity... so your counter argument is that we are overpopulated ???? Maybe you should look at demographic trends... like all western nations we face a population shortage within 50 years.. because of our high education levels and longer lives, we are having less children which will make it harder for us to keep up with labor demands.

Even if it is recorded in nature, the statistical number of observed animals who practice homosexual activity pales in comparision to the number of heterosexual activity. A small number of which each individual species that partake in this manner is called deviant. Look at the numbers of human sexual orientation of the world versus the homosexual orientation. If the numbers dont mean deviant activity i dont know what is. Perhaps you should recheck what deviant means in the dictionary.


Long history doesnt suggest that it is normal. It just shows that deviance can survive long periods of time even though the genes arent past. And I dont think da vinci was homosexual, i believe michelangelo was.

Deviant doesn't necessarily mean wrong,though. Completely voluntary behavior can be considered deviant, but it is still legal. For example, I like to dye my hair unnatural colors and paint my nails black. This is considered deviant behavior to some, but it is in no manner illegal. Also, a woman going into a male-dominated field is deviant behavior. Is that outlawed? No.

If no one is punished for completely controllable, absolutely voluntary deviant behavior, then involuntary deviant behavior (provided that it is not causing harm to anyone, i.e. not killing anyone, etc.) should not be punished either.

Deviant doesn't necessarily mean wrong,though. Completely voluntary behavior can be considered deviant, but it is still legal. For example, I like to dye my hair unnatural colors and paint my nails black. This is considered deviant behavior to some, but it is in no manner illegal. Also, a woman going into a male-dominated field is deviant behavior. Is that outlawed? No.

If no one is punished for completely controllable, absolutely voluntary deviant behavior, then involuntary deviant behavior (provided that it is not causing harm to anyone, i.e. not killing anyone, etc.) should not be punished either.

should incestual relations then be allowed..? I would say those who fight for the right of choice would also aline themselvse with those on the side of gay rights (generalization).. So if you are pro-choice, and belive deviant activity is not wrong/unatuarl and should be allowed, why not incestual relations.. defective fesus's could always be aborted.. and no one gets hurt..

If people voted for the torture and killing of all children would you accept that?

to answer for him.. i would say no.. because we are moral religious people who realize our morals are given to us from a higher power not majority rule.. however, for an atheist.. woudln't that answer be yes ? morals are essentially dictated by society... not inherent rights.. because otherwise, where do these inherent rights come from.. they are certainly observed no where else in nature (where it is surivival of the fittest).

Deviant doesn't necessarily mean wrong,though. Completely voluntary behavior can be considered deviant, but it is still legal. For example, I like to dye my hair unnatural colors and paint my nails black. This is considered deviant behavior to some, but it is in no manner illegal. Also, a woman going into a male-dominated field is deviant behavior. Is that outlawed? No.

If no one is punished for completely controllable, absolutely voluntary deviant behavior, then involuntary deviant behavior (provided that it is not causing harm to anyone, i.e. not killing anyone, etc.) should not be punished either.


It is wrong in the survival of the fittest context. The whole point of the concept is to have the ones with the strongest gene to survive, by not mating in a productive way, you're just destroying your lineage. That goes against darwinism.

Now if you choose not to believe in darwinism I cant stop you. Or if you sau we're not animals we're humans, with the ability to communicate and think, I support you. Or if you say its a constitutional right for civil unions to happen, I cant disagree.

But if you want to be "married" in a church, I would completely go against it. Why marry in a church if the church you attend doesnt believe in your concept of marriage. Is it that important for you to get married? Then how can you go against the bible where homosexuality is a sin. It doesnt make sense to follow in one aspect and completely disregard another.

It is wrong in the survival of the fittest context. The whole point of the concept is to have the ones with the strongest gene to survive, by not mating in a productive way, you're just destroying your lineage. That goes against darwinism.

Now if you choose not to believe in darwinism I cant stop you. Or if you sau we're not animals we're humans, with the ability to communicate and think, I support you. Or if you say its a constitutional right for civil unions to happen, I cant disagree.

But if you want to be "married" in a church, I would completely go against it. Why marry in a church if the church you attend doesnt believe in your concept of marriage. Is it that important for you to get married? Then how can you go against the bible where homosexuality is a sin. It doesnt make sense to follow in one aspect and completely disregard another.

I don't want churches to be forced to perform gay marriages. I do, however, wish for all couples to be able to obtain the same legal rights.

There are way too many children who need to be adopted, so what is the harm in a small percentage of the population choosing not to reproduce and instead adopting children? This solves the problem, actually!

Also, as for the inability to reproduce, does this mean that infertile couples should not be able to marry? (By 'infertile', I mean ANYONE who cannot reproduce, regardless of the reason, be it old age, medical condition, etc.)

should incestual relations then be allowed..? I would say those who fight for the right of choice would also aline themselvse with those on the side of gay rights (generalization).. So if you are pro-choice, and belive deviant activity is not wrong/unatuarl and should be allowed, why not incestual relations.. defective fesus's could always be aborted.. and no one gets hurt..

Correct me if my perceptions are wrong, but from what I have seen, incestual relations are, more often than not, non-consensual. The lack of consent eliminates that possibility.

Correct me if my perceptions are wrong, but from what I have seen, incestual relations are, more often than not, non-consensual. The lack of consent eliminates that possibility.

we belive incestual relationships to be wrong in any sense.. you could elminate lack of consent by calling it rape.. however there are plenty of circumstances in which faimly members consent to incestual relationships and are still breakign the law.. as well, what is consent truely to mean.. we say 12 year olds can't give consent, yet they say they do... If their activity isn't hurting anyone why should we deny it.. what of underage relationships and incestual relationships ?

there is a minority of people who would very much like to have incestual relationships legalized .. so that marriage can insue.. incest is not limited to rape....

we belive incestual relationships to be wrong in any sense.. you could elminate lack of consent by calling it rape.. however there are plenty of circumstances in which faimly members consent to incestual relationships and are still breakign the law.. as well, what is consent truely to mean.. we say 12 year olds can't give consent, yet they say they do... If their activity isn't hurting anyone why should we deny it.. what of underage relationships and incestual relationships ?


Legal consent should maintain its current definition, which requires a person to be 18 years of age and mentally competent (although we always wonder about some..j/k). However, consensual incest seems somewhat unheard of, at least in my area. Is there any documentation you could offer? Perhaps a few cases could help me to understand your point.

Legal consent should maintain its current definition, which requires a person to be 18 years of age and mentally competent (although we always wonder about some..j/k). However, consensual incest seems somewhat unheard of, at least in my area. Is there any documentation you could offer? Perhaps a few cases could help me to understand your point.

first.. here is a site to give you an idea of the debate... (which hidges on birth defects)
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/simple/index.php/t3347.html

While i would love to give you a direct website now naming some documented cases.. there are simply too many porn websites i really dont want to have to deal with while trying to filter out the informative ones.. However, to give you some perspective, you've to look no further then the mid west and southern states, where incest cases are more rampint.. cousins having sexual relations, even brothers and sisters.. THough you identify incest with rape cases, rape cases simply do not make up the entirty of incest occurances (much to my disgust)..