NationStates Jolt Archive

Throughout the history of Western society, Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and woman.. weather it be for political reasons, economic reasons, love, or social acceptance what have you.. why then are we going to redefine what has been true for a thousand years because those who are excluded feel ... left out.. if this is simply about government INCENTIVES which are given to married couples.. i would rather see those incentives recinded then have marriage redefined by a minority group. Those incentives are not rights we are suppose to have but bonuses on a system the government feels is right to propagate.

And yes.. to proclaim the right to marriage is an unailable right is correct, and this is why the supreme court upheld it.. however, as far as ive seen, the tradtional meaning of marriage, and the meaning which the supreme court has took into consideration is the same.. the right of marriage between a man and woman. So even homosexuals have the inaliable right to be married.. just not to someone of the same sex. There can be no denial those advocating gay marriage are seeking to redefine marriage.

As a concervative I am wholy against any move to break with thousands of years of tradition soley to apease a vast minority of a population without irrefutable undeniable need and cause. And the case is not made here..
Bah, we redifined marriage a while back to include people of different ethnicities. People had their panties in a bunch for awhile, then they moved on. When Vermont passed the civil union bill, people got pissed off for awhile, then they moved on. When Massachusetts' Supreme Court granted gays the right to marry, people went nuts, then they moved on.

30 years from now no one will give a shit who marries whom.

Guys, about the "choice or not" issue...

I know it's been beaten to death already, but here goes again:

Those of you who think it's a choice, please do this little experiment.

1- Turn around and try to find a moderately attractive person of the same gender than you.
2- For a few seconds, concentrate on his/her ass, crotch, or breasts.
3- Try to imagine yourself having hot gay sex with that person and loving it.
4- Chose to get turned on by that idea.
5- If you have a boner or feel nice down there, you've proved it's a choice. Or that you're bisexual and didn't know it. Otherwise, you're screwed and it's not a choice. Now stop spouting nonsense about other people choosing who they're attracted to.




I am gay, I used to sit confused about why everyone else could be sexually arroused and I wasn't about girls. I was always embarrassed to mention it, my friends would watch porn and I wouldn't get anything out of it. I just couldn't do it, it took me months to realize what was really happening, and longer to accept it.


Wether or not being gay is a choice is the underlying aspect of this topic. It cannot just be dropped. If everyone agreed it is not a choice, then there is no way it could be immoral, because for something to be right or wrong, first you have to make a choice.

I am gay, I used to sit confused about why everyone else could be sexually arroused and I wasn't about girls. I was always embarrassed to mention it, my friends would watch porn and I wouldn't get anything out of it. I just couldn't do it, it took me months to realize what was really happening, and longer to accept it.


Wether or not being gay is a choice is the underlying aspect of this topic. It cannot just be dropped. If everyone agreed it is not a choice, then there is no way it could be immoral, because for something to be right or wrong, first you have to make a choice.
But what most religious people now argue (because they have become tired of arguing that homosexuality in of itself is wrong) they just say the act of homosexual sex is wrong

I don’t agree but technically the drive can be fine with the act being wrong

(again I don’t agree)

But what most religious people now argue (because they have become tired of arguing that homosexuality in of itself is wrong) they just say the act of homosexual sex is wrong

I don’t agree but technically the drive can be fine with the act being wrong

(again I don’t agree)


Well to those people who believe the act is wrong. I can either do the act and be happy expressing my love to my partner, or depress myself living a lie.
I pick being happy.

In all, I don't think homosexual marriages are bad. You cannot deny someone the right to marry who they want. Its just like denying hetrosexuals to marry. Don't get me wrong, I'm not gay, but humans should have the right to mate with whoever they want to.

Ive been bashed, beaten, hated, and ran over. Im still gay and still proud. But i have come through it and am over how much hate people have.
BUt the one thing that peeves me is that some str8 men think that 2 women can be together but not two men?? why is that, because its going with what they want. But what about the women, Women are more then likely to like gays, so were both even. Str8 men who have lesbian fantasy things are just f**kd up. I support marriage between anyone, gay str8 whatever. WE ARE ALL HUMAN< AND WE ALL MAKE CHOICES< SOME ARE NOT APPROVED OF BY OTHERS, but where would we be if as humans made choices only by approval of others. NO WHERE

Almost all of the people that i have talked to, and not all of them are, but most of them are elderly, or older generation people. THose who have a harder time to except a change in ways of life. The younger generation is accepting, and they are not all bothered by this. But our voice is seldom heard. If people dont like whats on tv, you have a remote, a powerswitch, and a plug to turn it off. If you dont like being where people are FREE to do WHATEVER they want you can move. THis is a FREE country, where EVERYONE is free to do what they want WHEN THEY WANT.

Your freedom thig has limits though, but yes, I believe anyone has the right to love/marry/do whatever with whoever they want.

Your freedom thig has limits though, but yes, I believe anyone has the right to love/marry/do whatever with whoever they want.


Limits yes, but we are still free do do whatever. If you or anyone else can love another why cant I? If I want to get married, have kids through different means, why cant I. If this country is supposed to be so great, and so awesome with freedoms, why is the homosexual, transgenderal, bisexual and what ever people still oppressed in most of society of today? To be a great country one should make an impression to others. Let us have our rights and you yours. Not everyone will go with yours or ours ideas, but we can try.

I believ the problem resides in religion. See, then there would be the question, if God believes homosexuality is wrong, then why does he allow it to be something we can practice? If one of the religious people against homosexuality discovered he/ she was gay/lesbian how would he/she react? They would look at it from an entire different point of view...

Throughout the history of Western society, Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and woman.. weather it be for political reasons, economic reasons, love, or social acceptance what have you.. why then are we going to redefine what has been true for a thousand years because those who are excluded feel ... left out.. if this is simply about government INCENTIVES which are given to married couples.. i would rather see those incentives recinded then have marriage redefined by a minority group. Those incentives are not rights we are suppose to have but bonuses on a system the government feels is right to propagate.

And yes.. to proclaim the right to marriage is an unailable right is correct, and this is why the supreme court upheld it.. however, as far as ive seen, the tradtional meaning of marriage, and the meaning which the supreme court has took into consideration is the same.. the right of marriage between a man and woman. So even homosexuals have the inaliable right to be married.. just not to someone of the same sex. There can be no denial those advocating gay marriage are seeking to redefine marriage.

As a concervative I am wholy against any move to break with thousands of years of tradition soley to apease a vast minority of a population without irrefutable undeniable need and cause. And the case is not made here..

The Protestant church broke hundreds, if not thousands of years of tradition when Martin Luther chose to reform the Catholic church and ended up starting the reformation. And he did it to appease the slightly growing minority of people who were growing fed up with the Catholic church.

Bah, we redifined marriage a while back to include people of different ethnicities. People had their panties in a bunch for awhile, then they moved on. When Vermont passed the civil union bill, people got pissed off for awhile, then they moved on. When Massachusetts' Supreme Court granted gays the right to marry, people went nuts, then they moved on.

30 years from now no one will give a shit who marries whom.
indeed...moreover, 30 years from now we will be ashamed that our country ever accepted or condone homophobia, just as we are currently ashamed that our country ever condoned racism.

Throughout the history of Western society, Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and woman.. weather it be for political reasons, economic reasons, love, or social acceptance what have you.. why then are we going to redefine what has been true for a thousand years because those who are excluded feel ... left out.. if this is simply about government INCENTIVES which are given to married couples.. i would rather see those incentives recinded then have marriage redefined by a minority group. Those incentives are not rights we are suppose to have but bonuses on a system the government feels is right to propagate.

And yes.. to proclaim the right to marriage is an unailable right is correct, and this is why the supreme court upheld it.. however, as far as ive seen, the tradtional meaning of marriage, and the meaning which the supreme court has took into consideration is the same.. the right of marriage between a man and woman. So even homosexuals have the inaliable right to be married.. just not to someone of the same sex. There can be no denial those advocating gay marriage are seeking to redefine marriage.

As a concervative I am wholy against any move to break with thousands of years of tradition soley to apease a vast minority of a population without irrefutable undeniable need and cause. And the case is not made here..

So you also think wives should be property of their husbands, divorce should be illegall and interracial/interreligious marriages should be banned as well.

if this is simply about government INCENTIVES which are given to married couples.. i would rather see those incentives recinded then have marriage redefined by a minority group. Those incentives are not rights we are suppose to have but bonuses on a system the government feels is right to propagate.
You'd rather rescind the marriage benefits, tax breaks, and support for struggling TRADITIONAL families than recognise that two gay people living together face exactly the same problems?
And yes.. to proclaim the right to marriage is an unailable right is correct, and this is why the supreme court upheld it.. however, as far as ive seen, the tradtional meaning of marriage, and the meaning which the supreme court has took into consideration is the same.. the right of marriage between a man and woman. So even homosexuals have the inaliable right to be married.. just not to someone of the same sex. There can be no denial those advocating gay marriage are seeking to redefine marriage.The emphasis is mine. Let me get this straight. Homosexuals have the inalienable right to marriage, just as long as it's to someone for whom they feel no attraction.
As a concervative I am wholy against any move to break with thousands of years of tradition soley to apease a vast minority of a population without irrefutable undeniable need and cause. And the case is not made here..Irrefutable undeniable need and cause - how about social ostracism? Discrimination in terms of tax breaks etc? Being denied social and legal recognition of your committment to one who you love? You next of kin automatically being someone OTHER than that person when you die?
Why exactly do you choose to assign gays to this second-class citizenship?

The one thing I can be glad for is that conservatives argued against women's suffrage and the abolition of slavery. Look where that got them.

As far as any Christian religious arguments, I think this covers it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to the question, "Sir, which is the most important command in the laws of Moses?" Jesus explicitly identified his and the Bible's highest priorities :
{ Matthew 22:36-40 }
"This is the first and greatest commandment: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind.'
The second most important is similar: 'Love your neighbor as much as you love yourself.'
All the other commandments and all the demands of the prophets stem from these two laws and are fulfilled if you obey them. Keep only these and you will find that you are obeying all the others."

From http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/politicalmenu.htm

Oh, yes, everyone who doesn't share your point of view MUST be a lackwit. Megalomaniac much?

Exactly, the gay lobby group on here asks for proper debate from people who oppose their view on this, yet continually assert that only their view is right, with absolutely no compromises offered, and they wonder why people dont take them seriously.
Face it gay pride guys, your really just a bunch of facists.

Exactly, the gay lobby group on here asks for proper debate from people who oppose their view on this, yet continually assert that only their view is right, with absolutely no compromises offered, and they wonder why people dont take them seriously.
Face it gay pride guys, your really just a bunch of facists.

Yeah, that's exactly how it is. Good thing you're wearing your tin-foil hat eh?

Face it gay pride guys, your really just a bunch of facists.
Hmm?
When have I insulted another due simply to having a different viewpoint?
When have I said anything vaguely Fascistic (other than that JudeccaGunner guy)?
It sounds as though you are doing the insult-slinging which you claim to despise.

Yeah, that's exactly how it is. Good thing you're wearing your tin-foil hat eh?
??????????????

Exactly, the gay lobby group on here asks for proper debate from people who oppose their view on this, yet continually assert that only their view is right, with absolutely no compromises offered, and they wonder why people dont take them seriously.
Face it gay pride guys, your really just a bunch of facists.
And homophobia isn't?

And homophobia isn't?

Exactly. The guy who's saying gay's can't marry the ones they love is saying we are fascists because he can't string together a cohesive argument.

Why not allow civil unions to gays and straights alike and let the churches do the marraige ceremonies. They could have the same benefits just be called different things. The homosexuals could have all the financial benefits alotted others and the people who don't think they should marry won't have anything to argue about. This seems like a logical solution.

Hmm?
When have I insulted another due simply to having a different viewpoint?
When have I said anything vaguely Fascistic (other than that JudeccaGunner guy)?
It sounds as though you are doing the insult-slinging which you claim to despise.
Dont take it personally, compared to some on here, your at least a reasonable person to talk to that apposes my views, I dont know what you mean about Judecca, and the insult slinging, (facists) as you call it, is to merely identify what some of these people are, if Im allowed to be called a bigot, a racist etc even though I have not mentioned one word about hating someone of another colour, then I dont see my word for them as rude, just calling them what they are.
One of these facists I have on ignore now and probably forever, called me homophobic, his favourite word, then added I was a racist, he just assumed that because I didnt back homosexuals fully, that I was a racist as well, which Im not, and never have been. This showed his mindset, if your not for this, then your against all this as well, which is of course untrue.
Whats a lark but is, some of these politically correct cretins who go whining to the mods about being insulted, are usually the ones slinging the most mud themselves, its like argueing with a pack of adults that have the attitude of ten year olds.

And homophobia isn't?

But what do you call homophobia?
Probably any little thing that wont 100 percent agree with the gay agenda.

Exactly. The guy who's saying gay's can't marry the ones they love is saying we are fascists because he can't string together a cohesive argument.

Can you at least try not to lie about what I say, is that much too ask?
I dont care if gays marry the one they love in a civil union, remember?
FFS do you want me to put it in 2cm high letters, so it sticks in your mind this time?
As for the cohesive arguement, its a safe bet to say, you would have this candid critiscism for almost anyone who doesnt back gay rights, in other words your just biast, and not one to take seriously.

Why not allow civil unions to gays and straights alike and let the churches do the marraige ceremonies. They could have the same benefits just be called different things. The homosexuals could have all the financial benefits alotted others and the people who don't think they should marry won't have anything to argue about. This seems like a logical solution.
Well why not give the USA national anthem to the Northern States and let the Southern States have an equally good but different national anthem..?
I have no intention of giving marraige over to churches, why the heck should I? If any churches find that they dont like how the society they are situated in treats marraiges, they are welcome to not participate in legally recognised marraiges. No one is forcing anyone to get married, no member of a church is forced to participate in legally recognised marraige. I see no reason to 'gift marraige' to religious groups, churches, or indeed any sub group of humanity. It's no more logical than me telling you to give your property to the robber, because you're insured and if they have what they want, then they will not need to rob you to get it.

i don't think the gov't should interfere with marriages of any sort. it's about the seperation of church and state. gays getting married does not make the sacred institution any less sacred. it's tantamount to banning free speech, in my humble opinion. there are just some choices the gov't should not make for us.

Exactly, the gay lobby group on here asks for proper debate from people who oppose their view on this, yet continually assert that only their view is right, with absolutely no compromises offered, and they wonder why people dont take them seriously.
Face it gay pride guys, your really just a bunch of facists.


You folks don't seem to realize something. Good debate does not require us to agree. Good debate requires providing logical arguements that you are able to back up with evidence/studies, etc. It also requires that you don't refute an opposing arguement with a "Nah-uh, I don't believe that" but that you instead provide some sort of logical, coherent response to said arguments--preferably, again, with sources.

I'm afraird that I've rarely, if ever, observed someone on the con-side do so. Instead we get the following methods:

1. If it proves me wrong, ignore it.
2. If it proves me wrong, just say its wrong.
3. If it proves me wrong, ignore it.
4. If it proves me wrong, ignore.
5. Provide grand, sweeping generalizations with the only support being the words "I believe. . . . "
6. Offer no sources or credible evidence, even via anecdote.
7. If it proves me wrong, ignore it.

Why not allow civil unions to gays and straights alike and let the churches do the marraige ceremonies. They could have the same benefits just be called different things. The homosexuals could have all the financial benefits alotted others and the people who don't think they should marry won't have anything to argue about. This seems like a logical solution.

And its one that gay people would be willing to accept.

But what do you call homophobia?
Probably any little thing that wont 100 percent agree with the gay agenda.


Oooooh, the evil mystic gay agenda. What a horrible thing!!!

How dare the gays want. . . .



want . . .. . .



want .. . . .



to be treated like everyone else and left alone.

Well why not give the USA national anthem to the Northern States and let the Southern States have an equally good but different national anthem..?
I have no intention of giving marraige over to churches, why the heck should I? If any churches find that they dont like how the society they are situated in treats marraiges, they are welcome to not participate in legally recognised marraiges. No one is forcing anyone to get married, no member of a church is forced to participate in legally recognised marraige. I see no reason to 'gift marraige' to religious groups, churches, or indeed any sub group of humanity. It's no more logical than me telling you to give your property to the robber, because you're insured and if they have what they want, then they will not need to rob you to get it.


While I agree with you in principle PandS, I'm afraid that in reality I would be willing to give up the word marriage--provided everyone does so when dicsussing the entity recognized by teh government and through which legal rights and responsibilities are given. While I am loathe to give up the word "marriage", I realize that there are far too many idiots out there who cannot separate the concept of legal marriage from the concept of religious marriage (which says something about the sad state of our education system). Having two separate words should help at least some of these people understand that we are not now, nor have we ever, tried to force religious groups to recognize us as humans.

I like how people use the meaning of a word to justify some kind of social policy. They don't realize that the meaning of words is dictated by their use. If we start calling same sex unions marriage then the word marriage comes to encompass that too. The word cool used to refer only to temperature and gay used to only mean happy. Its a living language, this happens all the time.


I completely agree. Language is not a permanent thing. Think that years ago, bitch was just a female dog. Nothing else.

I completely agree. Language is not a permanent thing. Think that years ago, bitch was just a female dog. Nothing else.


Other examples:

Fag was originally a load of wood, then a cigarette, then a deragatory term for gay men, now we've absconded with it and use it as identification.

Gay used to mean happy. . . now it means, well, it still means happy for those of us lucky enough to be it!

I just spoke to VoteEarly via IM. The only thing we agreed on was that the other one was a nut. But otherwise the conversation went well.

While I agree with you in principle PandS, I'm afraid that in reality I would be willing to give up the word marriage--provided everyone does so when dicsussing the entity recognized by teh government and through which legal rights and responsibilities are given. While I am loathe to give up the word "marriage", I realize that there are far too many idiots out there who cannot separate the concept of legal marriage from the concept of religious marriage (which says something about the sad state of our education system). Having two separate words should help at least some of these people understand that we are not now, nor have we ever, tried to force religious groups to recognize us as humans.
I'm certain I've discussed this with you before Pracus.
I'm not happy to be civil unioned instead of married. Discriminating against everyone who isnt religious is just as bad as discriminating against people who wish to marry someone of their own sex. My parents were married, and their parents before them, and their parents before, and so on, going back very many generations. I intend that if I wish to marry a consenting adult, that I as much as any religious person can claim my birthright and marry. I dont mind two seperate terminologies. If religious groups dont like marraige they are welcome to have a seperate terminology; they can be religiously unioned and I'll get married. The problem of a section of society trying to tell the rest of us what form our marraige should take, is not solved by giving in and abondaning marraige to that section entirely.
Frankly what kind of message would it send to bigots if they got their way entirely and managed not only to dictate our marraiges to us, but in fact to steal the entire institution away from us. I've no intention of donating all my goods to a robber to stop him/her from stealing, anymore than I intend to give marraige to religious groups to try to stop them from being nosy bigots.

Honestly I'm ashamed enough of my species tendancy to devalue anything that seems vaguely unfamiliar to them, without giving into tryanical demands that insist universal human institutions should be given over entirely to their purvue. The most important aspects of marraige (ie next of kin type provisions and access to one's partner, conjugal property rights) can be reproduced through various legal means, (and to my mind the right to visit your sick partner in hospital regardless of the wishes of their estranged family who always hated you anyway, are far more important than tax breaks), but that still isnt marraige, it's still discrimination, it's still a suggestion that there isomething wrong with who law abiding well intentioned people are. That to me isnt acceptable.

Oooooh, the evil mystic gay agenda. What a horrible thing!!!

How dare the gays want. . . .



want . . .. . .



want .. . . .



to be treated like everyone else and left alone.
Another classic example of the type of argument you people make. Instead of attacking anyone who doesn't agree with your viewpoint with sarcastic quips, how about some real debate?

I believ the problem resides in religion. See, then there would be the question, if God believes homosexuality is wrong, then why does he allow it to be something we can practice? If one of the religious people against homosexuality discovered he/ she was gay/lesbian how would he/she react? They would look at it from an entire different point of view...
Don't fool yourself, a lot of athiests are opposed to gay marriage as well.

Don't fool yourself, a lot of athiests are opposed to gay marriage as well.
It had seemed previously to me as though the majority were religious of some denomination or other, but now that I think of it, I don't have any evidence for that, so you may be correct there.

Shove your words up your ass.

Homosexuality, is not a disease nor a choice. It is something that is there when you are born and you cannot control it. Walk a mile in someone elses shoes. Or have you never walked that far and are afraid of blisters?



Before 1967 a black could not marry a white, it was considered immoral and an atrocity.
AFAIK, no reputable scientific research has shown that anyone is "born gay". The evidence tends to show that it is environmental, the result of early abuse etc.

The evidence tends to show that it is environmental, the result of early abuse etc.
Homosexuality caused by abuse?
Do you have a source for that? It could very well be environmental, but it wouldn't seem that abuse would be a major factor. Or have I read too much into your statement, and were you simply making the claim that it is environmental?

I'm certain I've discussed this with you before Pracus.
I'm not happy to be civil unioned instead of married. Discriminating against everyone who isnt religious is just as bad as discriminating against people who wish to marry someone of their own sex. My parents were married, and their parents before them, and their parents before, and so on, going back very many generations. I intend that if I wish to marry a consenting adult, that I as much as any religious person can claim my birthright and marry. I dont mind two seperate terminologies. If religious groups dont like marraige they are welcome to have a seperate terminology; they can be religiously unioned and I'll get married. The problem of a section of society trying to tell the rest of us what form our marraige should take, is not solved by giving in and abondaning marraige to that section entirely.
Frankly what kind of message would it send to bigots if they got their way entirely and managed not only to dictate our marraiges to us, but in fact to steal the entire institution away from us. I've no intention of donating all my goods to a robber to stop him/her from stealing, anymore than I intend to give marraige to religious groups to try to stop them from being nosy bigots.

Honestly I'm ashamed enough of my species tendancy to devalue anything that seems vaguely unfamiliar to them, without giving into tryanical demands that insist universal human institutions should be given over entirely to their purvue. The most important aspects of marraige (ie next of kin type provisions and access to one's partner, conjugal property rights) can be reproduced through various legal means, (and to my mind the right to visit your sick partner in hospital regardless of the wishes of their estranged family who always hated you anyway, are far more important than tax breaks), but that still isnt marraige, it's still discrimination, it's still a suggestion that there isomething wrong with who law abiding well intentioned people are. That to me isnt acceptable.


Like I said, philsophically I agree with you 155%. I guess the point at which I'm realistically ready to compromise is the point at which all people--gay or straight--are equal under the government. You are making a bigger statement. Which, although I do not also make, I support completely.

So do not misunderstand me--I know where you are coming from and support your right and your logic in believing it.

Another classic example of the type of argument you people make. Instead of attacking anyone who doesn't agree with your viewpoint with sarcastic quips, how about some real debate?


I'm sorry, I didn't realize that accusing gay people of having a secret agenda was "real debate".

How owuld you like for me to disprove to you? It's not a provable fact. You've obviously already bought into the conservative conspiracy theory that we are out to convert the world to our abhominable ways. Otherwise you would'nt have mentioned the "gay agenda".

Really and honestly, the only agenda gay people have is to be treated equally. We don't want to convert people to homosexuality, we don't want to rule the world, we don't want to take the right to marry away from straights. We just want to live our lives with the same rights and responsibilties as the rest of society.

Now you get to respond and I imagine I'll either get something like "Uh-uh you really do want to rule the rule the world" or "You're asking too much expecting to be equal!" I'm not trying to be catty or rude, I'm just speaking from experience. Hopefully I will be pleasantly suprirsed at the level of logic and support you will use in your arguements.

Don't fool yourself, a lot of athiests are opposed to gay marriage as well.


I'm not going to dispute you with statistics, because frankly I doubt any firm ones exist. However, if you are indeed an atheist opposed to homosexual marriage, then you are the first one I've met either on here, or in years of debating the issue online or in real life.

Don't fool yourself, a lot of athiests are opposed to gay marriage as well.

Shock horror, but true, most of my team mates are athiest, and not too fond of homos, to say it nicely.
I wouldnt want to be gay and run into them on a night out thats for sure.

AFAIK, no reputable scientific research has shown that anyone is "born gay".
AFAIK, no reputable scientific research has shown that anyone chooses to be gay.
Thats why the discussion is still open on this one. The problem is, scientists, for all the neutrality they should embrace are still humans, sometimes with agendas.

AFAIK, no reputable scientific research has shown that anyone is "born gay". The evidence tends to show that it is environmental, the result of early abuse etc.

Actually, there is quite a lot of reputable research that has shown quite a strong genetic linkage. Further, there is little that I can find that is reputable that shows it is the result of the early environment. And no one these days holds it to be a choice--developmental or genetic, its not chosen by the individual.

For a summary of current thoughts and major research over time (including its weaknesses) please visit:

http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

Shock horror, but true, most of my team mates are athiest, and not too fond of homos, to say it nicely.
I wouldnt want to be gay and run into them on a night out thats for sure.


And that's okay to you? That gay people have to live in fear because of something we cannot control?

I could care less as to whether homosexuals are allowed to be married or not... I've nothing against "gays" so long as they don't go bringing it my way... To each his own...

is this FOR REAL??!! How can ANYONE put restrictions on love! How & why does gay marraige affect the individual unless the individual is the one getting married! And as for Christianity, especially Catholocism, it as an archaic patriarchal institution that has repressed all that was true and right in it's foundations! Let in the feminine voice of reason that Christianity was partly founded on! Who, in this day & age, takes the old testament seriously? Love is the most free & pure expression one can have - yet people try & restrict even this. What kind of world are we living in!

I've yet to hear (IMO) a decent and thought provoking arguement from the anti-gay marriage side. Off the top of my head, I've heard;

1. "Leviticus 18:22 says that God doesn't like it."
Leviticus 18:22 has alot of other interesting stuff in it too. Try reading the rest of the book, and then come back and tell me whether we should listen to what Mr. Leviticus has to say.

2. "The Church says it's an abomination"
The Church has said alot of things, alot of which has proven to be complete crap. Back in the renaissance days, I believe the Pope insisted the world was flat, despite the growing mound of scientific evidence otherwise.

3. "Marriage is between a man and a women, and that's the way it's been for thousands of years"
Are you saying we should listen to the wise men of history, because those same wise men insisted on persecuting blacks and treating women as second-class citizens for thousands of years too. Things change, and we are clearly better off for it.

4. "Homosexuality is not natural"
Who's to say what's natural? God? If so, please refer to points one and two. Otherwise, I would argue that the definition of "natural" is a subjective one. I suppose you could say that we where designed/evolved otherwise, but by that logic, nobody should be shaving their legs/beards either.

5. "Homosexuality is a disease"
Prove it. Almost every gay would say otherwise, and I've yet to see conclusive evidence that it is.

6. "Marriage is for procreation"
This is another historical thing (see point 3), and definitions of things change all the time. Besides, do we really need to continue procreating? It seems the Earth is a tad full as it is.

7. "Homosexual couples raise screwy childeren".
Marriage doesn't = children. I suppose you could argue that it would be the start of a slippery slope to allowing gay couples to adopt, in which case, I'll quickly adress the issue anyway.
The research I've read indicates that while the children of gay couples do have more problems, they seem to be entirely attributed to the flak they get about having gay parents, ie. the lack of acceptance by society is to blame.
Also, if you want to deny gay couples the right to have childeren, I would argue that we should ban some heterosexual couples from procreating too. Some people just aren't fit to raise childeren, and it puts a huge burden on society as a result.

8. "Homosexual couples aren't really in love"
As I said in point 5, prove it.

That's all I can think of for now. Please tell me if I missed any.

Well Said!

is this FOR REAL??!! How can ANYONE put restrictions on love! How & why does gay marraige affect the individual unless the individual is the one getting married! And as for Christianity, especially Catholocism, it as an archaic patriarchal institution that has repressed all that was true and right in it's foundations! Let in the feminine voice of reason that Christianity was partly founded on! Who, in this day & age, takes the old testament seriously? Love is the most free & pure expression one can have - yet people try & restrict even this. What kind of world are we living in!

Not bad, you even made me shed a tear almost, its not what you consider love that we are trying to restrict, we just dont believe God approves of the same sex coming together in a union in his house, or should be allowed to raise familys with the same sex parents, what makes us right and you wrong(in our eyes) its how civilisations, societys etc have always grown, and always will grow.

2. "The Church says it's an abomination"
The Church has said alot of things, alot of which has proven to be complete crap. Back in the renaissance days, I believe the Pope insisted the world was flat, despite the growing mound of scientific evidence otherwise.


Thats not necessarily a debunked theory that only the Church believed in, sort of everyone did, before Christianity came along too, you know stuff like the world is carried on the back of a giant turtle, or its hollow etc
In other words the Church only went along with what was commonly believed, until overwhelming scientific proof caused them to reconsider their viewpoint, because nobody knew any better until advancements in Science came along.

its not what you consider love that we are trying to restrict, we just dont believe God approves of the same sex coming together in a union in his house, or should be allowed to raise familys with the same sex parentsUhh. I remember from my Catholic schooling that the phrase "His house" is used to mean "churches". The overwhelming majority of homosexual people don't want to be married in churches - they just want to be recognised as a couple for financial, legal, and social purposes.
And how is raising families with same sex parents any worse than raising families with only one parent, or split parents? Keep in mind that kids with two parents of the same sex still have two parents...

Thats not necessarily a debunked theory that only the Church believed in, sort of everyone did, before Christianity came along too, you know stuff like the world is carried on the back of a giant turtle, or its hollow etc.
In other words the Church only went along with what was commonly believed, until overwhelming scientific proof caused them to reconsider their viewpoint, because nobody knew any better until advancements in Science came along.Galileo was placed under house arrest and almost excommunicated. Not only did the Church 'go along' with commonly held viewpoints, but as soon as evidence was presented that challenged their teachings, they notched up yet another trial for heresy.
PS: Galileo was only officially pardoned by the Vatican in 1992.

I've yet to hear (IMO) a decent and thought provoking arguement from the anti-gay marriage side. Off the top of my head, I've heard;

1. "Leviticus 18:22 says that God doesn't like it."
Leviticus 18:22 has alot of other interesting stuff in it too. Try reading the rest of the book, and then come back and tell me whether we should listen to what Mr. Leviticus has to say.

2. "The Church says it's an abomination"
The Church has said alot of things, alot of which has proven to be complete crap. Back in the renaissance days, I believe the Pope insisted the world was flat, despite the growing mound of scientific evidence otherwise.

3. "Marriage is between a man and a women, and that's the way it's been for thousands of years"
Are you saying we should listen to the wise men of history, because those same wise men insisted on persecuting blacks and treating women as second-class citizens for thousands of years too. Things change, and we are clearly better off for it.

4. "Homosexuality is not natural"
Who's to say what's natural? God? If so, please refer to points one and two. Otherwise, I would argue that the definition of "natural" is a subjective one. I suppose you could say that we where designed/evolved otherwise, but by that logic, nobody should be shaving their legs/beards either.

5. "Homosexuality is a disease"
Prove it. Almost every gay would say otherwise, and I've yet to see conclusive evidence that it is.

6. "Marriage is for procreation"
This is another historical thing (see point 3), and definitions of things change all the time. Besides, do we really need to continue procreating? It seems the Earth is a tad full as it is.

7. "Homosexual couples raise screwy childeren".
Marriage doesn't = children. I suppose you could argue that it would be the start of a slippery slope to allowing gay couples to adopt, in which case, I'll quickly adress the issue anyway.
The research I've read indicates that while the children of gay couples do have more problems, they seem to be entirely attributed to the flak they get about having gay parents, ie. the lack of acceptance by society is to blame.
Also, if you want to deny gay couples the right to have childeren, I would argue that we should ban some heterosexual couples from procreating too. Some people just aren't fit to raise childeren, and it puts a huge burden on society as a result.

8. "Homosexual couples aren't really in love"
As I said in point 5, prove it.

That's all I can think of for now. Please tell me if I missed any.
good points, but if you expect the homophobes to actually respond with valid arguments then prepare for some disappointment. they will just keep saying that their personal interpretation of the Bible tells them they must hate homosexuality but can still violate plenty of other Levitical laws whenever they like. they will tell you that the overwhelming evidence showing homosexuality is natural and as healthy as heterosexuality is all fabricated as part of some giant left-wing academic conspiracy. they will tell you that gay people do so mess up their children, even though not a single reputable study has found evidence of that.

they will continue to assert their own fears and ignorance as fact, and they will continue to expect the rest of us to be dumb enough to settle for such tripe. they will continue to put forth "arguments" that no self-respecting person would even consider, they will continue to believe they "own" marriage and can define it however they like, and they will continue to embarass eveybody else with their blatant misinformation and prejudice.

it's boring, and really pretty sad. you can't help but realize how pitiful their relationships must be, how flimsy their own loves and marriages, since they find it so necessary to concern themselves with relationships between total strangers. it's a lot like people who get worked up over what happens in their favorite soap opera...you just wish they would get their own life, and stop worrying so much about other peoples'.

The overwhelming majority of homosexual people don't want to be married in churches - they just want to be recognised as a couple for financial, legal, and social purposes.
So basically they just want a tax-dodge? That's a great reason to get married.

good points, but if you expect the homophobes to actually respond with valid arguments then prepare for some disappointment. they will just keep saying that their personal interpretation of the Bible tells them they must hate homosexuality but can still violate plenty of other Levitical laws whenever they like. they will tell you that the overwhelming evidence showing homosexuality is natural and as healthy as heterosexuality is all fabricated as part of some giant left-wing academic conspiracy. they will tell you that gay people do so mess up their children, even though not a single reputable study has found evidence of that.

they will continue to assert their own fears and ignorance as fact, and they will continue to expect the rest of us to be dumb enough to settle for such tripe. they will continue to put forth "arguments" that no self-respecting person would even consider, they will continue to believe they "own" marriage and can define it however they like, and they will continue to embarass eveybody else with their blatant misinformation and prejudice.

it's boring, and really pretty sad. you can't help but realize how pitiful their relationships must be, how flimsy their own loves and marriages, since they find it so necessary to concern themselves with relationships between total strangers. it's a lot like people who get worked up over what happens in their favorite soap opera...you just wish they would get their own life, and stop worrying so much about other peoples'.

Nice rhetoric. Yes, us straights must be such a burden to live with. Why call anyone who is opposed to gay marriage a homophobe?

So basically they just want a tax-dodge? That's a great reason to get married.I didn't say tax dodge. You did. It's not my fault if the government offers tax breaks to couples of opposite sexes but not to gays.

Galileo was placed under house arrest and almost excommunicated. Not only did the Church 'go along' with commonly held viewpoints, but as soon as evidence was presented that challenged their teachings, they notched up yet another trial for heresy.
PS: Galileo was only officially pardoned by the Vatican in 1992.

Yeah I know, I said they submitted eventually to overwhelming proof, even if it took a while, but why they took nearly half a millenium to pardon poor Galileo is a mystery to me also.

I've been debating with myself for some time as to whether or not I'll join this discussion. When I see some of the people who claim the same faith as I do, hitting so grossly off the mark, I wonder what impression the rest of you take from this. It stirs up hate on both sides, which is not what we are meant to inspire. Tell me, when you think of your system of beliefs, what is your prominent emotion? Fear, Guilt, Anger, Hate? or is it Love, Peace, Grace, Acceptance?

Which one do you believe we are meant to approach the world with in our hearts? Do your actions and words and thoughts express this so all may know the one you serve speaks through you?

If your argument for hatemongering and discrimination comes from Leviticus, and you quote nothing from elsewhere, then you are no Christian. As a Christian, you should be quoting the words of your Christ. I do hope you will read your Bibles as I give you these verses, these references, and hear the words of Christ, but if you will not (and to those who do not) I will mark my points as I make them. (If you find that many of these quotes are from Matthew, it is because that was a book written by a Jew, for the Jewish, so they would understand the reapplication of the new to the old. The way to drop the old ways and take up the Way.)

For starters :
Matthew 9 16-17 He came with a new law, why try to force the old one into place?
Matthew 25: 14-30 He who can be trusted with the smallest of things, can be trusted with the largest. He who can not be trusted with the smallest of things, can NOT be trusted with anything.

Matthew 7:1-5
Luke 6:37-40
John 8: 7-18
These tell you - It is not your place to judge! It is not your place to condemn! You are so arrogant that you forget the words "The student can never be greater than the teacher" (Luke 6:40)He teaches us, and yet you go and proclaim as if it is YOU who stand as the Son!

Matthew 25 43-45 Imagine - the things you say, the anger and hatred you feel, you direct to these humans? These same things you do to Him you serve.
Matthew 5 43-48
Luke 10: 25-37 Think to yourself, do you behave this way? According to Levi 21 1-4 the priest could not help the man, but Jesus declares that you should above all things act with mercy and love.

John 13:34-35 The love you show for others, ALL OTHERS, should reflect the love of Jesus in your heart
John 15:9-17

and now, for some non gospel new testament advice
Ephesians 4:26, 29-32
James 3:6, 13, 17-18, 5:9-10, 11, 13-17

1 John 3:11 This is the message that you have heard from the beginning: We should love one another.
If you have any questions as to HOW you can love one another (and this one another does NOT mean Christians - back to Matt 5:43 here from above - but it means ALL PEOPLE) I refer you to the well known 1 Corinthians 13.

I do not say whether they sin or not, I do not say it is right or wrong, that is not my place to do. God will look upon the choices they make and decide that. Here, we oppose a secular government, fighting to keep people separate because of these things... but when I read, when I pray, I know that this is not our fight. We are all equal, under God. None are blameless, none are perfect. Only Christ can be our salvation, and yet you all claim his love in your heart but feel only hate and anger to those who you cannot force - through methods of fear and guilt - to behave the way you wish them to. We have free will, and the ability to choose not only separates us from the animals, but it is how we redeem our salvation.

You fight to keep prejudice, you rally and yell to keep the hate alive.
Is this the best way to live by Christ's example?

Nice rhetoric. Yes, us straights must be such a burden to live with. Why call anyone who is opposed to gay marriage a homophobe?Most people opposed to gay marriage here appear to be homophobes, unfortunately. I'm opposed to organised religion - that doesn't make me a religophobe.

I'm going to reply to Ellanesse as well.
If your argument for hatemongering and discrimination comes from Leviticus, and you quote nothing from elsewhere, then you are no Christian...We are all equal, under God.I have to agree with you. I was born and raised Catholic, but have since wandered off into the forests of agnosticism. I still maintain, however, that it isn't our place to judge other based on their lifestyle or personal choices.

Nice rhetoric. Yes, us straights must be such a burden to live with. Why call anyone who is opposed to gay marriage a homophobe?
a homophobe is one who feels dislike or contempt for homosexuals and homosexuality. i would say it is impossible to support discrimination against a group unless you hold them in contempt to at least some degree.

the only way a person can be anti-gay marriage without being a homophobe is if they also oppose the legal recognition of straight marriage. otherwise you simply are a homophobe. that's the word for what you are. it's not an insult, it's just the word that is used for a person with your beliefs. a person who wanted to deny marriage to all black people would be racist; that's the word for what they are.

if you don't like that the word "homophobe" applies to you, maybe you need to take a good long look at what you believe.

if you don't like my rhetoric, please prove me wrong by actually refuting any of the logical points that have been presented. i noticed you didn't make any effort to do that...so far, you have proven me right :).

good points, but if you expect the homophobes to actually respond with valid arguments then prepare for some disappointment. they will just keep saying that their personal interpretation of the Bible tells them they must hate homosexuality but can still violate plenty of other Levitical laws whenever they like. they will tell you that the overwhelming evidence showing homosexuality is natural and as healthy as heterosexuality is all fabricated as part of some giant left-wing academic conspiracy. they will tell you that gay people do so mess up their children, even though not a single reputable study has found evidence of that.
they will continue to assert their own fears and ignorance as fact, and they will continue to expect the rest of us to be dumb enough to settle for such tripe. they will continue to put forth "arguments" that no self-respecting person would even consider, they will continue to believe they "own" marriage and can define it however they like, and they will continue to embarass eveybody else with their blatant misinformation and prejudice.
it's boring, and really pretty sad. you can't help but realize how pitiful their relationships must be, how flimsy their own loves and marriages, since they find it so necessary to concern themselves with relationships between total strangers. it's a lot like people who get worked up over what happens in their favorite soap opera...you just wish they would get their own life, and stop worrying so much about other peoples'.

Your've gone to an incredible effort to say were wrong, has to make you wonder if your so convinced about the rightness of gay marriage etc why you would even bother.

Most people opposed to gay marriage here appear to be homophobes, unfortunately. I'm opposed to organised religion - that doesn't make me a religophobe.
because "religophobe" is not a word. "homophobe" is a word, and the definition encompasses persons who wish to restrict the rights of other citizens based purely on the fact that they are homosexual. that's just what the word means...if you don't like the definition that's okay, but that won't change what the definition actually is.

because "religophobe" is not a word. "homophobe" is a word, and the definition encompasses persons who wish to restrict the rights of other citizens based purely on the fact that they are homosexual. that's just what the word means...Oh, please. So I misspelled it. It should be "religiophobe". You know what I meant. You want me to say "a person who has a phobia of religion'?
Homophobe: a person who has a fear or dislike of homosexuals.
if you don't like the definition that's okay, but that won't change what the definition actually is.I am fine with the definiton. I'm not out to change the definition for anything. The word means what it means.

Most people opposed to gay marriage here appear to be homophobes, I'm going to reply to Ellanesse as well.
I have to agree with you. I was born and raised Catholic, but have since wandered off into the forests of agnosticism. I still maintain, however, that it isn't our place to judge other based on their lifestyle or personal choices.
What if their personal choice is to dislike homosexuality?
Or gay marriages?

Your've gone to an incredible effort to say were wrong, has to make you wonder if your so convinced about the rightness of gay marriage etc why you would even bother.
wait, let me get this straight:

you're saying "Well gee, you really believe that you are right, Bottle...why on Earth would you try to talk to people about this issue, or try to show them the flaws in their thinking, or try to open up discussion to get through to the people who maintain beliefs you think are unjust and unconstitutional?"

why did people talk so damn much during the Civil Rights Era? because that's one of the main ways we effect change. prejudices like racism and homophobia are born out of ignorance, and educating people has been proven time and again to help eliminate such bigotry. that's what i want: i don't want to force people to agree with me, i want to show them why they should and have them understand it for themselves.

the reason i posted "rhetoric" in this case is because i have posted paragraphs of solid, factual information, and the homophobes simply ignore it. i posted a freaking BOOK earlier on, showing why the primary arguments against gay marriage were already rejected during Civil Rights (via miscegination laws being struck down) and not a single refuting post has been presented that counters those points. as i said in my "rhetoric," homophobes won't respond to fact. you continue to divert onto how affronted you are by my beliefs, or how people like me "force" you to accept homosexuality, or any number of other tangents...anything to avoid trying to logically and factually debate the issue.

if you want to prove me wrong, and actually start discussing the ISSUE rather that these silly tangents, PLEASE DO. PROVE ME WRONG. but don't waste our time with more of this BS, please, it's just sad.

Dislike it all you want... but bring no harm to another with your feelings, words, actions or thoughts. You cannot claim to follow in His ways, and intentionally sow hatred with each breath.

What if their personal choice is to dislike homosexuality?
Or gay marriages?Hey, you see me judging you? I merely want to know why you dislike them.

because "religophobe" is not a word. "homophobe" is a word, and the definition encompasses persons who wish to restrict the rights of other citizens based purely on the fact that they are homosexual. that's just what the word means...if you don't like the definition that's okay, but that won't change what the definition actually is.

Actually it means to intensely dislike homosexuals, or even hate them passionately, usually because the person is a self loathing homosexual.
Not agreeing to homos having the same marriage rights as heteros, or raising familys with each parent the same sex, doesnt make you a homophobe.

Oh, please. So I misspelled it. It should be "religiophobe". You know what I meant. You want me to say "a person who has a phobia of religion'?
Homophobe: a person who has a fear or dislike of homosexuals.
I am fine with the definiton. I'm not out to change the definition for anything. The word means what it means.
"homophobe" does not equate to "a person who has a phobia regarding homosexuals." a person who has a phobia of homosexuals would be a homophobe, but not all people who are homophobes have a fear of homosexuals.

Actually it means to intensely dislike homosexuals, or even hate them passionately, usually because the person is a self loathing homosexual.
Not agreeing to homos having the same marriage rights as heteros, or raising familys with each parent the same sex, doesnt make you a homophobe.
just like not agreeing to black people having the same rights as whites, or raising families with a black parent and a white parent, doesn't make you a racist.

"homophobe" does not equate to "a person who has a phobia regarding homosexuals." a person who has a phobia of homosexuals would be a homophobe, but not all people who are homophobes have a fear of homosexuals.No, it's a person who has a fear or dislike of homosexuals. Literally. Actually, those who want to restrict the rights of homosexuals have another label: hard-core right-wing homophobes.

I've been debating with myself for some time as to whether or not I'll join this discussion. When I see some of the people who claim the same faith as I do, hitting so grossly off the mark, I wonder what impression the rest of you take from this. It stirs up hate on both sides, which is not what we are meant to inspire. Tell me, when you think of your system of beliefs, what is your prominent emotion? Fear, Guilt, Anger, Hate? or is it Love, Peace, Grace, Acceptance?

...

You fight to keep prejudice, you rally and yell to keep the hate alive.
Is this the best way to live by Christ's example?

It is always refreshing to see individuals like yourself who have actually understood the teachings of Christ and live by them. Thank you.

I am not Christian myself, but have noticed that my knowledge of the Bible and the religion itself is greater than that of most people that try to use it to defend the opression of others. If they truly want to call themselves Christian, why can't they be bothered to learn about what it really means?

No, it's a person who has a fear or dislike of homosexuals. Literally. Actually, those who want to restrict the rights of homosexuals have another label: hard-core right-wing homophobes.
lol, i don't like to get partisan, but i must admit i haven't met any hard-core left-wing homophobes.

Hey, you see me judging you? I merely want to know why you dislike them.

I feel quite nauseated to be honest particularly when its two guys kissing, I cant help that, if thats how I feel.
As for disliking them, I have met homosexuals who I found to be quite charming, Ive met some obnoxious ones too.
I guess its the combination of seeing two of them together I dont like, I dont really have any problem with the actual gay person themself, unless for some other reason outside their sexuality.

just want to point out: yet another page has gone by with NO substantive replies from the homophobes to any of the logical or factual points that have been presented :).

lol, i don't like to get partisan, but i must admit i haven't met any hard-core left-wing homophobes.True - I'd like to see a few myself. :p I'm just saying that 'homophobe' doesn't automatically carry connotations of restricting the rights of homosexuals. They just don't like homosexuality, but some have learnt to cope with it.

I feel quite nauseated to be honest particularly when its two guys kissing, I cant help that, if thats how I feel.
As for disliking them, I have met homosexuals who I found to be quite charming, Ive met some obnoxious ones too.
I guess its the combination of seeing two of them together I dont like, I dont really have any problem with the actual gay person themself, unless for some other reason outside their sexuality.Brilliant. :D Your only problem is when they're together, in front of you, making out.
To be honest, I have a problem with hets making out in front of me - and I'm straight.

It is always refreshing to see individuals like yourself who have actually understood the teachings of Christ and live by them. Thank you.

I am not Christian myself, but have noticed that my knowledge of the Bible and the religion itself is greater than that of most people that try to use it to defend the opression of others. If they truly want to call themselves Christian, why can't they be bothered to learn about what it really means?

I see the things that are done and said in his name and it sickens me that when others see a cross around my neck, or a Bible in my hands, this is what they see. They should see Christ's light, not a malicious cauldron of pain.

Sometimes I just have to say it out loud, and I hope at least one person will see what I've said and stop to think about their actions next time.

just like not agreeing to black people having the same rights as whites, or raising families with a black parent and a white parent, doesn't make you a racist.

Didnt take you long, its like you have the same tape playing over and over in your head again. Giving American blacks the same rights as whites didnt diminish America in any way, but extending this principal to the gay movement as a reason why they should be granted equal rights as heterosexuals, is taking away and distorting what a real family should be, man and woman marry, have kids.
Two men marrying, or two women marrying, and adopting or intro fertilisation etc, may make up a family, but its not the right kind of family.
By the way Im not racist, never have been, and I dont consider myself to be a homophobe either.

To be honest, I have a problem with hets making out in front of me - and I'm straight.

That doesnt make any sense, but each to their own.

That doesnt make any sense, but each to their own.It makes perfect sense to me. I just don't like to see two people shoving their tongues down each other's throats in public. Kissing's fine, it's the tonsil-quest that bothers me.

just want to point out: yet another page has gone by with NO substantive replies from the homophobes to any of the logical or factual points that have been presented :).

OMG get over yourself, you were the teachers pet werent you.
From the members of the facist gay movement; homosexuals should have all the rights as heterosexuals including having kids and marrying wherever they feel like, no matter who is offended because.... its bigotry if their not allowed! Yeah a lot of thought in that...

Didnt take you long, its like you have the same tape playing over and over in your head again. Giving American blacks the same rights as whites didnt diminish America in any way, but extending this principal to the gay movement as a reason why they should be granted equal rights as heterosexuals, is taking away and distorting what a real family should be, man and woman marry, have kids.
Two men marrying, or two women marrying, and adopting or intro fertilisation etc, may make up a family, but its not the right kind of family.
By the way Im not racist, never have been, and I dont consider myself to be a homophobe either.

I just have to ask: What IS the right kind of family? And who made that decision?

It makes perfect sense to me. I just don't like to see two people shoving their tongues down each other's throats in public. Kissing's fine, it's the tonsil-quest that bothers me.

The suction noises are the best part I think.(joking)

Giving American blacks the same rights as whites didnt diminish America in any way, but extending this principal to the gay movement as a reason why they should be granted equal rights as heterosexuals, is taking away and distorting what a real family should be, man and woman marry, have kids.
Two men marrying, or two women marrying, and adopting or intro fertilisation etc, may make up a family, but its not the right kind of family.
As you put it, it is your definition of marriage and family that isnt congruent with the concept of gay marriage. But please put morality and personal feelings aside for a moment and tell me how it would "diminish America in any way". I see no potential harm to society as such, in the way of suffering economy, population numbers, military strength, reduced safety etc. Laws are not about enforcing a certain morality and you not having to see to homos making out, but the protection of society. I find peanutbutter sandwiches with marmelade gross, but that doesnt mean they are harmfull or i have a right to be spared the sight of them.

How is people fighting for equality 'fascist'? I'm not seeing anything but bigotry, intolerance, prejudice and discrimination. and I'm a straight christian mother with no friends of any of the alternate lifestyles/sexualities.

If you're able to make a case that springs from an intelligent, thoughtful, fact and point riddled standpoint then do so. So far all anyones said is that it's disgusting or 'not natural/right' which is about as much of an argument as 'because I said so'.

I just have to ask: What IS the right kind of family? And who made that decision?

Man, woman and child(s).
God/nature.

taking away and distorting what a real family should be, man and woman marry, have kids.


Yet you have not said anything about infertile couples or those who choose not to have kids. They are quite obviously not fulfilling the 'have kids' part of the arguement. Should they not be allowed to marry either just because they don't match this picture of an 'ideal' family?

Man, woman and child(s).
God/nature.
And God's letting you rule with an iron fist?

=EllanesseHow is people fighting for equality 'fascist'? I'm not seeing anything but bigotry, intolerance, prejudice and discrimination. and I'm a straight christian mother with no friends of any of the alternate lifestyles/sexualities.
If you're able to make a case that springs from an intelligent, thoughtful, fact and point riddled standpoint then do so.

You mean a point of view that only accepts the same as you.
How about you give me some intelligent, thoughtful, fact and point riddled debates, and scientifically backed up as well, as why homos need to be married and have kids in order to feel equal to heteros.
If this is such a sore issue with you guys, may I ask why its only been one in the last five years or so?
Not one marched for etc for the last forty or more thousand years?

Man, woman and child(s).

What of monks, nuns? They live in a communal home, live to se 80 year old virginities, call each other brother and sister. Married to the cross. They, by your definition, are not 'right' families.

Oh, well of course they're ok. Alright, I'll make another example.. one that's been made many times of course, the barren/sterile, then adoptive. That's not 'natural' Well, that's ok too. Siblings, in their old age, live together and care for each other in the purity of family love, who then adopt children and raise them! The horror! Wait, no, that's fine. Single parents of either gender, living with roommates, the child has 2, 3, sometimes 4 'parents' - adults raising them and caring for them - but no... that's ok too.

So the only thing that's not ok is the particular type of person that you hate at this moment? The the Native Americans, chinese railroad builders back in the 1800s, Blacks, now the Homosexuals. It's a cycle of discrimination.

And God's letting you rule with an iron fist?
How am I ruling, I dont make the laws up.
I just support them, and if they change for the worse one day, then I guess Ill be the protester and the one marching.

Man, woman and child(s).
God/nature.

This isn't accurate. Monogamous relationships between one man and one woman is not natural for man kind. We are in actuality pack animals, designed to live in large groups. Thus, nature can't have said so.

As for God, did s/he speak to you, or anyone for that matter, directly? Doubtful.

Yet you have not said anything about infertile couples or those who choose not to have kids. They are quite obviously not fulfilling the 'have kids' part of the arguement. Should they not be allowed to marry either just because they don't match this picture of an 'ideal' family?

I have answered this question so many times, you guys are predictable if anything, did you all read from the same book or something. Actually, thats probably true...
Infertile couples can adopt but, people who can but choose not to have kids are only robbing themselves in my opinion.

How am I ruling, I dont make the laws up.
I just support them, and if they change for the worse one day, then I guess Ill be the protester and the one marching.See, at the moment, we believe the current laws are "for the worse". That's why we're protesting.

How am I ruling, I dont make the laws up.
I just support them, and if they change for the worse one day, then I guess Ill be the protester and the one marching.
There is no law against gay marriages. It's just being proposed, and may end up passing because Bush is in the White House. And about not making up laws, I guess you are right. It doesn't really matter what the people think(joking).

We aren't the ones to be judging one another. We are no better nor no worse than homosexuals, because all sins are equal.

See, at the moment, we believe the current laws are "for the worse". That's why we're protesting.

But if you got the current laws changed to your liking, it would upset alot of voters.
Their voice, what the majority wants is what really counts, not the rights of a minority, who want something they dont really need.

Not one marched for etc for the last forty or more thousand years?

Ok, I wasn't planning to actively refute any of the nay-sayers in this pointless argument. But that one just goes too far, it's way too moronic.

Ok, here's the reason. Maybe it was because for these past two-thousand years even thinking about something like that would have resulted in said people being strung up, tortured, banished or even excecuted? People march now because they can, because for the first time their rights have a possibility of being considered without virulent persecution.

I have answered this question so many times, you guys are predictable if anything, did you all read from the same book or something.
Than how about you answer the real question behind it. I dont care if you find that infertile couples can adopt. The underlying question is: How do you explain marriage as the god-given form to procreate and claim a family as man/woman/child(s) when such a couple can neither procreate or be a "proper" family via natural means? Because "natural" seems to be all-important when it comes to denying right to homosexuals.

But if you got the current laws changed to your liking, it would upset alot of voters.
Their voice, what the majority wants is what really counts, not the rights of a minority, who want something they dont really need.I think this debate centres around whether homosexuals 'need' the right to marry another homosexual. Why don't they need equality in the eyes of the government and the law?

EDIT: Hey, why did you say "voters"?

We aren't the ones to be judging one another. We are no better nor no worse than homosexuals, because all sins are equal.

I dont know about that, some peoples sins are a lot worse than others, no matter who they like to get in bed with.

Their voice, what the majority wants is what really counts, not the rights of a minority, who want something they dont really need.
If you poll all voters if they want to pay taxes or not, what do you think the answer would be? And still the government raises taxes, despite the majority of people not wanting them. Gee, i wonder how that works...

If you poll all voters if they want to pay taxes or not, what do you think the answer would be? And still the government raises taxes, despite the majority of people not wanting them. Gee, i wonder how that works...Good point. I personally would opt to pay taxes to fund education and healthcare.

But if you got the current laws changed to your liking, it would upset alot of voters.
Their voice, what the majority wants is what really counts, not the rights of a minority, who want something they dont really need.
But everyone has the right to be equal. Be it the minority or the majority. Like the Protestant reformation. Was that really needed? A lot of the heavily Catholic people didn't think so. Martin Luther took the minority of the people into account and went on to post his 95 theses because he thought it was right. It really doesn't matter what the majority thinks when it comes to the rights of other people. And assuming homosexuality is a disease. Then wouldn't that mean it would spread and the minority would become the majority?

I think this debate centres around whether homosexuals 'need' the right to marry another homosexual. Why don't they need equality in the eyes of the government and the law?

As a human being their equal, but this is something they are not really a part of, its only for men and women. They dont need to be married, I have no problem with a civil union, and they dont really need to raise a family, you have to have both sexes as role models for a child growing up, not just one sex.
Ill answer the I know kids who have gay parents and theres nothing wrong with them questions tomorrow, I have to crash.

I dont know about that, some peoples sins are a lot worse than others, no matter who they like to get in bed with.
We may think that there are sins worse than others, but I do believe the Bible says that all sins are equal. And can be repented for.

I think I might have the answer to that.

It's been proven that most girls are either anorexic or bullimic. or however you spell it. Anyway, fashion designers are always making dresses smaller and smaller, as well as other clothes. Most men can't get INTO girl's clothes to feel comfertable.


Sources please?

that would mean at least (around) 50.1% of girls are anorexic or bullemic (sp?). In my state, that isn't nearly true. I know that people that dance professionally often times become anorexic because in ballet, a very specific body style is required, and rather hard to achieve. but at least 50%? I think not.

Infertile couples can adopt

But since they're infertile it's obviously as unnatural for them to have kids as gay people.

Why should gay people not be allowed to have families if others can?

I have it from a good source that civil unions and civil marriages are unequal in terms of privileges and recognition granted.

What of monks, nuns? They live in a communal home, live to se 80 year old virginities, call each other brother and sister. Married to the cross. They, by your definition, are not 'right' families.
Oh, well of course they're ok. Alright, I'll make another example.. one that's been made many times of course, the barren/sterile, then adoptive. That's not 'natural' Well, that's ok too. Siblings, in their old age, live together and care for each other in the purity of family love, who then adopt children and raise them! The horror! Wait, no, that's fine. Single parents of either gender, living with roommates, the child has 2, 3, sometimes 4 'parents' - adults raising them and caring for them - but no... that's ok too.
So the only thing that's not ok is the particular type of person that you hate at this moment? The the Native Americans, chinese railroad builders back in the 1800s, Blacks, now the Homosexuals. It's a cycle of discrimination.

I've said it before and Ill say it again probably, I dont hate homosexuals, Im quite fond of native American Indians, chinese railway workers of the 1800's have my sympathy, they were worked to death, and barely fed, and still laid track better and faster than the guys coming the other way, dont hate blacks either sorry, so where are you at now?

Now Im definitely going to bed, goodnight gay facists and others.

We may think that there are sins worse than others, but I do believe the Bible says that all sins are equal. And can be repented for.

Romans 5-6
Paul here talks of Christ's death and resurrection, how He has paid the price for our sins, no matter what the extent. When you are 'washed in the Blood of the Lamb' your sins are cleaned, for the rest of your life and then beyond. This does not guarantee that you will no longer sin or falter, you do not become 'better' than a human, you are however no longer judged as one. When your day comes, God will look at you and see the perfection of Christ. No amount of 'good deeds' and brownie points can make up for that, and no level of sin cannot be repented and cleansed, without a stain. With Christ's love accepted into your heart, you strive to live like He did, to please Him and to follow His commands. When you make that decision you give yourself to Him, and He pardons you.

(at the end of chapter 6, Paul says that he is putting things in 'human terms' so that we can understand - the above paragraph is my own paraphrasing for those who do not wish to read the two chapters, but still understand the point.)

I've said it before and Ill say it again probably, I dont hate homosexuals, Im quite fond of native American Indians, chinese railway workers of the 1800's have my sympathy, they were worked to death, and barely fed, and still laid track better and faster than the guys coming the other way, dont hate blacks either sorry, so where are you at now?

I must have misstated my point, seeing as how you misunderstood it. I was not accusing you of those other points of discrimination and prejudice, I was making a show of the historical patterns that lead to your (by this I mean all those in present society who feel the way that you do about this issue) now current rise against another specific minority that wishes to be equal as these others did.

I wonder if i made someones ignore list or just am hard to refute. :rolleyes:

I wonder if i made someones ignore list or just am hard to refute. :rolleyes:

:) Say it again and I will answer, best as I'm able.

:) Say it again and I will answer, best as I'm able.
No need for that, we seem to be in the same trench.
It was about morality not being the base for laws, asking for proof how gay marriage damages american society in relevant ways, a proof that majority does indeed not neccessarily rule, personal oppinions not being a ground to cut into other peoples rights etc. And not a single point adressed, tsk, tsk. Maybe i should not use big words and long sentences. It seems the less you say the more important and true it is.

hehehe!

How true that seems some days!

So basically they just want a tax-dodge? That's a great reason to get married.


It's more than that Nyca--and you know it. Its next of kin status, its inheritance, its the right to make medical decisions for one another, its the right to visit one another in the hospital, its the right to own a house together.

And most importantly (and perhaps you don't understnad this one since you've never been treated as a second class citizen) its the right to be treated fairly and equally by the government. The civil government mind you, not the religious one.

They dont need to be married, I have no problem with a civil union, and they dont really need to raise a family, you have to have both sexes as role models for a child growing up, not just one sex.
actually, every single reputable study on that subject has established that having two gay parents is just as good as having two straight parents, and in many ways is actually BETTER; a child is far more likely to be sexually abused in a home with two heterosexual parents rather than one with two gay parents, and is also far more likely to be physically abused in a heterosexual home. the mean income for heterosexual families is far lower than the mean income for homosexual families, which results in the children of gay families having higher quality of life, better education, and improved access to quality health care (on average).

further, the primary indicators for future criminal behavior in children are alcoholism and/or extreme religiosity of their parents, and homosexual couples are far less likely than heterosexual couples to have either of those characteristics.

in fact, the ONLY increased risk factor that children suffer from in homosexual homes is the heightened risk that they will be assaulted by peers, and such assaults are virtually always connected to the peers being homophobes.

I have answered this question so many times, you guys are predictable if anything, did you all read from the same book or something. Actually, thats probably true...
Infertile couples can adopt but, people who can but choose not to have kids are only robbing themselves in my opinion.
so they are robbing themselves in your opinion. so what? do you demand that people who choose not to have kids be forbidden to marry? do you insist that all heterosexual couples prove their fertility and swear an oath to make babies before they marry?

and how on Earth can you look at yourself in the mirror after you insult adoptive children and adoptive families in this way? to claim that people are "robbing themselves" by choosing to take in a child who would otherwise never have a home is disgusting, and to claim their love and their family is in any way inferior to people who make their own children is so ignorant i don't even know where to start.

No need for that, we seem to be in the same trench.
It was about morality not being the base for laws, asking for proof how gay marriage damages american society in relevant ways, a proof that majority does indeed not neccessarily rule, personal oppinions not being a ground to cut into other peoples rights etc. And not a single point adressed, tsk, tsk. Maybe i should not use big words and long sentences. It seems the less you say the more important and true it is.


You probably didn't see my post earlier how the way the bigots debate is to ignore what they can't respond to.

in fact, the ONLY increased risk factor that children suffer from in homosexual homes is the heightened risk that they will be assaulted by peers, and such assaults are virtually always connected to the peers being homophobes.

And to quote The Ark:

You're totally fucked in the head,
If you were serious right now when you said,
That its' because they will be bullied in school,
Cause that means you let the bullies set the rules.


It brings a tear to me eye everytime.

You probably didn't see my post earlier how the way the bigots debate is to ignore what they can't respond to.
i'm utterly disgusted at this point. the 'phobes keep diverting onto irrelevant tangents, or re-stating their personal opinions and propaganda without producing a single piece of evidence, and they refuse to engage in anything close to reasonable debate.

i guess the old saying is true...a homophobe's mind is like your pupil: the more light you shine on it, the more it contracts.

Pracus When this issue is referred to as a civil rights issue, one thing is left out when compared to slavery and women's rights. Those two groups were not allowed a vote. It was up to the White Men of the time to set the laws. Today we live in a society where everyone has the right to vote and change the laws. You do this by getting the majority to see your point. To compare the same sex marriage issue to that of owning a slave or denying women the right to vote is misleading and shortsighted. You have a say and have the chance to change the masses mind to see things more clearly. I am for anything as long as the people vote it in. If I do not like it I can move myself and my family to another state that represents my views more. I am all for gay marriage, I think it is great when people find that special person. Mine happened to be a woman. I am however very against the Federal Government or the Courts by-passing the will of the people to satisfy what they feel is a wrong. This is what I meant by minority rule over the majority. Nothing has ever been won without a fight and if you truly want this then you need to get out there and get people to see your point of view.

Bottle- Care to give facts supporting your claims about children being better off with Gay couples I love it when people holler for facts from others but never seem to put up their own. Of course I have found this is a tactic often done by liberals. Show me the stats of where you got your info because I believe it is a bunch of gunk flittered down by less than reputiated sources.

I realise you weren't talking to me Convicts of France but I really had nothing better to do.

http://www.adoptions.com/aecgaylez.html

I've got down as far as 'Life after Adoption' and it's been quite interesting. However, as it's a report rather than statistics I'm not quite sure if it's what you were after.

Pracus When this issue is referred to as a civil rights issue, one thing is left out when compared to slavery and women's rights. Those two groups were not allowed a vote. It was up to the White Men of the time to set the laws. Today we live in a society where everyone has the right to vote and change the laws. You do this by getting the majority to see your point. To compare the same sex marriage issue to that of owning a slave or denying women the right to vote is misleading and shortsighted. You have a say and have the chance to change the masses mind to see things more clearly.

Wow, you're RIGHT! GAYS CAN VOTE! And black folk and women COULDN'T! That must mean it's NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS MATTER AT ALL! And that NO COMPARISON can be made! Because being able to vote is the ONLY CIVIL RIGHT THAT'S IMPORTANT!

...Mm.

Why do people on the 'other' side of the fence always have these complexes about 'agendas?'

In Nazi Germany it was the Jewish agenda, or the Communist agenda.

Now it's the 'feminist agenda.' the 'gay agenda' and the 'Communist agenda' all over again.

Oh, poor poor widdle me, someone else wants rights that I don't want them to have, never mind that it doesn't impact on me at all.

And in response to Blakes 7 on what makes up a "natural" family. We're self-conscious beings. (Well some of us anyway...) Which is why we don't HAVE to abide by the 'law of the jungle.' Which is why we can change conceptions of family etc. It's also why we, and certain other animals, like dolphins and chimps, have sex for pleasure.

And my post on the IQ test was sarcastic, smartypants. ;)

Pracus When this issue is referred to as a civil rights issue, one thing is left out when compared to slavery and women's rights. Those two groups were not allowed a vote. It was up to the White Men of the time to set the laws. Today we live in a society where everyone has the right to vote and change the laws. You do this by getting the majority to see your point. To compare the same sex marriage issue to that of owning a slave or denying women the right to vote is misleading and shortsighted. You have a say and have the chance to change the masses mind to see things more clearly. I am for anything as long as the people vote it in. If I do not like it I can move myself and my family to another state that represents my views more. I am all for gay marriage, I think it is great when people find that special person. Mine happened to be a woman. I am however very against the Federal Government or the Courts by-passing the will of the people to satisfy what they feel is a wrong. This is what I meant by minority rule over the majority. Nothing has ever been won without a fight and if you truly want this then you need to get out there and get people to see your point of view.

Guess what?!? That's what we're doing. This is just part of many.

But you say this isn't civil rights and the will of the majority should be able to tyranize over the minority. Does that mean you would find it okay for the majority to decide to vote that women shouldn't have the vote and blacks should be slaves against? Of course blacks and women would fight that, but the majority should do whatever it wants, right?

No Rubbish you are missing the point compeltely. The fact that you have a say and can influence those around you to see things your way and vote the way you want is what is important. Voting is the most important Civil Right we have in the US. This is not downtrodding a group of citizens, as was the case in the two instances that everyone brings up. But the case is the group of citizens today do not want to participate in the Democratic Process and work to get the goal they desire. Why are you and those like you so against Democracy? Why are you trying so hard to undermine the founding fathers of the Country and not have your ideals fought out in the arena of public debate?

You are whining and it is the only way liberals know how to fight. Whine, scream and kick till people say enough and give in. Guess what? I doubt it will work this time because there is one group of the Fanatics that are working their buts off to make sure the masses see it their way. While the other sits back whines and throws a fit crying ITS NOT FAIR! wha wha wha wha Go and get the process working for you. You might be surprised by how many people would support this in a vote if given the facts.

Thanks Shanador it isn't what I wanted as it is just more or less opinion. Some interesting facts but I am interested in actual stats.

Pracus: You are missing the point too, you compared the gay marriage to that of the civil rights of slavery and the right for women to vote. The major difference is those two groups couldn't vote and were not able to influence the vote of others with speeches and the such. If you are happy to set aside democracy then you should find a country that doesn't hold public debates and democracy as the form of government. I perfer to work within the system and make people see things my way. It is the only way to effect real change without having problems later. I of course do not expect you to understand this, It seems that it goes against your beliefs and Democracy is only something you profess to believe in.

I will not reply anymore to this topic, just take heed Pracus and those that beleive like you do. In the US you need to get the support of the people to effect real change. Otherwise you will be fighting this battle over and over with no end in sight.

edit: to reply to Pracus

No Rubbish you are missing the point compeltely. The fact that you have a say and can influence those around you to see things your way and vote the way you want is what is important. Voting is the most important Civil Right we have in the US. This is not downtrodding a group of citizens, as was the case in the two instances that everyone brings up. But the case is the group of citizens today do not want to participate in the Democratic Process and work to get the goal they desire. Why are you and those like you so against Democracy? Why are you trying so hard to undermine the founding fathers of the Country and not have your ideals fought out in the arena of public debate?

You are whining and it is the only way liberals know how to fight. Whine, scream and kick till people say enough and give in. Guess what? I doubt it will work this time because there is one group of the Fanatics that are working their buts off to make sure the masses see it their way. While the other sits back whines and throws a fit crying ITS NOT FAIR! wha wha wha wha Go and get the process working for you. You might be surprised by how many people would support this in a vote if given the facts.

Thanks Shanador it isn't what I wanted as it is just more or less opinion. Some interesting facts but I am interested in actual stats.

Where do you get off saying we aren't fighting? Gay people have been fighting to educate the public for years now. We've spent millions and will continue to do so. This includes educating the public, lobbying the congress, and yes using the courts to overrule unconsitutional and unfair laws.

For though you don't seem to realize it, the courts are PART of the democratic process. They are one of the three branches of our government. It is through them that laws that are unconstitutional are overthrown. They cannot make up new laws (despite what conservatives love to say about activists judges)--rather they interpret laws that already exist. The ultimate law they have to answer to is the US constitution.

This really isn't a difficult concept.

Gay people ARE fighting. We ARE working. We're not just sitting back and whining. We are doing something. Just because you refuse to see it, doesn't mean its not there.

Perhaps those who oppose gay marraige on religious grounds and quote biblical verses, especially the old testament, might take this into consideration.

{ Matthew 22:36-40 }

"This is the first and greatest commandment: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind.'
The second most important is similar: 'Love your neighbor as much as you love yourself.'
All the other commandments and all the demands of the prophets stem from these two laws and are fulfilled if you obey them. Keep only these and you will find that you are obeying all the others."
Said by Jesus.

Show me where it says in the Constition what Marriage is? Who has the right to marry who and whom?

It doesn't nor should it, Nor should the Federal government tell us what is right or wrong in this situtation. The Courts should not be telling the people of a paticular state what they can and can not do. Remember the Seperation of Powers? States have automony and are able to do what their population deems is right for them. Why are you against letting states decide this issue through a vote? Are you really willing to have the Federal Government tell us what we can and can not do?

I am not nor will I ever be.


You are not fighting hard enough, How many people have you talked to about this in the last month? Leave this forum out or the forums you might visit. How many people have you talked to in your voting district? How about making a trip to another state? How about getting some more media attention for the state you are visiting to talk about this issue?

See the problem I see is that you and those on the same side of the issue as you are afraid of the voting public. You do not want them to decide because of whatever reason. Believe it or not majority of people are not homophobic, but they believe that it is a choice.

Last question and I am doing this to see your response,

You know that as a same sex couple you can set up an power of attroney to give your partner the right to anything and everything you want in your life right?

Show me where it says in the Constition what Marriage is? Who has the right to marry who and whom?

It doesn't nor should it, Nor should the Federal government tell us what is right or wrong in this situtation. The Courts should not be telling the people of a paticular state what they can and can not do. Remember the Seperation of Powers? States have automony and are able to do what their population deems is right for them. Why are you against letting states decide this issue through a vote? Are you really willing to have the Federal Government tell us what we can and can not do?

I am not nor will I ever be.


You are not fighting hard enough, How many people have you talked to about this in the last month? Leave this forum out or the forums you might visit. How many people have you talked to in your voting district? How about making a trip to another state? How about getting some more media attention for the state you are visiting to talk about this issue?

See the problem I see is that you and those on the same side of the issue as you are afraid of the voting public. You do not want them to decide because of whatever reason. Believe it or not majority of people are not homophobic, but they believe that it is a choice.

Don't speak for everyone. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean action doesn't occur.

Last question and I am doing this to see your response,

You know that as a same sex couple you can set up an power of attroney to give your partner the right to anything and everything you want in your life right?

Along with thousands of dollars of legal fees, and even then they still don't get all the same rights. Nor the recognition of the federal government and the general public.

For the most part, it's all or nothing. Most people don't want civil union because of the "separate but equal" problem. Recognition as a marriage is the only way to get everything.

Show me where it says in the Constition what Marriage is? Who has the right to marry who and whom?

It does not directly say that marriage is a right--however it does say that people cannot be deprived of their rights or of equal protection of the law.

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


It doesn't nor should it, Nor should the Federal government tell us what is right or wrong in this situtation. The Courts should not be telling the people of a paticular state what they can and can not do. Remember the Seperation of Powers? States have automony and are able to do what their population deems is right for them. Why are you against letting states decide this issue through a vote? Are you really willing to have the Federal Government tell us what we can and can not do?

See above. The federal courts have a right to tell the states that they are applying laws unfairly and unequally--which is what they are doing. Further, there are courts beyond federal courts--such as the ones in Massachusetts and New York which have ruled that because of STATE CONSTUTIONAL clauses that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, marriage cannot be denied to homosexuals. The state constitutions trump the lower, discriminatory laws.

No gay person has asked that the courts create laws--we don't need new laws. We just need just enforcement of the ones that exist that already PROTECT US and give us EQUALITY.


You are not fighting hard enough, How many people have you talked to about this in the last month? Leave this forum out or the forums you might visit. How many people have you talked to in your voting district? How about making a trip to another state? How about getting some more media attention for the state you are visiting to talk about this issue?

Many actually. I am involved in my free time in several grassroots movements--local and state--that promote gay marriage. I talk to others every chance I get, I debate with others, I share my experiences. It's slow moving sometimes, but we all keep doin git.

Why are you so worried about it for that matter? And why do you asssume that because I debate online I don't debate offline?


See the problem I see is that you and those on the same side of the issue as you are afraid of the voting public. You do not want them to decide because of whatever reason. Believe it or not majority of people are not homophobic, but they believe that it is a choice.

Damned right I'm afraid of them. Why BECAUSE THEY HAVE NEVER PROTECTED THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES. It wasn't the voting public that changed things in the civil rights or women's rights movements. It was the people they elected who finally stood up for what was right. I firmly believe that this is going to happen in this issue as well, but its going to take time--I do realize this.


Last question and I am doing this to see your response,

You know that as a same sex couple you can set up an power of attroney to give your partner the right to anything and everything you want in your life right?

Actually, no, most of the rights of marriage cannot be granted by POA. Some of them can yes--but that takes twenty or thirty documents when a wedding license grants them all. POAs granting inheritance, medical decision making, etc. can also--and have often been--challenged by family members through the courts. What's the point? Marriages however cannot be challenged except in the most extreme of circumstances (as witness Terry Shiavo).


Further, there is a simple matter of what is right and wrong. And its wrong to tell people that because they are gay, they do not get to have their relationshpis protected. And it violates the above amendment by denying us equal protections under the law.

lol I said I was going to not post again here but I can not help it.

I am more of an individualist, I like to have my freedoms and be free of government interferance. I hate having the Courts decide issues as I do believe that everyone can be made to see a point that is right and just. I do believe that eventually the American people will see marriage as it should be. That being a love shared by two people.

You cited two court cases where the state constitution had the clause in there to not discrimate against sexual preference. This is the case in almost every state, I believe there is Mississippi and Alabama that do not have this in their State Constitution, I could be wrong as I am only going by second hand knowledge from someone that told me and I have been to lazy to verify it. In those states you mentioned the people had already voted to add that to their constitution. Making it the will of the people, it just needed to be enforced as you stated. All I ever want is for the People to have a say, and make sure that public debate is done. I of course do not believe you only debate here, but I had to ask as I know many people that only debate online and refuse to do so in public. Just making sure you are not one of those people.

It is the direct result of the people voting in the right politicians that set the issues right at that time. That is democracy in action, we the people elect those to do our bidding. Government is here to serve us, not us to serve them.

From what I know of POA, is that it is generally hard to fight in the court of law if it is done right. If the family contest it, generaly it is because there is issue of money. Atleast from my Attry. Friends comments on the issue.

To Naro- Of course I can speak for those I know and interact with on a daily basis. I challenge everyone I meet on issues facing this country. I do it at work, in the grocery store, while I am waiting for tickets to my favorite movie. Where ever I am at I talk about the issues facing this country. Those that start out with the same drivel that is being spouted in this thread. End up admiting they just do not understand the issue and have never given it much thought. But once I get them to agree on a definition of marriage, which 9 out of 10 will say two people that love each other, they agree that everyone should have that right.

If you try to circumvent the will of the people, it will only breed more anomosity and hate. Getting people to agree with you and then settling the issue is always the best way to effect lasting change. I guess when all is said and done I put faith in the people to do the right thing when given a real choice.

I am to tired so sorry for typos and mispellings but I am to tired to proof read :P

lol I said I was going to not post again here but I can not help it.

I am more of an individualist, I like to have my freedoms and be free of government interferance. I hate having the Courts decide issues as I do believe that everyone can be made to see a point that is right and just. I do believe that eventually the American people will see marriage as it should be. That being a love shared by two people.

You cited two court cases where the state constitution had the clause in there to not discrimate against sexual preference. This is the case in almost every state, I believe there is Mississippi and Alabama that do not have this in their State Constitution, I could be wrong as I am only going by second hand knowledge from someone that told me and I have been to lazy to verify it. In those states you mentioned the people had already voted to add that to their constitution. Making it the will of the people, it just needed to be enforced as you stated. All I ever want is for the People to have a say, and make sure that public debate is done. I of course do not believe you only debate here, but I had to ask as I know many people that only debate online and refuse to do so in public. Just making sure you are not one of those people.

It is the direct result of the people voting in the right politicians that set the issues right at that time. That is democracy in action, we the people elect those to do our bidding. Government is here to serve us, not us to serve them.

From what I know of POA, is that it is generally hard to fight in the court of law if it is done right. If the family contest it, generaly it is because there is issue of money. Atleast from my Attry. Friends comments on the issue.

To Naro- Of course I can speak for those I know and interact with on a daily basis. I challenge everyone I meet on issues facing this country. I do it at work, in the grocery store, while I am waiting for tickets to my favorite movie. Where ever I am at I talk about the issues facing this country. Those that start out with the same drivel that is being spouted in this thread. End up admiting they just do not understand the issue and have never given it much thought. But once I get them to agree on a definition of marriage, which 9 out of 10 will say two people that love each other, they agree that everyone should have that right.

If you try to circumvent the will of the people, it will only breed more anomosity and hate. Getting people to agree with you and then settling the issue is always the best way to effect lasting change. I guess when all is said and done I put faith in the people to do the right thing when given a real choice.

I am to tired so sorry for typos and mispellings but I am to tired to proof read :P


I'm curious about what exactly you thought we were trying to do. . .just wave our hands and change things? Of course we have the change the heartsa nd minds of the people--or at least their representatives. As I said in a previous post, yes we use the courts--but only to enforce laws that already exist. To get new laws, we realize that its a longer process. We also realize that, if ultimately the consitution is amended, then that's the law of the land--until we manage to get the amendment repealed.

No gay person has ever proposed a coup or a magic spell to simply change the world (though that would be nice. . . . . .magic mmmmmm)

Like I said, philsophically I agree with you 155%. I guess the point at which I'm realistically ready to compromise is the point at which all people--gay or straight--are equal under the government.
I forgot to add to my earlier post, that in practise the solution isnt likely to work. If people kick up a stink about marraige being amended so that it is cognizent of the rights of homosexual people, then imagine the stink the same people would kick up about all marraiges being 'done away with' legally. Instead of being legally married, they would be legally civil unioned. If they cant handle changes to legal marraige that dont effect them, what sort of reaction would something which nullifies their legal marraige and replaces it with a civil union have? I suggest they would howl even louder.

Then there would be all those who support or are neutral to people marrying someone of their own sex, but who feel very strongly about being legally married (or having the ability to be legally married available). I think more people would take issue with legal marraiges being done away with in favour or civil unions, than there are who currently oppose people marrying someone of the same sex.

You are making a bigger statement. Which, although I do not also make, I support completely.
The difference being that either way, in practise no barrier is placed in the way of my living my lifestyle. I fully appreciate that it is easier to go with principal, when one isnt effected in practise, than it is when one is effected in practise. Whether the law is changed quickly to something that at least grants equal rights, or whether it is changed less quickly to something that is truely equal and fair, I can continue on with my life, whereas those more directly effected are literally living a life around barriers that have a real and tangable effect on the quality of their life. It is much easier for me to look at the big picture from the comfort of my recognised rights, simply because my rights in this area are recognised under law. For someone directly effected, the practical ability to access their rights is a more pressing concern. A bandaid isnt better than not being cut, but that's a silly reason to reject a bandaid when you need one.

So do not misunderstand me--I know where you are coming from and support your right and your logic in believing it.
I dont misunderstand in the least Pracus. The issue has more pressing immediate ramifications with regards to your life, than it does with regards to mine. While I can look to the end result, your life is interfered with in the here and now, and I'd have to be heartless and without empathy to not understand why you would prefer to compromise for equality now, than press for some ideal in the unnamed future.

I'm well aware that if you had a life partner who became deathly ill tomorrow and was unconcious in hospital, that if their next of kin (who they may not have had contact with for many years) decides they dont want you to visit, even though this is the time when you would need each other the most, that you would most likely be prevented from seeing your life partner. No married people or even people with common law marraiges are expected to put up with such an unhumane circumstance. In reality the right to make next of kin decisions for one's life partner is more important to people effected, in the here and now, than some nice ideal. I can appreciate that, I hope there comes a time when it simply isnt an issue and people are able to accept that whether or not they like the way others live their lives, it's really not their business.

No gay marriage!
Only somber people should get married!
...
Oh wait, not that kind of "gay".

<cuts out a lot of really good stuff>

I like you :)

No gay marriage!
Only somber people should get married!
...
Oh wait, not that kind of "gay".

And here I thought that a wedding was supposed to be the happiest day of your life. . . .

And here I thought that a wedding was supposed to be the happiest day of your life. . . .
Well, read the Bible! Gay marriage is clearly wrong and immoral!
So no smiling!
:D

Well, read the Bible! Gay marriage is clearly wrong and immoral!
So no smiling!
:D


But. . . .but . . . .but. . . . . but I'm not a Christian!

But. . . .but . . . .but. . . . . but I'm not a Christian!
So?
What our book says is clearly what's best for all humanity. Look, it says so!

So?
What our book says is clearly what's best for all humanity. Look, it says so!


But. . . . but. . . . . but . . .. . we don't live in a theocracy!

But. . . . but. . . . . but . . .. . we don't live in a theocracy!
Well, we'll be changing that soon, so don't worry. You can just play along in the meanwhile.

Well, we'll be changing that soon, so don't worry. You can just play along in the meanwhile.
That's amusing...

To the devout:
Apparently they are going to hell anyway, so why not let them marry.

To the devout:
Apparently they are going to hell anyway, so why not let them marry.
Exactly! Well kind of...

Not bad, you even made me shed a tear almost, its not what you consider love that we are trying to restrict, we just dont believe God approves of the same sex coming together in a union in his house, or should be allowed to raise familys with the same sex parents, what makes us right and you wrong(in our eyes) its how civilisations, societys etc have always grown, and always will grow.
It's not up to you to say who can raise a family. If you want to live somewhere people's rights to fertility and family raising is decided by others, then you could always see if the Chinese are willing to grant you residency or citizenship. You've no more right to demand homosexual people not raise children, than I have to demand that religious zealots not be allowed to raise children. I personally know of many people who are currently in counselling trying to heal the damage of being raised by religious zealots (not to be confused with those who are religious and not zealots), however none of the people I know raised by homosexual or bisexual parents have issues stemming from their upbringing that require such outside help.

With regards to marrying in God's house, that isnt relevent. Churches choice what is allowed to go on in their church the same way any property owner can make such choices. Legal recognition of homosexual people's inherent right to marry, will not change this in any way.

Evidently what you imagine has always been the way civilisations have conducted themselves with regards to marraige, child rearing and what is considered to be a family, is a blantently false fantasy. Same sex marraiges for the purpose of procreation and child rearing, is in fact something that some socieities have historically embraced. For example an infertile older wealthy women in at least one society (whose name slips my mind) was able to take a wife who would then be impregnated by a third party. The couple then raised the child just as any other husband and wife in their society would do. In some societies the husband and wife do not habitually cohabitate, yet in others anything other than cohabitation might be grounds for divorce.

Some societies even have more than two gender classifications. In at least one society a 'manly women' would be a different gender to a 'women' and would most likely marry a women. She would also dress differently to other women and would likely have a 'masculine' occupation.

When it comes to what is a family things only get more complicated, in some societies family is recognised only by tracing female lines, in others only by tracing male lines, and in some it is recognised by tracing back through by male and female lines. In some societies certain cousins are recognised as sibblings, while in other socieities sibling relations exist only between people who share parents.


So basically they just want a tax-dodge? That's a great reason to get married.
The rights of married person go way beyond taxes. Legally the person you marry is your next of kin. If you are unconcious in hospital it is they who choose who may visit you, it is they who can consent or not consent to medical proceedures on your behalf. Can you imagine the love of your life, your chosen life partner, who's life you have shared for over a decade, being in hospital, possibly dying and you cant visit because their estranged family who never liked and never approved of your relationship, is using this opportunity as 'get backs'? Is that humane, much less fair and ethical? Considering many doctors now believe that unconcious patients may be able to process their surroundings on some levels, and considering that patients emotional states have been proven to effect their ability to heal, is it even healthy?

I've been debating with myself for some time as to whether or not I'll join this discussion. When I see some of the people who claim the same faith as I do, hitting so grossly off the mark, I wonder what impression the rest of you take from this. It stirs up hate on both sides, which is not what we are meant to inspire. Tell me, when you think of your system of beliefs, what is your prominent emotion? Fear, Guilt, Anger, Hate? or is it Love, Peace, Grace, Acceptance?
Aha, I consider that the instruction to 'witness God' should be thought about when one considers the commandments. In the first the instruction is to bring others to God by witnessing (ie testifying in some manner, through words and deeds) as to the greatness of a life lived in the grace of God, and the second (the instruction given in the commandments) clearly states that you dont do so falsely. That doesnt just mean that you dont lie by intention, it also (when the two are interpreted cognizent with each other) is an instruction to not misrepresent God's will and the worship of God. I consider those that preach any form of hatred in God's name, despite claiming to be Christians (followers of Christ), to be in breech of the commandment against bearing false witness. They should look to the beam in their eye before attending to the splinter in their brothers.

You keep telling 'em sister, because I doubt they'll listen to me.

Your've gone to an incredible effort to say were wrong, has to make you wonder if your so convinced about the rightness of gay marriage etc why you would even bother.
If the law didnt penalise people for murder, would you if you believed murder was wrong, make some effort to convince others that didnt believe it was wrong, to change their minds so that the law might be reconciled with what is right, or would you just walk away knowing that wrong was being made to look right, and knowing that this had a tangible effect on the lives of many?

Oh, please. So I misspelled it. It should be "religiophobe". You know what I meant. You want me to say "a person who has a phobia of religion'?
Homophobe: a person who has a fear or dislike of homosexuals.
I dont have a problem with people believing in and worshipping deities, so long as they dont interfere with the rights and lives of others. The difference between someone not agreeing to change their behaviour to reflect your beliefs, and you expecting them to agree to change their behaviour to fit your beliefs, should be blatently obvious. Would most people agree that the fact I dont believe in God doesnt mean you or your neighbour shouldnt be allowed to? I suspect so. If my beliefs shouldnt effect how someone else is allowed to live their life, why should someone else's beliefs effect how others can live their lives. I suggest if those who are against homosexual marraige on religious grounds, were prevented from participating in worship due to the beliefs of others, they would be the first people to complain...further more, they'd find me to be one of their most ardent supporters. Worship as you will, but dont interfere in the lives of those who dont share your beliefs.

What if their personal choice is to dislike homosexuality?
Or gay marriages?
Then they are welcome to not engage or participate in either, the same way I am welcome to not listen to or participate in the making of country music. The fact that I dislike country music doesnt give me the right to expect an end to it, or to penalise country musicians through discriminatory laws. I dont like raw tomatoes, the answer to this is for me to choose to not eat them, not for me to campaign to prevent those who want to eat them, from eating them. Wouldnt you think I was a bit mad if I suggested that my dislike of raw tomatoes is fit reason to ban others from eating them? Replace 'tomatoes' and 'me', with 'homosexuals getting married', and 'you', and you might get some idea of how your views make you appear to others.

Didnt take you long, its like you have the same tape playing over and over in your head again. Giving American blacks the same rights as whites didnt diminish America in any way, but extending this principal to the gay movement as a reason why they should be granted equal rights as heterosexuals, is taking away and distorting what a real family should be, man and woman marry, have kids.
Two men marrying, or two women marrying, and adopting or intro fertilisation etc, may make up a family, but its not the right kind of family.
By the way Im not racist, never have been, and I dont consider myself to be a homophobe either.
Man, woman and child(s).
God/nature.

Who are you to say what is and isnt a real family? The fact is different societies throughout human history have had incredibly varied notions as to what a family is. There is no one model of family that has ever been proven to be the only right kind of family. Not everyone believes in God, if you cant prove God's existence, then God is no authority when it comes to secular decisions such as whom should be allowed under law to marry whom. As to nature, nature is not a thinking decision making entity, and if it were, there are plenty of us that have never been issued with the 'right family decree'. The fact is there is no one form of family that is universal to all humanity. Many forms of family have and still do exist.

You mean a point of view that only accepts the same as you.
I suspect she means a point of view based on application of logical reasoning to true facts.

How about you give me some intelligent, thoughtful, fact and point riddled debates, and scientifically backed up as well, as why homos need to be married and have kids in order to feel equal to heteros.
Why would she, that isnt the issue here. The issue is whether or not there is a legitimate reason to prevent legally recognised marraiges between persons of the same sex. The whole point about a free society is that you may do whatever is not prohibited and that nothing can be prohibited unless sound cause for doing so has been established.

If this is such a sore issue with you guys, may I ask why its only been one in the last five years or so?
It has been an issue for a long time. However other more pressing issues had to be dealt with first. For instance laws against homosexual activities. How can one fight for equality for oneself under law, when it is illegal to be what you are under law?
Not one marched for etc for the last forty or more thousand years?
Whatever are you on about? Many societies have recognised the marital rights of same sex couples so why would anyone in such societies march? In many other societies, even raising the issue has been as good as prison or death sentence. Wanting equality and being insanely self destructive are by no means synomonous...

But if you got the current laws changed to your liking, it would upset alot of voters.
Their voice, what the majority wants is what really counts, not the rights of a minority, who want something they dont really need.
Not in a free society. Do you dissaprove of free socities? In a free society the rights of the minority are proactively protected from the tyranny of the majority.

As a human being their equal, but this is something they are not really a part of, its only for men and women. They dont need to be married, I have no problem with a civil union, and they dont really need to raise a family, you have to have both sexes as role models for a child growing up, not just one sex.
Ill answer the I know kids who have gay parents and theres nothing wrong with them questions tomorrow, I have to crash.
Who aside from something you cant prove exists, and something which has not thinking, no will, and in fact no voice or other means of speaking, decided that it's only for men and women, and what qualifies them to make such a determination?
Role models do not have to be only drawn from one's parents. Should an unmarried widow or widower have their children taken from them and placed in a two parent home? I dont believe so, and I dont know of anyone who believes so, although I know many who would oppose any such notion. Are the children of widows and widowers not as much in need of role models as anyone else's children. I suggest they are. Luckily one's role models are not restricted to one's parents. If they were, we would not have cases of people complaining that childless celebrity X is a bad role model.

No Rubbish you are missing the point compeltely. The fact that you have a say and can influence those around you to see things your way and vote the way you want is what is important.
Convicts of France, your notion of needing the consent of the majority, is contrary to the premises of a free society. If the majority wish to keep the minnority in an unequal position, that is not fine and dandy. Being in the majority is not the same as being right. The fact is what you describe is 'rule of might', simply through the might of numbers one group can hold another in subserviance. That is not a free society, nor is it particulary democratic as I understand the word.

Why are you trying so hard to undermine the founding fathers of the Country and not have your ideals fought out in the arena of public debate?

You are whining and it is the only way liberals know how to fight. Whine, scream and kick till people say enough and give in.
Would you please explain to me why this is whining and not engaging in public debate. Is it possible to engage in public debate from a position of opposing the status quo and not be whining? If so please explain to me how presenting one's views as posters are doing in this public debating forum, is whining rather than engaging in public debate.

I doubt it will work this time because there is one group of the Fanatics that are working their buts off to make sure the masses see it their way. While the other sits back whines and throws a fit crying ITS NOT FAIR! wha wha wha wha Go and get the process working for you. You might be surprised by how many people would support this in a vote if given the facts.
Please explain how the actions of those opposed to homosexual marraiges qualifies as working their butts off, and those who are engaged in similar actions in support of homosexual marraiges are sitting back and whinning. It seems to me your definition of the difference between engaging in public debate and whinning, is entirely dictated by how meritous you consider their cause to be.

It doesn't nor should it, Nor should the Federal government tell us what is right or wrong in this situtation. The Courts should not be telling the people of a paticular state what they can and can not do. Remember the Seperation of Powers? States have automony and are able to do what their population deems is right for them. Why are you against letting states decide this issue through a vote? Are you really willing to have the Federal Government tell us what we can and can not do?
To my mind the Federal government should indeed be able to tell you what you can do, however aside from those provisions already in place, the Federal government should not be allowed to tell you what you cant do. No one is interfered with by being told they may if they choose, but certainly it is an interference to be told you must not.

You know that as a same sex couple you can set up an power of attroney to give your partner the right to anything and everything you want in your life right?
Provided you have sufficient knowledge and funds to so right?

I am more of an individualist, I like to have my freedoms and be free of government interferance.
Hang on, didnt you already make it clear that if the majority want the government to interfere with you, that it's ok because there are more of them than there are of you?
I am more of an individualist, I like to have my freedoms and be free of government interferance.
If that is your genuine belief, then I believe that you are naive.

I like you
I like you too! :)

If people think gay marriage is such an insult to the institution of marriage, why don't they let it happen just to make their own marriages look better? :

All things considered, I wouldn't want to spend my afterlife with the sort of people who are convinced they're all going to Heaven anyway. Not that I believe in Heaven, or Hell for that matter.

If God wants to fry us ants with a magnifying glass I guess there's not much we can do about it. So why hassle people who want to get married? If it offends God, oops - oh well. That's what the Hell thing is supposed to be all about, right? I guess?

Beats me. I don't see how it's fair to deny people in love he right to marry, just because some other group of people are too uptight to handle things like love.

If people think gay marriage is such an insult to the institution of marriage, why don't they let it happen just to make their own marriages look better? :

Because when gays start getting married, the NEBULOUS PINK AURA will settle down upon all the land and wreak havoc! Cats will lay down with dogs, all little boys will start playing with barbies while little girls will want to ride Harlies, husbands and wives will start cheating on one another because all marriages will suddenly become lessened, forty days and forty nights of not darkness, but worse RAINBOWNESS will settled down on the world!!!! Woe to bain of our existence, woe to homosexuals for wanting equality! woe to the gay men and women of the world! woe is us! woe to us all!

<giggles>

<twiddles his thumbs and looks all innocent> What? Editted the post?!? of course not me!

Because when gays start getting married, the NEBULOUS PINK AURA will settle down upon all the land and wreak havoc! Cats will lay down with dogs, all little boys will start playing with barbies while little girls will want to ride Harlies, husbands and wives will start cheating on one another because all marriages will suddenly become lessened, forty days and forty nights of not darkness, but worse RAINBOWNESS will settled down on the world!!!! Whoa is the bain of our existence, whoa to homosexuals for wanting equality! Whoa to the gay men and women of the world! Who is us! Whoa to us all!

<giggles>
Might you possibly mean "woe"?
:D

Might you possibly mean "woe"?
Whoa Nelly.
*hides*

hello, I'm a lesbian who is really proud of being who I am. I also happen to believe in social justice, being kind to people, other living things and the planet. I believe in following my conscience and speaking out when bad things happen. I ride a push bike and prefer my hair cut short. My garden is organic and I'm a pacifist and a feminist and I don't follow a traditional religion or outdated social customs and...I'm also going to cause the collapse of Western civilisation, destroy the global economy, wipe out the species and pollute everyone's mind while I'm at it, destroy democracy in Australia, murder daffodils and scare the life out of eveything else.....apparently......

I'm also going to cause the collapse of Western civilisation, destroy the global economy, wipe out the species and pollute everyone's mind while I'm at it, destroy democracy in Australia, murder daffodils and scare the life out of eveything else.....apparently......
You go girl. :D

<whole heap of stuff>
Oh, please. So I misspelled it. It should be "religiophobe". You know what I meant. You want me to say "a person who has a phobia of religion'?
Homophobe: a person who has a fear or dislike of homosexuals.
Blake 7, I dont have a problem with people believing in and worshipping deities, so long as they dont interfere with the rights and lives of others. The difference between someone not agreeing to change their behaviour to reflect your beliefs, and you expecting them to agree to change their behaviour to fit your beliefs, should be blatently obvious. Would you agree that the fact I dont believe in God doesnt mean you shouldnt be allowed to? I suspect so. If my beliefs shouldnt effect how you are allowed to live your life, why should your beliefs effect how others can live their lives. I suggest if you were prevented from participating in worship due to the beliefs of others, you would be the first person to complain...further more, you'd find me to be one of your most ardent supporters. Worship as you will, but dont interfere in the lives of those who dont share your beliefs.
P&S, I'm just a little puzzled why you quoted me and then addressed your comments to Blakes 7. :confused:

I'm also going to cause the collapse of Western civilisation, destroy the global economy, wipe out the species and pollute everyone's mind while I'm at it, destroy democracy in Australia, murder daffodils and scare the life out of eveything else.....apparently......Can I kill the daffodils too? :)

Might you possibly mean "woe"?
:D

They both work :)

hello, I'm a lesbian who is really proud of being who I am. I also happen to believe in social justice, being kind to people, other living things and the planet. I believe in following my conscience and speaking out when bad things happen. I ride a push bike and prefer my hair cut short. My garden is organic and I'm a pacifist and a feminist and I don't follow a traditional religion or outdated social customs and...I'm also going to cause the collapse of Western civilisation, destroy the global economy, wipe out the species and pollute everyone's mind while I'm at it, destroy democracy in Australia, murder daffodils and scare the life out of eveything else.....apparently......


And like Martha Stewart, you will do that all before breakfast I'm sure ;)

P&S, I'm just a little puzzled why you quoted me and then addressed your comments to Blakes 7. :confused:
I must not have realised that it was you who I was quoting. My computer screen can show the width of a post, but not the width of a post and the sidebar that states who's post it is at the same time (pity me and my inferior sized computer monitor). I can only gather that when I replied, I didnt scroll over and check exactly who's comments I was replying to (oops). I can re-edit my comments to address you if you like (I'll even put your name in the quote box using the quote=function if you want me to re-edit it).. Let me know if you would like me to re-edit the post you refer to.

Religion sucks!

I must not have realised that it was you who I was quoting. My computer screen can show the width of a post, but not the width of a post and the sidebar that states who's post it is at the same time (pity me and my inferior sized computer monitor). I can only gather that when I replied, I didnt scroll over and check exactly who's comments I was replying to (oops). I can re-edit my comments to address you if you like (I'll even put your name in the quote box using the quote=function if you want me to re-edit it).. Let me know if you would like me to re-edit the post you refer to.
I think perhaps you should edit it for clarity - what clarity can be gleaned from this situation, as I'm really, really puzzled now. If you are talking to me, then what on earth are you talking about? None of your comments apply to me...

It's more than that Nyca--and you know it. Its next of kin status, its inheritance, its the right to make medical decisions for one another, its the right to visit one another in the hospital, its the right to own a house together.

And most importantly (and perhaps you don't understnad this one since you've never been treated as a second class citizen) its the right to be treated fairly and equally by the government. The civil government mind you, not the religious one.
Thats an assumption on your part, the fact that I've never been treated as a "second class citizen". In fact, I have. Guess what? I adapted and dealt with it - I didn't go all bleeding heart demanding the law be changed for me.
The law and government cannot pander to every minority request or our societal structure will crumble.

Where do you get off saying we aren't fighting? Gay people have been fighting to educate the public for years now. We've spent millions and will continue to do so. This includes educating the public, lobbying the congress, and yes using the courts to overrule unconsitutional and unfair laws.
Read: Brainwashing

Thats an assumption on your part, the fact that I've never been treated as a "second class citizen". In fact, I have. Guess what? I adapted and dealt with it - I didn't go all bleeding heart demanding the law be changed for me.
Why the hell would you accept that? Seriously, why? And can you explain in what context?

The law and governments are there to protect minorities from discrimination IMO. Well, at least that's one of their roles.

Read: Brainwashing
Hmm?
Where have homosexual groups been brainwashing people?

Thats an assumption on your part, the fact that I've never been treated as a "second class citizen". In fact, I have. Guess what? I adapted and dealt with it - I didn't go all bleeding heart demanding the law be changed for me.
The law and government cannot pander to every minority request or our societal structure will crumble.Why would you put up with that dichotomy? Granted, you may think it's an unchangeable facet of society, but shouldn't you still feel the need to be respected for who you are?

I think perhaps you should edit it for clarity - what clarity can be gleaned from this situation, as I'm really, really puzzled now. If you are talking to me, then what on earth are you talking about? None of your comments apply to me...

Most people opposed to gay marriage here appear to be homophobes, unfortunately. I'm opposed to organised religion - that doesn't make me a religophobe.
I was referring to the difference between those who actually want to interfere with religions, and those that simply want to prevent religions interfering with others, and/or dont particularly care for religion/s personally. While some people dislike religions, and/or dont have much time for them, or are neutral about them, there are others who would actively prevent organised religious worship. Basically I think if you dont much like religions but consider religious worship to be a personal decision that you wont interfere with, then I dont think it is accurate to discribe you as a religophobe, although if you were actively engaged in preventing organised religious worship, such a terminology might be accurate.

Hmm?
Where have homosexual groups been brainwashing people?
Oh come on, get real. There is so much pro-gay propganda being pushed on people, as young as school kiddies, you can't deny it's existence.

Read: BrainwashingRead: Cynicism.
I'm an idealist. Maybe I'm too young to see life from another perspective - but while I'm here, I'm going to argue for gay rights.

Oh come on, get real. There is so much pro-gay propganda being pushed on people, as young as school kiddies, you can't deny it's existence.
Well, most of the propaganda I was force-fed up until the end of high school was anti-gay, so I have no personal experience. I am connected to no groups that push propaganda, so I don't know from that either.
Might you be so kind as to provide some examples?

Read: Cynicism.
I'm an idealist. Maybe I'm too young to see life from another perspective - but while I'm here, I'm going to argue for gay rights.

You told me you were a cynic, Smelen. :p And don't ever turn into a wrinkly old conservative. I won't love you anymore. :(

I was referring to the difference between those who actually want to interfere with religions, and those that simply want to prevent religions interfering with others, and/or dont particularly care for religion/s personally. While some people dislike religions, and/or dont have much time for them, or are neutral about them, there are others who would actively prevent organised religious worship. Basically I think if you dont much like religions but consider religious worship to be a personal decision that you wont interfere with, then I dont think it is accurate to discribe you as a religophobe, although if you were actively engaged in preventing organised religious worship, such a terminology might be accurate.I think you've misunderstood me. I don't dislike or fear religion, I have chosen not to follow any particular one. Thus I am not a religiophobe. It is possible to have people who extremely dislike religion, yet still accept that others can follow religion. They fall into the category of religiophobes.

I restate: homophobes do not have to be opposed to practising homosexuals. They just have to dislike the idea. In extreme cases, yes, hard-core homophobes try to restrict the rights of homosexuals.

EDIT: Tangents. Semantics. Let's get back on topic... :)

Preebles!! Check your telegrams :fluffle:
You told me you were a cynic, Smelen. :p And don't ever turn into a wrinkly old conservative. I won't love you anymore. :(Hehe. I'm cynical in all things to do with politics and love, but still passionately idealistic about society. I don't know how.
And I can assure you I won't be wrinkly for at least fifty years. The liberal part of me may hang around longer...

Not sure if anyone else agrees with me, but I say let em get married. Don't get me wrong, I think homosexuality is wrong, and getting married to the sam e sex is wrong, but We are basing this wrong or right on the bible right. That's where this argument stems down to is in the Bible. I understand the frustration with letting people getting married to the same sex, and that the Bible says those relationships are unatural and wrong, but the Bible also teaches us not to be tyrants. Jesus' examples in the Bible are one of a loving father, full of advice and good will. Not once in the Bible doe he impose his beliefs, his father's beliefs on any person. And I believe we should be held up to the same, we cannot impose our beliefs, right or wrong, on any person, especially if what they are doing is not hurting us personally. Anyways this is simply an argument against those who believe that gay marriage should be banned due to religious regions, if u have other reasons I'd like to hear them, I'm open minded. :D

I think you've misunderstood me. I don't dislike or fear religion, I have chosen not to follow any particular one. Thus I am not a religiophobe. It is possible to have people who extremely dislike religion, yet still accept that others can follow religion. They fall into the category of religiophobes.

I restate: homophobes do not have to be opposed to practising homosexuals. They just have to dislike the idea. In extreme cases, yes, hard-core homophobes try to restrict the rights of homosexuals.

EDIT: Tangents. Semantics. Let's get back on topic... :)
Actually at the time I believed the comments were someone else's, and I interpreted them in the context of things the person had previously posted (i.e. I interpreted them to be consistent with what I thought were previous posts from the same person). So really my post merely repeated what it was that you were saying, (although at the time I didnt realise that).

Actually at the time I believed the comments were someone else's, and I interpreted them in the context of things the person had previously posted (i.e. I interpreted them to be consistent with what I thought were previous posts from the same person). So really my post merely repeated what it was that you were saying, (although at the time I didnt realise that).Yup yup, taken on board.
So we agree? :D Excellent. Glad that's cleared up.

One thing though, I have one problem with gays, that is they ruined things for straights like sailor uniforms. Noone will be caught dead in those anymore. The gays wanted to play a little dress up and there it went. Same with some names like Butch.

LOL :)

A a gay man, I would like to make a personal apology for butt-cheek-cut-out-black-leather-pants. They're JUST WRONG :rolleyes:

Read what I just put in the last thing I wrote to you. I already said I don't like men or women, and dont even try to tell me i mastubrate! :)

It is time for You, to have Sex. Honestly.

Why does the post before this say "Zitat von" rather than "Posted by"?

It is time for You, to have Sex. Honestly.Why do I not get these posts showing up on my screen???

Because English is not the only language of this Forum ;)

Zitat = quote
von = of

German - one of the *other* languages.

Why do I not get these posts showing up on my screen???
What do you mean "these posts"?
S/he replied to an older post in this thread.

Because English is not the only language of this Forum ;)

Zitat = quote
von = of

German - one of the *other* languages.
Interesting!
I thought forum functions ran in English-only. The forums are multilingual, cool!

What do you mean "these posts"?
S/he replied to an older post in this thread.Really? It's not on any of the 46 pages I have....... :confused: Ah well. The mysteries of life.

And do the forums run in Old English? :D

Really? It's not on any of the 46 pages I have....... :confused: Ah well. The mysteries of life.
46 pages?
There are 63...

soon to be 64

im sorry but i am to lazy to read back 10 pages so what is everyone rambling about?

I have 20 posts per page - fewer pages to bother with!

This thread makes me wonder what kids learn in school these days.

This thread makes me wonder what kids learn in school these days.
Why is that?

Read: Brainwashing

Oh boy, that's rich. Every arguement the anti gay marraige people make boils doen to one thing. Bigotry. I haven't seen them offer a single rational arguement.

Why? Let me tell you why, it is not marriage, marriage is not the joining of two people. It is the joining of one man and one woman. I dont care if gays stay together, do what they want, I dont believe in discrimination, but if they want to be joined so bad why dont they get their own Union?
It's the same thing, but you're wanting to call it something else. A marriage is the joining of two or more lives, regardless of gender. How else could King Solomon have had 100 wives if same sex marriage is not marriage?

One thing though, I have one problem with gays, that is they ruined things for straights like sailor uniforms. Noone will be caught dead in those anymore. The gays wanted to play a little dress up and there it went. Same with some names like Butch.
Wwwwaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!

Are you insecure with yourself, that you'll allow what others think of you to dictate what you wear?

Because English is not the only language of this Forum ;)

Zitat = quote
von = of

German - one of the *other* languages.
My understanding of german leads me to understand "von" to mean "from".

Actually it works as both. Hence names with "von" preceding them.

Thats an assumption on your part, the fact that I've never been treated as a "second class citizen". In fact, I have. Guess what? I adapted and dealt with it - I didn't go all bleeding heart demanding the law be changed for me.
The law and government cannot pander to every minority request or our societal structure will crumble.

Well, I'd be interested to hear how.

Read: Brainwashing


Since when has going on a campaign of public education been brainwashing? I hold that church ceremonies are FAR more brainwashing then TV ads, debates, etc.

Oh come on, get real. There is so much pro-gay propganda being pushed on people, as young as school kiddies, you can't deny it's existence.


Assume I come from a backward state where it might as well be illegal to be gay (read: Mississippi). Educate me <giggle> on just what this pro-gay propaganda might be.

Not sure if anyone else agrees with me, but I say let em get married. Don't get me wrong, I think homosexuality is wrong, and getting married to the sam e sex is wrong, but We are basing this wrong or right on the bible right. That's where this argument stems down to is in the Bible. I understand the frustration with letting people getting married to the same sex, and that the Bible says those relationships are unatural and wrong, but the Bible also teaches us not to be tyrants. Jesus' examples in the Bible are one of a loving father, full of advice and good will. Not once in the Bible doe he impose his beliefs, his father's beliefs on any person. And I believe we should be held up to the same, we cannot impose our beliefs, right or wrong, on any person, especially if what they are doing is not hurting us personally. Anyways this is simply an argument against those who believe that gay marriage should be banned due to religious regions, if u have other reasons I'd like to hear them, I'm open minded. :D

I just thought this post stood repeating :)

Oh boy, that's rich. Every arguement the anti gay marraige people make boils doen to one thing. Bigotry. I haven't seen them offer a single rational arguement.


I've seen them make some seriously delusional ones--and they think *WE* have a psychiatric illness!

Not sure if anyone else agrees with me, but I say let em get married. ... :D

Post #811 (I think) back on page 55 has a very large post with over a dozen new testament versus that support your stand here. It's so good to see someone else with Faith and a brain at the same time!

Not once in the Bible doe he impose his beliefs, his father's beliefs on any person.
Which bible are you reading? Much of the bible is about going out and prothelitising to the heathens, conquering them and forcing them to live by biblical law. If you think god is a loving father figure, then you obviously haven't paid much attention to the OT. Talk about a wrathful, jealous, hateful, biggotted, mysognenistic, war god.

I read this posts and I'm just wondering
What the hell religion has to do with this...????
People get married even if they aren't part of some religious group.
So why do you Quote bible?? It has nothing to do with this...
Or something...

I read this posts and I'm just wondering
What the hell religion has to do with this...????
People get married even if they aren't part of some religious group.
So why do you Quote bible?? It has nothing to do with this...
Or something...

There are often several topics that revolve around the more sensitive issues. Politics, Civil/Human Rights, Science and Religion. When you have these highly volitile subjects involved in an issue, each must be addressed and taken into account. This is also why abortion is such a controversial subject, because of the number of factors, and the level of emotional attachment to those factors.

One of the hurdles you come across in any homosexual-political discussion is the religious zealot point of view, and those of us who read are trying to show those who only judge and make claims in terms they must accept. Some do not wish to accept, and have extreme emotional attachments to their judgements, and so there enters a religious debate in the midst of a political one.

Religion sucks!
So do homos(joke)

So do homos(joke)
That was a pretty good one!
:D

There are often several topics that revolve around the more sensitive issues. Politics, Civil/Human Rights, Science and Religion. When you have these highly volitile subjects involved in an issue, each must be addressed and taken into account. This is also why abortion is such a controversial subject, because of the number of factors, and the level of emotional attachment to those factors.

One of the hurdles you come across in any homosexual-political discussion is the religious zealot point of view, and those of us who read are trying to show those who only judge and make claims in terms they must accept. Some do not wish to accept, and have extreme emotional attachments to their judgements, and so there enters a religious debate in the midst of a political one.And then there's the philosophical and social debates over the influences of homosexuality on the broader society...
The most persistent debate tends to come from those on either end of the spectrum, while those in the middle wonder why we can't all just get along.

:D I read this posts and I'm just wondering
What the hell religion has to do with this...????
People get married even if they aren't part of some religious group.
So why do you Quote bible?? It has nothing to do with this...
Or something...
It keeps coming back to the bible, because religious beliefs is often one of the major reasons the anti-gay marriage side comes up with.

I did a nice big post a few pages back which I think is rather neat, so I'm going to be a pain in the arse and stick it up again. :p

I've yet to hear (IMO) a decent and thought provoking arguement from the anti-gay marriage side. Off the top of my head, I've heard;

1. "Leviticus 18:22 says that God doesn't like it."
Leviticus 18:22 has alot of other interesting stuff in it too. Try reading the rest of the book, and then come back and tell me whether we should listen to what Mr. Leviticus has to say.

2. "The Church says it's an abomination"
The Church has said alot of things, alot of which has proven to be complete crap. Back in the renaissance days, I believe the Pope insisted the world was flat, despite the growing mound of scientific evidence otherwise.

3. "Marriage is between a man and a women, and that's the way it's been for thousands of years"
Are you saying we should listen to the wise men of history, because those same wise men insisted on persecuting blacks and treating women as second-class citizens for thousands of years too. Things change, and we are clearly better off for it.

4. "Homosexuality is not natural"
Who's to say what's natural? God? If so, please refer to points one and two. Otherwise, I would argue that the definition of "natural" is a subjective one. I suppose you could say that we where designed/evolved otherwise, but by that logic, nobody should be shaving their legs/beards either.

5. "Homosexuality is a disease"
Prove it. Almost every gay would say otherwise, and I've yet to see conclusive evidence that it is.

6. "Marriage is for procreation"
This is another historical thing (see point 3), and definitions of things change all the time. Besides, do we really need to continue procreating? It seems the Earth is a tad full as it is.

7. "Homosexual couples raise screwy childeren".
Marriage doesn't = children. I suppose you could argue that it would be the start of a slippery slope to allowing gay couples to adopt, in which case, I'll quickly adress the issue anyway.
The research I've read indicates that while the children of gay couples do have more problems, they seem to be entirely attributed to the flak they get about having gay parents, ie. the lack of acceptance by society is to blame.
Also, if you want to deny gay couples the right to have childeren, I would argue that we should ban some heterosexual couples from procreating too. Some people just aren't fit to raise childeren, and it puts a huge burden on society as a result.

8. "Homosexual couples aren't really in love"
As I said in point 5, prove it.

That's all I can think of for now. Please tell me if I missed any.

From reading Blake 7's posts, it seems his main arguement is mainly point 6, with elements of points 7. and 3. If you read this Black 7, please tell me why my counter-arguements are wrong.

I would also like to introduce another reason I have heard in this thread;

9. "The majority are against it, so why force through a law that only a minority of people want?"
I can't see how the majority would be affected by allowing gay marriages here. This would be a law for the minority, which only affects the minority. The lives of the majority are in no way compromised by allowing gay marriages, and I challenge anyone to prove to me otherwise.

Finally, I'd like to thank Ellanesse for her input into this thread. It's always nice to hear the voice of reason from a devout christian, since you rarely hear it over the roar of complaint from the fundamentalists. :D

and how on Earth can you look at yourself in the mirror after you insult adoptive children and adoptive families in this way? to claim that people are "robbing themselves" by choosing to take in a child who would otherwise never have a home is disgusting, and to claim their love and their family is in any way inferior to people who make their own children is so ignorant i don't even know where to start.

Silly girl. Go back and read it properly. I said... people who can have children but decide not too... are robbing themselves, you somehow got that mixed up with the comment in the same paragraph about how infertile couples can adopt... :rolleyes: I sometimes think your so keen to see some kind of injustice that you imagine it.

That was a pretty good one!
:D
I thought so too. :D

Bottle- Care to give facts supporting your claims about children being better off with Gay couples I love it when people holler for facts from others but never seem to put up their own. Of course I have found this is a tactic often done by liberals. Show me the stats of where you got your info because I believe it is a bunch of gunk flittered down by less than reputiated sources.

She probably got them from some gay pride magazine, :) Most kids would be happy I admit, if their looked after fed well, clothed, schooled etc, but so would a pig if it isnt mistreated, it isnt really the issue, anyway because they dont know any better, that being bought up by two parents of the same sex, is just wrong, wrong wrong! Can we please get an emoticon that looks like its going to loose its lunch.

Sorry, why is it wrong?

being bought up by two parents of the same sex, is just wrong, wrong wrong!

WHY???
Other than the fact that YOU don't like it?

Not to be rude, but IT IS A CHOICE TO BE HOMO, NOT SOMETHING THAT IS LIKE A DISEASE! Therapists make EVERYONE think that EVERYTHING is a disease these days..... :sniper:

It's not a disease, but it's not a choice either. I read that it's to do with chromosones: like having the hormones of a man inside a woman's body, or vice versa.

Which shoots down the "it's not natural" argument, too.

Also: Blakes 7, why is it wrong?

~Swan-ships, who is more-or-less Christian.

She probably got them from some gay pride magazine, :) Most kids would be happy I admit, if their looked after fed well, clothed, schooled etc, but so would a pig if it isnt mistreated, it isnt really the issue, anyway because they dont know any better, that being bought up by two parents of the same sex, is just wrong, wrong wrong! Can we please get an emoticon that looks like its going to loose its lunch.

Here in Sweden, a member of the conservative Christian Democrat party performed a study that compared how well children living in same-sex families fare compared to children living in "ordinary" families. He found no difference. None. Guess your argument is false, then.

It's not a disease, but it's not a choice either. I read that it's to do with chromosones: like having the hormones of a man inside a woman's body, or vice versa.

Which shoots down the "it's not natural" argument, too.

~Swan-ships, who is more-or-less Christian.
It's not hormones. I know quite a bit about hormones, me being transsexual. and all. I can't remember exactly what it was I last theard they were research whether homosexuality is correlated to, though.

Here in Sweden, a member of the conservative Christian Democrat party performed a study that compared how well children living in same-sex families fare compared to children living in "ordinary" families. He found no difference. None. Guess your argument is false, then.
Yay, evidence. :)
We have yet to see some from the other side...

WHY???
Other than the fact that YOU don't like it?

Because it makes little sense, to subject kids, who dont know any better to be bought up in a enviroment with only one of the sexes as their role model.
The biggest crime is these kids will leave home when they grow up, totally brainwashed into thinking they have been bought up normally.

It's not hormones. I know quite a bit about hormones, me being transsexual. and all. I can't remember exactly what it was I last theard they were research whether homosexuality is correlated to, though.
I've read and heard about hypothalamic size and/or structure having an influence.

Here in Sweden, a member of the conservative Christian Democrat party performed a study that compared how well children living in same-sex families fare compared to children living in "ordinary" families. He found no difference. None. Guess your argument is false, then.

Really, can you put it up here?

Because it makes little sense, to subject kids, who dont know any better to be bought up in a enviroment with only one of the sexes as their role model.
But WHY is it bad for them? So are single parent families wrong? Should that be banned?

The biggest crime is these kids will leave home when they grow up, totally brainwashed into thinking they have been bought up normally.
Why is it NOT normal? Only because it deviates statistically? Well screw that. If we defined 'normal' by the bell curve we'd be a much more boring society.

It's not hormones. I know quite a bit about hormones, me being transsexual. and all. I can't remember exactly what it was I last theard they were research whether homosexuality is correlated to, though.It was chromosome Xq28 last I heard ...

Really, can you put it up here?

Unfortunately, no. Einhorn died before it was published, and the party, in true "Christian" style, tried to bury the report thereafter because it didn't match their view of the world. The link below is to an article speaking of it, but isn't of much use unless you know Swedish. (No English references available. :( )

http://www.sr.se/Ekot/arkiv.asp?DagensDatum=2002-09-12&Artikel=117381

Why is it NOT normal? Only because it deviates statistically? Well screw that. If we defined 'normal' by the bell curve we'd be a much more boring society.Ah, bell curves. What about typically low-skewed distributions such as IQ and 4U maths?

It was chromosome Xq28 last I heard ...
Is that in men and women?
Damn that long arm of the X chromosome agenda!

Is that in men and women?
Damn that long arm of the X chromosome agenda!I think they only found evidence of linkage to male homosexuality, though.
Damn those X-chromosomes ...

Beware! X chromosomes are everywhere! Hidden amongst us! Destroying our children!

Beware! X chromosomes are everywhere! Hidden amongst us! Destroying our children!I've got two. :D

I've got two.

FREAK!!! :eek:

FREAK!!! :eek:I don't have two? But - but - but Mr Iverach said ...
EDIT: You're just messing with me, aren't you? :rolleyes: I hate being gullible.

Or wait, this could be a med student/biology thing... maybe I have more than two. *ponders* I'll stick to the solid ground of maths.

Anyway, to get back on topic, I've found some links:
Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7581447)
Homosexuality, type 1: an Xq28 phenomenon (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7794104)

Beware! X chromosomes are everywhere! Hidden amongst us! Destroying our children!


Gaah! There are millions of them! There's at least one in almost every cell of my body!!!

I had the misfortune of being born with an X and a Y...
:(

I don't have two? Wait, but Mr Iverach said ...
EDIT: You're just messing with me, aren't you? I hate being gullible.

*giggles*

I had the misfortune of being born with an X and a Y...
There there love. We have surgery to fix that now.

There there love. We have surgery to fix that now.And hormone pills.

And hormone pills.
And I would know that already.

This thread seems to be properly threadjacked now. What happened to the discussion topic?

Bottle- Care to give facts supporting your claims about children being better off with Gay couples I love it when people holler for facts from others but never seem to put up their own. Of course I have found this is a tactic often done by liberals. Show me the stats of where you got your info because I believe it is a bunch of gunk flittered down by less than reputiated sources.
well, you can rest at ease, because i'm not a liberal :).

as for my sources, the APA and over 30 reputable journals in the field of psychology have the information about how homosexual parenting does not carry any inherent psychological danger to children. in terms of kids being "better off" with gay parents, i was clearly refering to the specific points i mentioned...children are less likely to be abused and more likely to live in homes with higher incomes. now, those factors may not make their lives better over all, since "better" is quite subjective and there are many people who would argue that a kid is better off in a home where Daddy uses the belt, but in reference to those points there is ample data.

the abuse statistics are available throught the Uniform Crime reports and related statistical analyses of those figures, as well as through any number of studies on domestic abuse. the income figures are based on census data and economic research.

i can even get some "quick and dirty" numbers off the 'net!
-While domestic abuse in gay couples is most definitely under-reported, statistics still show the straight men are holding the field when it comes to abuse. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 95% of all victims of domestic violence are women, and 98% of all abusers are male. The National Crime Statistics Report establishes that domestic abuse occurs in 60% of marriages, is the most underreported crime, and 90% of battered women reported that their children were present when they were beaten.
-Though still horrible, the numbers for gay couples are slightly better: the prevalence of domestic violence among Gay and Lesbian couples is approximately 25 - 33%, [compared to between 50-70% in heterosexual relationships, as reported by the sources above and the BJS]. (Barnes, It's Just a Quarrel', American Bar Association Journal, February 1998, p. 25.)

-In homes where partner abuse occurs, children are 1,500 times more likely to be abused. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Family Violence: Interventions for the Justice System.
-40-60% of men who abuse women also abuse children.
American Psychl. Ass'n, Violence and the Family: Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family.

-according to the UCR and other sources, between 91% and 97% of child molesters are heterosexual males. Roughly 90% of these men will sexually assault their own child or a child of a girlfriend/wife, though many will also go on to molest other children.

-According to a Wall Street Journal article from the mid 90s (i know, a bit out of date, but it was the first "non-gay" source to jump out at me), Gays have an average annual household income of $55,430, versus an average heterosexual household income of $32,144. Factoring in comparative household sizes, gays average annual individual income is reported as $36,800, compared with $12,287 for average Americans.

-Poverty is significantly related to incidence rates in nearly every category of maltreatment. Compared to children whose families earned $30,000 or more, children in families with annual incomes below $15,000 were:
* More than 22 times more likely to experience maltreatment under the Harm Standard and 25 times more likely under the Endangerment Standard.
* More than 44 times more likely to be neglected, by either definitional standard.
* Over 22 times more likely to be seriously injured using either definitional standard.
* 60 times more likely to die from maltreatment under the Harm Standard.
(Executive Summary of the Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect, and Reid, T. (1996). News NIS-3 Data. APSAC Advisor, 9 (3).)

-Stepfathers are 7 times more likely to abuse than biological fathers, however, abuse by a biological parent tends to be more severe; a child who is abused by a biological parent is at higher risk of sustaining an injury from the abuse than those abused by a non-biological parent. (National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) – Project of the National Center of Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN): U.S Department of Health and Human Services.)

This thread seems to be properly threadjacked now. What happened to the discussion topic?
Everybody debating against us left or something...
:(

There hasn't been a response from the opposite side for the last 15 minutes. We are the ADD generation after all.

There hasn't been a response from the opposite side for the last 15 minutes. We are the ADD generation after all.
Attention spans are overrated. I live perfectly fine without one, I don't even HEY LOOK! A CHICKEN! Wanna go feed it?

well, I believe that this is discrimination. So why don't we just take away all the hole marrige thing. And make something for everyone and not just some special kind of people. Things should be equal for EVERYONE, and with EVERYTHING. And marrige is a very important thing so if we don't do anything about this it will never be a free and equal community.

Attention spans are overrated. I live perfectly fine without one, I don't even HEY LOOK! A CHICKEN! Wanna go feed it?
Dude, that wasn't a chicken, it was a little Kiwi!

She probably got them from some gay pride magazine, :)

i guess the FBI's Uniform Crime Report and the Wall Street Journal are gay pride magazines, then?


Most kids would be happy I admit, if their looked after fed well, clothed, schooled etc, but so would a pig if it isnt mistreated, it isnt really the issue,

wait, so you are saying that IT DOESN'T MATTER if children are looked after, fed well, clothed, and schooled?! you are saying that minor details like those aren't "really the issue" when talking about child welfare?!


anyway because they dont know any better, that being bought up by two parents of the same sex, is just wrong, wrong wrong! Can we please get an emoticon that looks like its going to loose its lunch.
wow, so you actually are saying that how well a parent cares for their child or children (feeding, clothing, schooling, etc) is not as important as making sure they learn that homosexuality is wrong.

i guess that clears up your motivation. you don't give a damn about keeping kids safe or healthy, you just want to ensure they are reared homophobic. this has nothing to do with protecting kids, for you, it's just about making sure your personal opinions are propagated as rapidly as possible.

"Family Values" my ass.

Is there a shrine somewhere where we can worship Bottle? There should be. :)

Where did all the nay-sayers go? Were they scared away by the sudden barrage of facts?

Finally, I'd like to thank Ellanesse for her input into this thread. It's always nice to hear the voice of reason from a devout christian, since you rarely hear it over the roar of complaint from the fundamentalists. :D

:) Thank you for that, double. Since I started reading these forums nearly 6 months ago I've developed a bit more of a big mouth when it comes to people who claim one thing and behave in a completely opposite manner. My poor husband... for every one post, there are a dozen rants. "I can't believe that they can actually spout this nonsense!" ;) While I appreciate your thanks (and smile and blush profusely of course, silly fem!) I say the things I say for two reasons : Maybe some of you will accept that not all who believe behave in that manner, and so that some of those who profess to believe will begin acting in the appropriate manner.

It's nice to have people that I can come talk to at times. Very few are willing to get into debates of this nature when you're sitting within punching range. :D

Attention spans are overrated. I live perfectly fine without one, I don't even HEY LOOK! A CHICKEN! Wanna go feed it?Hey,a white elephant!

I already gave Pracus a medal ... I don't have a second one for Bottle. :(