NationStates Jolt Archive

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

i prefer my sacrifices in the form of a goat or hog, but no cows, virgins, or snakes.

Where did all the nay-sayers go? Were they scared away by the sudden barrage of facts?
i would also like to point out that i challenged the 'phobes to present their own evidence about 10 pages ago, and yet here i am presenting more of MY facts. they still haven't addressed the original concerns that prompted my frustration in the first place! and, of course, they make assertions that having gay parents is harmful to children without making ANY effort to back that up with fact; even though the onus of proof is on them (because they make the original assertion), they always duck that responsibility.

i predict they will now either deny or ignore my numbers, or they will divert the thread onto attacking the numbers i presented...they will NOT present any solid facts of their own, nor will they make any effort to back their claims with anything beyond "Well, being gay is obviously icky and wrong, so there!"

i prefer my sacrifices in the form of a goat or hog, but no cows, virgins, or snakes.
If you have any virgins you were planning to sacrifice to Bottle, you can give them to me instead. Just make sure not to kill them first.
;)

If you have any virgins you were planning to sacrifice to Bottle, you can give them to me instead. Just make sure not to kill them first.
;)
roger that. virgins are such volatile creatures...i prefer to play with safer pets :).

i prefer my sacrifices in the form of a goat or hog, but no cows, virgins, or snakes.

What if it's a virgin goat? ;)


i would also like to point out that i challenged the 'phobes to present their own evidence about 10 pages ago, and yet here i am presenting more of MY facts. they still haven't addressed the original concerns that prompted my frustration in the first place! and, of course, they make assertions that having gay parents is harmful to children without making ANY effort to back that up with fact; even though the onus of proof is on them (because they make the original assertion), they always duck that responsibility.

i predict they will now either deny or ignore my numbers, or they will divert the thread onto attacking the numbers i presented...they will NOT present any solid facts of their own, nor will they make any effort to back their claims with anything beyond "Well, being gay is obviously icky and wrong, so there!"

Those prediction will no doubt be eerily accurate... :eek:

What if it's a virgin goat? ;)

yeah, like you can find one! everybody knows that goats are the crackhoes of the animal kingdom!


Those prediction will no doubt be eerily accurate... :eek:
i would like nothing more than to be proven wrong. i wish they would consult reputable sources, give solid evidence, and engage in this debate as mature adults. i would LOVE to see them founding their position on something beyond their personal opinions. i would be delighted to see them cite any book other than the Bible.

but they just like making me sad, i guess. :(

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

No kidding. I often end up taking the diplomtic route on such issues and saying "well, each to their own I guess". It's usually pretty difficult to force people to see things your own way anyway. Far better to just state what you think, and hope it sinks in one day. :D

Anyway, I have to say I'm quite amused with Blake 7's lack of response to my counter-arguements to the common reasons the anti-gay side takes (post 962). I think I'll just stubbornly take it as proof of the validity of my arguements. :p

Anyway, I have to say I'm quite amused with Blake 7's lack of response to my counter-arguements to the common reasons the anti-gay side takes (post 962). I think I'll just stubbornly take it as proof of the validity of my arguements. :p
you've noticed that too, huh? i suggest that every time he posts you re-post your original arguments directly below his post, until he chooses to respond to them. i suggest all people on this thread refuse to be diverted onto tangents by the 'phobes; just keep re-posting the arguments they are dodging until they respond to them.

after all, if they are so very very right, then why should it be any trouble for them to find mountains of proof for their positions?

When someone has a groundless argument, they take the fight or flight route when confronted with it. If all they have is their bigotry then you'll not be able to corner him. They'll just go elsewhere and yell 'This can't happen because they're different than us!' and create mob mentalities with the others who have previously had their common sense glands removed.

Don't bet on it. I find people as a whole tend to ignore questions they can't answer.

[tag]

We TRADITIONALISTS are trying to fight for our way, no matter what other people think and/or say.

Not to be a snot here, but if that's so, why don't you stop provoking people on an online forum and start actually trying to get something done about your views?
I mean, I personally may find them reprehensible, but your views are your views and, unless I'm mistaken, all of us live in countries where we get some kind of say in the laws they make. Write this letter to your congressman, your MP, whatever, instead of trolling here.

Now that that's been said, I have to note that, given all the discrimination they face, and all the flak they take from Bible-thumpers and such, I doubt many, if any, homosexuals *chose* that life. I know I certainly couldn't change the way my brain is wired like that! It seems like it'd be difficult indeed to simply decide to be attracted to women instead of men, or whichever the case may be for you. After all, when you look at an attractive member of the sex you're interested in, you know whether or not you're interested. It's not as if you walk around noticing attractive people and saying to yourself, "Oh, now do I like girls or boys today?" At least, not most of us. ;)

Oh, and applause to Bottle for the lovely argument.

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.


http://www.adoptions.com/aecgaylez.html#myth
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#goodparents

Can someone cut and paste those for him, since he is ignoring me?
They've been provided before, but I guess he chose to ignore them and instead prefers to claim that we've never provided evidence. . . .

http://www.adoptions.com/aecgaylez.html#myth
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#goodparents

Can someone cut and paste those for him, since he is ignoring me?
They've been provided before, but I guess he chose to ignore them and instead prefers to claim that we've never provided evidence. . . .
Better yet, I'll just quote you for a first measure.

ibut they just like making me sad, i guess. :(

They make us sad. . .we make the baby jesus sad. . . its quid pro quo.

Now that that's been said, I have to note that, given all the discrimination they face, and all the flak they take from Bible-thumpers and such, I doubt many, if any, homosexuals *chose* that life. I know I certainly couldn't change the way my brain is wired like that! It seems like it'd be difficult indeed to simply decide to be attracted to women instead of men, or whichever the case may be for you. After all, when you look at an attractive member of the sex you're interested in, you know whether or not you're interested. It's not as if you walk around noticing attractive people and saying to yourself, "Oh, now do I like girls or boys today?" At least, not most of us. ;)

exactly. i can't simply choose not to be attracted to a pretty girl or a pretty boy i see, any more than you can simply choose not to be attracted to somebody who is attractive to you. i can be turned off to somebody if their personality is obnoxious, but i can't switch off my physical attraction because it's something beyond my control. i'm honestly baffled by the fact that there are people who are exclusively straight or exclusively gay (something my straight boyfriend tries to explain to me all the time) because for me that is like somehow ignoring 50% of the gorgeous people in the world...how do you do that?!


Oh, and applause to Bottle for the lovely argument.
thanks...if only i didn't have the sinking sensation that it will all go to waste...

They make us sad. . .we make the baby jesus sad. . . its quid pro quo.
as my friend Mark is wont to say,

"Baby Jeebus is the best dead baby joke ever told, especially because there are millions of people who don't realize they are the punchline."

i'm honestly baffled by the fact that there are people who are exclusively straight or exclusively gay (something my straight boyfriend tries to explain to me all the time) because for me that is like somehow ignoring 50% of the gorgeous people in the world...how do you do that?!
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Easy as that. You could wonder about people not liking a sort of food or a nicely designed object or a flower to no avail. Taste is personal.

God did not want men to lay with other men. Thats why they dont have vagina. Its common sense. No body is born gay. Its a sinful choice.

God did not want men to lay with other men. Thats why they dont have vagina. Its common sense. No body is born gay. Its a sinful choice.
Care to give some sort of evidence?

God did not want men to lay with other men. Thats why they dont have vagina. Its common sense. No body is born gay. Its a sinful choice.
boooooooring.

Care to give some sort of evidence?
It says in the Bible that its and abomination for 2 men to lay with each other. Aids comes from gays sticking there dicks in filthy holes.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Easy as that. You could wonder about people not liking a sort of food or a nicely designed object or a flower to no avail. Taste is personal.
oh, i can understand that on a purely conceptual level, but i just can't internalize it or really empathize with it.

it's like if you have a favorite food, something you think is the most delicious thing in the world, and then you meet somebody who says they think it is totally disgusting. you can say, "We are different people and will have different tastes, and that's fine and dandy," but inside there's still that sensation of, "How can he not like this?! It's so great!"

don't get me wrong, i have no problem with people having different tastes. i like that about people, in fact. it's just a little baffling when i notice that my straight male friends simply DON'T NOTICE the hot guy that walked past...he was SO HOT! how did they not see that?! :)

Aids comes from gays sticking there dicks in filthy holes.
oh dear lord. somebody educate it, please. hurry.

I think it's funny. Or better, I can't take it serious, it would definitely ruin my view of the world. ;)

It says in the Bible that its and abomination for 2 men to lay with each other. Aids comes from gays sticking there dicks in filthy holes.
I don't think the Bible holds up as evidence over US law.
Also, if AIDS came from homosexuality, what explains the AIDS epidemic in Africa? Do blacks cause AIDS too?

(in all seriousness)

I agree, 1234554321, but you don't take it far enough - I say the government gets out of marriage altogether!

Everybody can have their Civil Unions, and the tax benefits (and such) of marriage will subsequently become part of Civil Unions.
Most excellent. I believe my philosophy is spreading already! Civil unions for all, marriages OPTIONAL.

I don't think the Bible holds up as evidence over US law.
Also, if AIDS came from homosexuality, what explains the AIDS epidemic in Africa? Do blacks cause AIDS too?
Most likely its poor sanitation and promiscuity. Which point, however, probably belongs in the abstinence thread. Too bad I don't support abstinence.

Most excellent. I believe my philosophy is spreading already! Civil unions for all, marriages OPTIONAL.

Not quite. Marriage existed before there was organized religion. Make the churches (and temples, mosques, etc.) get their own word(s).

While we're arguing that God "disapproves" of homosexuality, let's not forget that He also "approves" of conquest, slavery, and rape.

"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women-children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves" NUMBERS chapter 31 verses 17 - 18

So, in light of this new evidence, I'd like to propose that all evidence gleaned from the bible or any other religious work should be disregarded, due to its contradictory and ambiguous nature.

God did not want men to lay with other men. Thats why they dont have vagina. Its common sense. No body is born gay. Its a sinful choice.

That's absurd. The idea of having sex with a man disgusts me, I don't do it because I don't want to.

Having sex with lots of women is sinful (lust), eating too much chocolate cake is sinful (gluttony), sleeping until noon is sinful (sloth), thinking that all republicans are either stupid or evil or both is sinful (pride), and yet I do (or want to do) all of those things.

Sins are something that is in some way bad yet there is something about them that makes you want to do it because it is very attractive to our more uncultured "natural" impulses. To single out homosexuality as something that is sinful in ways that other sins aren't has nothing to do with theology and more to do with hatemongering.

You don't hear Jerry Falwell complaining about all the fat people who are too gluttonous, or divorcees who get remarried after getting too old to have more kids for being lustful. So what makes gay love so special?

Most of us don't want it so we think there's something wrong with those who do. We put it in Christian terms, but if Christianity were the source of our homophobia then we'd also hate and propose laws to "fix" fat people (gluttony), part time workers (sloth), sexy straight people (lust), big spenders (envy), big earners (greed) republicans (greed, wrath, and pride).

Homosexuality is sinful because:
Lust - Sex without intention of creating children.

Homophobia is sinful because:
*Pride - You think there's something wrong with "them" that's right with you.
*Wrath - You think measures should be taken to end their way of life, by force if neccessary
*Lust - Straight married couples also have sex without wanting kids. Even if they want kids, not every sex act is intended to create kids. If it is, you're in a bad marriage.
*Sloth - The conservative conception of marriage has women at home with no jobs living off their husbands. If both spouses work they're married to cut down on expenses, one mortgage etc. and don't need to do as much work.
*Greed - Same as above.
*Envy - "I don't get to run around having sex with anyone I like, why should they?

There we have it. Gays win the sin-off 6 to 1 (golf scoring, low score wins).

Not quite. Marriage existed before there was organized religion. Make the churches (and temples, mosques, etc.) get their own word(s).
So true … take back our secular words!!

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:

Homosexuallity is a psychological thing. People can't control it. IT'S BEEN PROVEN! Homosexuals have a different brain chemistry than hereosexuals. Homosexuallity is also linked with sexual abuse at a young age, would you be looking for a man to love after one just brutially raped you?

Homosexuallity is a psychological thing. People can't control it. IT'S BEEN PROVEN!

not quite true. people cannot simply will away their attractions, but they certainly can choose who they will and will not pursue relationships with. homosexuals can choose not to have homosexual sex, just like heterosexuals can choose not to have heterosexual sex. homosexuals can choose to have heterosexual sex, and heterosexuals can choose to have homosexual sex. human beings have control over their bodies (usually), and can choose what to do about the attractions they feel.

Homosexuals have a different brain chemistry than hereosexuals.

has not been fully established yet, though evidence is certainly leaning that way.

Homosexuallity is also linked with sexual abuse at a young age, would you be looking for a man to love after one just brutially raped you?
untrue. the myth that sexual abuse is a cause of homosexuality has been debunked by many APA-accreditted studies. sexual abuse doesn't appear to have much impact on sexual orientation, though it does have a huge impact on perception of gender roles, body identity, and promiscuity issues.

There we have it. Gays win the sin-off 6 to 1 (golf scoring, low score wins).
ooh, here's a thread idea for anybody who has a lot of time on their hands:

go through the Bible and find the number of times homosexuality is identified as a sin. then find the number of times heterosexuality is identified as a sin. then find the number of times that eating particular foods is identified as a sin. then find the number of times that activities like murder, rape, and slavery are identified as excusable or praiseworthy.

tally things up, and see where the "sin-off" stands!

ooh, here's a thread idea for anybody who has a lot of time on their hands:

go through the Bible and find the number of times homosexuality is identified as a sin. then find the number of times heterosexuality is identified as a sin. then find the number of times that eating particular foods is identified as a sin. then find the number of times that activities like murder, rape, and slavery are identified as excusable or praiseworthy.

tally things up, and see where the "sin-off" stands!

Check out UpwardThrust's sig...

ooh, here's a thread idea for anybody who has a lot of time on their hands:

go through the Bible and find the number of times homosexuality is identified as a sin. then find the number of times heterosexuality is identified as a sin. then find the number of times that eating particular foods is identified as a sin. then find the number of times that activities like murder, rape, and slavery are identified as excusable or praiseworthy.

tally things up, and see where the "sin-off" stands!

Don't forget adultery in your list.

Come, now. Homosexuality is mentionned, what, like 5-10 times in the entire Bible? And adultery is mentionned something like 200+ times, if I remember correctly. I'd say I'm safer from hell from being gay and faithful than all those straight dudes and dudettes who keep cheating on their partners or spouses.

Whats the big deal over Gay Marriage, if a bill for allowing gay marriage was presented to the US Congress in a way such as the congressmen were picturing two hot chicks instead of two dudes then Gay Marriage would be legal overnight. Also the Right Wing Christian Extremists such as Falwell and Pat Robertson need to shut up, those morons scare me more than the Taliban because Americans actually listen two them. (Take Christian out of their statements and replace it with Muslim and they sound like they came from the mouth of the Ayatollah Kohememi). As a Christian I am ashamed that nutjobs like those desecrate the true meaning of the Bible.

Back to Gay Marriage though, Pres. Bush's proposed amendment banning gay marriage is in my mind little more than neo-Segregationist, Jim Crow style legislation hiding behind a facade of "protecting" the sanctity of a social contract which has all the sanctity of a whorehouse.

That should tell you how I feel about Gay Marriage

... has all the sanctity of a whorehouse.


A sacred whorehouse? You're certainly of a Christian denomination I've never heard from before :D

Do any of you people who are bashing gay marriage, actually know anyone who is gay? I mean actually KNOW them, like are friends with them? If not, then you have no clue what you are talking about. I know plently of people who are homosexual, one of which is one of my best friends, so saying that people who are gay are wrong is just stupid and idiotic to those who say it. They are happy with their lives, which is what God wishes.

Do any of you people who are bashing gay marriage, actually know anyone who is gay? I mean actually KNOW them, like are friends with them? If not, then you have no clue what you are talking about. I know plently of people who are homosexual, one of which is one of my best friends, so saying that people who are gay are wrong is just stupid and idiotic to those who say it. They are happy with their lives, which is what God wishes.

I'm wondering if all these folks are gay and would bother with marriage... lol! I certainly don't want it but hey.

God did not want men to lay with other men. Thats why they dont have vagina. Its common sense. No body is born gay. Its a sinful choice.

now back it up with proof.

It says in the Bible that its and abomination for 2 men to lay with each other. Aids comes from gays sticking there dicks in filthy holes.


The Bible isn't proof. Futher, you do know straight people can get aids right?

And you all are forgetting one of the most important things about the bible...IT IS NOT ALWAYS MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY.
Most Catholic schools and churches will stress that.

Besides whatever happened to freedom of choice? People choose to be gay, I say let them. I know plenty of people who are gay and they are awesome friends, I would never toss them aside just because they like a certain sex. Anyone out there who would can never call themselves a true friend.

And what's the big fuss over this. Why must Americans make a federal case out of EVERYTHING?(Believe me we always do...somehow or other)

What is with most of you? Why are you afraid of the homosexual population?? It's not like You're gonna get jumped, and raped in some ally. They have feelings, they are people. Human Beings , and I don't give a shit what you homophobes think. It's sick and demented what you're saying. Jesus, I'd rather kiss a man than anyone so narrow-minded.

Calling for the attention of Jesussaves! (and really, anyone at all who wishes to bring Biblical passage into this debate. If you're going to fight with it, might as well have some actual info about it)

I will refer you to my post, #811 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8202783&postcount=811) , on page 55 of this very thread - and any of my following commentary.

Please, do go read that, since it is a post directed at you from a fellow devout Christian, with nearly 2 dozen new testament references, over a dozen of them straight from Jesus' teachings.

Take a moment or two to think about what you read, and quiet your heart so you may hear His word.

I agree with both Pracus. The bible isn't proof! It was written by men. It is both sexist and biased. So saying that "the bible says so" is a idiotic excuse. The bible was written as a book to learn from, not to take to heart. And just because a book written over god knows how long ago says something, doesn't mean it still holds true today.

I agree with both Pracus. The bible isn't proof! It was written by men. It is both sexist and biased. So saying that "the bible says so" is a idiotic excuse. The bible was written as a book to learn from, not to take to heart. And just because a book written over god knows how long ago says something, doesn't mean it still holds true today.
Just like the Constitution, right?

Just like the Constitution, right?


The Consitution does not claim to hold the absolute truth of the universe. Rather, it is the basis of our government. There is a system set up to interpret it and it can be altered. Further, the history of the constitution can be tracked whiel that of the bible is not so easily observed.

But most importantly, the Consitution lays out a set of rights and a system of government--it doesn't "prove" anything--while people are trying to use the Bible as evidence and proof of something.

The Consitution does not claim to hold the absolute truth of the universe. Rather, it is the basis of our government. There is a system set up to interpret it and it can be altered. Further, the history of the constitution can be tracked whiel that of the bible is not so easily observed.

But most importantly, the Consitution lays out a set of rights and a system of government--it doesn't "prove" anything--while people are trying to use the Bible as evidence and proof of something.
Bush uses the Constitution to approve his actions of democraticing other nations.
Others use it to allow their deeds.
So what did you mean by no one uses the Constitution is prove things?

Bush uses the Constitution to approve his actions of democraticing other nations.
Others use it to allow their deeds.
So what did you mean by no one uses the Constitution is prove things?
You do realise that proving something and approving/allowing something are entirely different things? the first refers to the ability to show that something is a fact, the latter refers to not being prohibited from doing something...

Bush uses the Constitution to approve his actions of democraticing other nations.
Others use it to allow their deeds.
So what did you mean by no one uses the Constitution is prove things?


Okay, that's one I've never heard of. When and how has he used it?

And just for clarification, I meant no one here, on MY side of the fence, involved in this conversation.

While we're arguing that God "disapproves" of homosexuality, let's not forget that He also "approves" of conquest, slavery, and rape.

"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women-children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves" NUMBERS chapter 31 verses 17 - 18

So, in light of this new evidence, I'd like to propose that all evidence gleaned from the bible or any other religious work should be disregarded, due to its contradictory and ambiguous nature.Slight problem here, MF. You're quoting the book of Numbers, which happens to lie squarely in the Old Testament - just like Leviticus. Most Christians, from my personal experience (and believe me it's extensive) tend to place more importance on the New Testament, which deals with the message of Jesus.
Second, this wasn't the instruction of the Lord - the quote is attributed to MOSES.
Bush uses the Constitution to approve his actions of democraticing other nations.This IS new - do share.

I'm curious, did Jesus say anything regarding homosexuals in the NT?

Homosexuallity is a psychological thing. People can't control it. IT'S BEEN PROVEN! Homosexuals have a different brain chemistry than hereosexuals. Homosexuallity is also linked with sexual abuse at a young age, would you be looking for a man to love after one just brutially raped you?

I'm a hetero female who was sexually abused by a man. I still lust after men. Just not that particuliar one.

I'm curious, did Jesus say anything regarding homosexuals in the NT?I don't think there are ANY quotes from Jesus that specifically mention homosexuals. There are quotes from Matthew and in Paul's Letters, but none attributed to Jesus.

I don't think there are ANY quotes from Jesus that specifically mention homosexuals. There are quotes from Matthew and in Paul's Letters, but none attributed to Jesus.

If there were, don't you think they would've been used against us already?

If there were, don't you think they would've been used against us already?Yup. It's sad that people spend so much time quoting the text of the Bible and not the message therein.

Should it really matter whether homosexuality is biological or not?

I was recently (2.5 years ago) ordained, but even in my limited experience as a man of God I must say...you people are something else. For all of you wannabe-rightwing 12 yo wacko "christians" out there, you're really giving all christians a bad name.
The Lord teaches tolerance and respect of the ways of others, and I'd feel exactly the same joining a homosexual couple as a heterosexual couple in marriage. If two people are truly in love, what right is it of yours to judge them? Half of marriages end in divorce, so the problem nowadays isn't whether it's man and man or man and woman...it's if they're in love, and compatible enough to live out the rest of their lives together.

I was recently (2.5 years ago) ordained, but even in my limited experience as a man of God I must say...you people are something else. For all of you wannabe-rightwing 12 yo wacko "christians" out there, you're really giving all christians a bad name.
The Lord teaches tolerance and respect of the ways of others, and I'd feel exactly the same joining a homosexual couple as a heterosexual couple in marriage. If two people are truly in love, what right is it of yours to judge them? Half of marriages end in divorce, so the problem nowadays isn't whether it's man and man or man and woman...it's if they're in love, and compatible enough to live out the rest of their lives together.
Well said, just out of curiosity what denomination were you ordained in?

Well said, just out of curiosity what denomination were you ordained in?

Protestant


EDIT: Well at the time I was Lutheran Protestant, but more recently I've just come to think of myself as Protestant.

=Bottle
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.

Get off the grass Bottle, I didnt say that, as for learning its wrong, thats not really an option either, I mean a kid may be gay(growing into one), being told hes wrong, will mess his/her head up a bit.
I prefer the subject not to be discussed at all, if it can be helped, I mean, this for example: 'Hey guys lets go to the beach, and then we will go down to the park and run around etc then Maccas, oh and on the way we will be discussing homosexuals... I dont think so.

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.

Now your talking like an idiot, I think kids are great people, and have alot of time for them, I look after them, danger etc but I dont try to neuter them either by being over protective, for you to say I dont give a damn about them, and not even know me shows you to be an absolute fool.

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.

Wake up. Im not on some mission to spread anti gay propaganda in life, especially to kids, Ive got better things to do.

as my friend Mark is wont to say,
"Baby Jeebus is the best dead baby joke ever told, especially because there are millions of people who don't realize they are the punchline."

Since your so hell bent on antagonising any Christians on here, by vomiting on any sacred part of their faith, then why dont you also have a stab at the Muslim faith as well, they have even less time for homosexuality than we do. Dont let fear stop you.
Go on Bottle, lets hear a few good jokes about Allah. :)

You'll note here, kids, that when the subject a) (Blakes 7), meets with the opposing force b) (large responses that reply and rebut almost everything he has "stated") the subject regresses into a state of c) (Being forced to cherry-pick comments and ignoring the vast majority of the replies)

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?That's circular reasoning, you silly ****.

Since your so hell bent on antagonising any Christians on here, by vomiting on any sacred part of their faith, then why dont you also have a stab at the Muslim faith as well, they have even less time for homosexuality than we do. Dont let fear stop you.
Go on Bottle, lets hear a few good jokes about Allah. :)
Less time for homosexuality. Do you know how many gay christians I know. You twat. And don't say "Well it's a sin" cause I'm pretty sure your not God and all knowing and all perfect. Don't generalise yourself sweety, I have plenty of christian friends who apparently "have time" for myself and others. Jeez, show us your "i know everything"-itus.

Less time for homosexuality. Do you know how many gay christians I know. You twat. And don't say "Well it's a sin" cause I'm pretty sure your not God and all knowing and all perfect. Don't generalise yourself sweety, I have plenty of christian friends who apparently "have time" for myself and others. Jeez, show us your "i know everything"-itus.

Another one for the ignore list, bye bye rubbish.

Another one for the ignore list, sheez, what a creep.
Sing in chorus of hallelujah "Homophobic insecure christian la la la, Can't handle his own crap!"....The was meant to be an E chord thank you up the back!

You'll note here, kids, that when the subject a) (Blakes 7), meets with the opposing force b) (large responses that reply and rebut almost everything he has "stated") the subject regresses into a state of c) (Being forced to cherry-pick comments and ignoring the vast majority of the replies)

Yeah well if you got half the questions etc addressed to you that I do, you would be struggling too, guess its tough being unpopular eh mate, bit jealous are we?
Anyway, If Ive not replied to anyone, my apologies, I do give Bottle a miss sometimes, she just asks the same things over and over again, it got dull.

Yeah well if you got half the questions etc addressed to you that I do, you would be struggling too, guess its tough being unpopular eh mate, bit jealous are we?
Anyway, If Ive not replied to anyone, my apologies, I do give Bottle a miss sometimes, she just asks the same things over and over again, it got dull.
Did you just say that person wanted to be unpopular, socially challenged and ignorant? I think you did!

Sing in chorus of hallelujah "Homophobic insecure christian la la la, Can't handle his own crap!"....The was meant to be an E chord thank you up the back!

Your the only one here thats full of crap. How old are you 12?

Did you just say that person wanted to be unpopular, socially challenged and ignorant? I think you did!

You need help.

Your the only one here thats full of crap. How old are you 12?
Oooh, oh ouch. An age throwing insult. I am just gonna die now! The sky is friggin falling. Here let me see if this is just as good: What are you 11? Oooh see how much significance that has, you must be bawling now. Jesus Christ, no serious, put me on ignore, your put downs are about as good as your actual rebuttles.

Yeah well if you got half the questions etc addressed to you that I do, you would be struggling too, guess its tough being unpopular eh mate, bit jealous are we?
Anyway, If Ive not replied to anyone, my apologies, I do give Bottle a miss sometimes, she just asks the same things over and over again, it got dull.

And yet no matter how many times she posts her, IMO very valid arguments, you have never answered them. In fact you have never answered ANY of the real arguments posted to you.

Yup. It's sad that people spend so much time quoting the text of the Bible and not the message therein.
And also sad that when it suits them they do/don't take the Old Testament literally...
"Oh, the OT supports slavery and the oppression of women? Well we don't believe that anyway."

"But it says in Leviticus that homoseuxuality is eeeeeeeeeevil."

Etc etc.

Oooh, oh ouch. An age throwing insult. I am just gonna die now! The sky is friggin falling. Here let me see if this is just as good: What are you 11? Oooh see how much significance that has, you must be bawling now. Jesus Christ, no serious, put me on ignore, your put downs are about as good as your actual rebuttles.

No sweat, if only cancer was as easy to get rid of as you.

And yet no matter how many times she posts her, IMO very valid arguments, you have never answered them. In fact you have never answered ANY of the real arguments posted to you.

Only valid if you support her views on homosexuality, but if your against them, there not very valid at all...

Only valid if you support her views on homosexuality, but if your against them, there not very valid at all...
Well, perhaps you could have addressed why they weren't valid then?

Only valid if you support her views on homosexuality, but if your against them, there not very valid at all...

Yes, they are, at least until you can manage to produce some counter-argument showing that they aren't.

Yes, they are, at least until you can manage to produce some counter-argument showing that they aren't.
And opinion does not equal evidence.

Slight problem here, MF. You're quoting the book of Numbers, which happens to lie squarely in the Old Testament - just like Leviticus. Most Christians, from my personal experience (and believe me it's extensive) tend to place more importance on the New Testament, which deals with the message of Jesus.
Second, this wasn't the instruction of the Lord - the quote is attributed to MOSES.

God instructed the hebrews to kill everyone inhabitting the land promised to them. He even helps them. How about the battle over Jherico for starters?

Further, you're dismissing the OT, as if it didn't happen or isn't important. This is the same god! What part of the NT says that the OT is BS? What part of the NT says the OT doesn't count anymore? Biblically, the law written in the OT is good for the rest of forever.

Ex.12:14, 17, 24
"And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. ... And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever. ... And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever."

Lev.23:14,21,31
"It shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations."

Ps.119:151-2
"Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth. Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever."

Ps.119:160
"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."

Mt.5:17-19
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."

Lk.16:17
"It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

And opinion does not equal evidence.

What evidence do you want?

What evidence do you want?

Well, for a start, some studies on how 'harmful' being raised by same sex parents is to a growing child.

And how about proving that homosexuality is a choice?

Start there, and we'll see.

Yes, they are, at least until you can manage to produce some counter-argument showing that they aren't.
But why would you consider them valid? What if I started the arguement with my views, would you consider them valid, until she answered? Also, guessing that you support her views because you support gay rights, I cant take you as impartial to this, you sound a bit too biast in her favour.

What I really would like to see is an answer to Double the Fist's post:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8211267&postcount=962

which is directed to Blake7 specifically.

Well, for a start, some studies on how 'harmful' being raised by same sex parents is to a growing child.
And how about proving that homosexuality is a choice?
Start there, and we'll see.

Okayyyy, Ill go look. Of course anything I find will be dismissed by you as either religous, right wing, or religous right wing nuts etc
On your second queery, would you like to show me the quote where I said homosexuality was a choice?

On your second queery, would you like to show me the quote where I said homosexuality was a choice?

Well I wasn't sure if you'd said it, but then I couldn't be bothered reading 73 pages...

HOWEVER, if you believe it isn't a choice then how can it be a sin? That to me is unbelievable.

Oh, and I may dismiss your opinions even if you present evidence, but at least you may win some respect.

What I really would like to see is an answer to Double the Fist's post:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8211267&postcount=962
which is directed to Blake7 specifically.

You must be joking, that would take all night to answer.

Well I wasn't sure if you'd said it, but then I couldn't be bothered reading 73 pages...
HOWEVER, if you believe it isn't a choice then how can it be a sin? That to me is unbelievable.
Oh, and I may dismiss your opinions even if you present evidence, but at least you may win some respect.

Maybe it isnt a sin, but I still dont believe its natural.
Im not after respect.

You must be joking, that would take all night to answer.

Then just answer any part of it. Just make some sort of coherent, fact-based argument.

Of course anything I find will be dismissed by you as either religous, right wing, or religous right wing nuts etc
Depends if you can find something from widely accepted sources or not. Government sites or medical and psychological societies are such, while chick.com and gaypride.com are considered biased. ;)

but I still dont believe its natural.

WHY????

Homosexuality occurs in nature. If it's innate in people, how can it NOT be natural?

WHY????
Homosexuality occurs in nature. If it's innate in people, how can it NOT be natural?

Who knows. It just isnt.

Maybe it isnt a sin, but I still dont believe its natural.
Im not after respect.
If it's not natural, then why do animals throught out the animal kingdom practice homosexuality?

Then just answer any part of it. Just make some sort of coherent, fact-based argument.

Ill try to tomorrow arvo, Ive got a lot of work to do around the house. Right now Im going to settle down in my king size bed with a big glass tankard of icy cold lemonade with icecubes and watch a Pearl Jam vid I just rented, those guys are just awesome.
Nighto.

Who knows. It just isnt.

Ugh

Who knows. It just isnt.

This is a typical answer. Basically, "because I said so." Face it, there are no religious or nature-based arguments against gays. There are no studies showing gays would be worse parents (quite the contrary, according to some). There are no arguments AT ALL why homosexuals should not be given the same rights as everyone else. The gays are not the problem in this issue. The problem is people that would deny them basic rights for no reason whatsoever.

[/RANT]

Ugh
If you rearrange the letters in "Ugh", you get "Hug". I like that word better, I think.

If you rearrange the letters in "Ugh", you get "Hug". I like that word better, I think.

So do I, but I didn't want to hug Blakes 7. *wrinkles nose*

Can I hug you instead?

i have nothing against gay marriage at all. But i think that a child brought up by gay parents although will have love, he or she would have the piss taken out of them at school by homophobs. or young kids that dont understand.

But i think that a child brought up by gay parents although will have love, he or she would have the piss taken out of them at school by homophobs. or young kids that dont understand.

Well, they may be mocked by the ignorant/bigoted kids, but that is no reason to not allow gay marriage/adoption. I mean, that was used to justify the disapproval surrounding interracial marriages.

"Think of the children" [/Mrs Lovejoy]

Maybe it isnt a sin, but I still dont believe its natural.
Im not after respect.

I am a biologist, and I can tell you that in nature, there are many species of animals (apart from humans) (eg, penguins, whales, dolphins, sheep) where individuals exhibit homosexual behaviour.

I don't think that argument is scientifically valid.

Well, they may be mocked by the ignorant/bigoted kids...

The more educated ones have straight pride marches. :D

Who knows. It just isnt.
Not an arguement ,the deffinition of "natural" is occurance in nature therefore it is natural.

Not an arguement ,the deffinition of "natural" is occurance in nature therefore it is natural.

also clothing doesn't occur much in nature, nor do big macs. so we should probably ban both of em on account of they aren't natural.

Your the only one here thats full of crap. How old are you 12?
Didn't I tell you to knock it off somewhere earlier in this thread? Meh, doesn't matter.

Blakes 7, you are Officially Warned for flaming. Improve your behavior or find yourself another playground.

Glinde Nessroe, you are Officially Warned for flaming and flamebaitng as well.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderator Team

also clothing doesn't occur much in nature, nor do big macs. so we should probably ban both of em on account of they aren't natural.
No they are not natural ... they are human created (sometimes a setaside for natural sometimes not depending on your deffinition)

For example humans creating stone flakes for knives/arrow heads while stone flakes can occur in nature the ones created by humans would be non natural

i have nothing against gay marriage at all. But i think that a child brought up by gay parents although will have love, he or she would have the piss taken out of them at school by homophobs. or young kids that dont understand.


So should fat parents not be able to raise kids? Cause odds are, their kids will be fat--and they could get beaten up for that. Or how about black people in a largely white area--shoudl they not have kids because of what might happen? Or maybe Catholics should all get sterilized if they live in a Protestant area, or Christians if they live in a Muslim area, or dwarves because they might get made fun of?

And are you really going to let what BULLIES may or may not do set the rules for what you are willing to do? That's totally fucked in the head man.

whoever the imbecile was that made this thread is, should listen to louis black's new cd. *Solve world hunger, fuck that! lets ban gay marriage!* (its sad how dumb people are, it really is.) i dont like what gays do, but i think they should have the same rights as us, and also how is this even close to being important? its sad when a priority on ones list is to make sure no gays can ever be married. to the downfall of western civilization! cheers.

People need to educate their kids about homosexuals and they all need to at least be tolerant, if they don't like it. Just because a person is different from you doesn't mean you or anyone has the right to say it is wrong. I mean, it's like saying that being black or hispanic is wrong. They are all human beings (which I think has been expressed most in this thread) and they all deserve respect.

And to quote a Ron White, whom I recently saw:

Ron: "It's not if you are or are not gay, it's to what extent are you gay."
Friend: "I'm not gay!"
Ron: "Do you like porn?"
Friend: "Yea."
Ron: "Do you only watch it with two girls?"
Friend: "No I like to watch when a man and a women make love."
Ron: "Well, do you like the guy to have a small p***s?"
Friend: "No, I like big, throbbing *****...!!!"

I *ed some of it because I think some people in here are a little too young to see this. Plus, this is a public thread so... but Ron made a good point.

Ron: "Do you like porn?"
Friend: "Yea."
Ron: "Do you only watch it with two girls?"
Friend: "No I like to watch when a man and a women make love."
Ron: "Well, do you like the guy to have a small p***s?"
Friend: "No, I like big, throbbing *****...!!!"
I *ed some of it because I think some people in here are a little too young to see this. Plus, this is a public thread so... but Ron made a good point.

No he didnt! Thats unbelievable that you would believe his theory that guys want guys in pornos to have a bigger wang than a smaller one, reason being their a cetain percent gay, the real reason is it would make the porno less exciting if the guys in them had shlongs the size of peanuts.

I was just using it as a joke, mostly...I thought it would be a fun way to lighten up this forum. You people are being too annoying about this anyway...being jerks about gay marriage...

You know that masturbation is by definition a homosexual act, don't you? :D

You know that masturbation is by definition a homosexual act, don't you? :D

Not to mention one that is forbade in the Bible. I say we should ban anyone who admits to having masturbated from marriage . . .

Not to mention one that is forbade in the Bible. I say we should ban anyone who admits to having masturbated from marriage . . .

Actually that's not a bad idea. Then only .0000000001% of the population would get married. Couple that with stiff (haha) enforcement of anti-fornication laws, it would cut the human birth rate down to almost nothing. This would be bad for our species, but good for the rest of the world. The ultimate enviromentalists dream. :D

Actually that's not a bad idea. Then only .0000000001% of the population would get married. Couple that with stiff (haha) enforcement of anti-fornication laws, it would cut the human birth rate down to almost nothing. This would be bad for our species, but good for the rest of the world. The ultimate enviromentalists dream. :D


Hell, if forbiding civil marriage will help prevent "sin" why not keep all sinners from marrying? We don't want to encourage them do we?

Get off the grass Bottle, I didnt say that, as for learning its wrong, thats not really an option either, I mean a kid may be gay(growing into one), being told hes wrong, will mess his/her head up a bit.
I prefer the subject not to be discussed at all, if it can be helped, I mean, this for example: 'Hey guys lets go to the beach, and then we will go down to the park and run around etc then Maccas, oh and on the way we will be discussing homosexuals... I dont think so.
Talking about sexuality to one's dependents is an important thing to do. Sexuality isnt dirty or wrong, it's an inherent human trait, and an important part of life. Just like family, finances, career, studying, friends, etc, it is something that parents need to discuss with their children openly. That is how guidelines are set; I consider it negligent to not offer guidence to one's child, about issues that will be important parts of their lives.

That's circular reasoning, you silly ****.
You should probably avoid making comments like this, you might get away with one or two, but it is against the TOS and if someone cares to report it in moderation...lets just say the mods role here isnt merely to be decorative...
So far as I know cussing isnt prohibited, but cussing at posters would in most cases be flaming (against the TOS)....if in doubt, you should check the TOS.

Another one for the ignore list, bye bye rubbish.
How long 'till Blake 7 logs in and cant see any messages because every member of the forum is on Blake 7's ignore list?

But why would you consider them valid? What if I started the arguement with my views, would you consider them valid, until she answered? Also, guessing that you support her views because you support gay rights, I cant take you as impartial to this, you sound a bit too biast in her favour.
I would consider them valid if they were valid. I dont need to opinionise or use guess work in order to do this. So far as logic is concerned validity has a clear and definate meaning that allows one to evaluate an argument for validity. If it is not possible for the conclusion of an argument to be false, given the truth of the premises, then the argument is valid. If in addition to this the premises of a particular argument are true, then the argument is also sound.

but I still dont believe its natural.
What do you imagine is the supernatural part? I percieve no paranormal element...perhaps you errantly believe that natural means 'good'....aha, well rabies is natural, but I doubt you are lining up to demand your share...

i have nothing against gay marriage at all. But i think that a child brought up by gay parents although will have love, he or she would have the piss taken out of them at school by homophobs. or young kids that dont understand.
Aha, and certainly we should fit society out according to what little kids approve of. It is they and not adults who should make decisions about what kind of families are acceptable...
While we are at it, we must ban anyone who wears glasses, is a boy and not good at sports, is too 'swotty', has acne, doesnt dress 'cool enuff' etc from school, because our overriding concern in all things is to ensure bullies have nothing to 'provoke them' into teasing other children. And we all know if we remove all provokations to bullying, there wont be any more, it's not like they'll just find something else to bully someone else about....please think of the children!

also clothing doesn't occur much in nature, nor do big macs. so we should probably ban both of em on account of they aren't natural.
Are you suggesting these things occur supernaturally? I'm fairly certain all the things you refer to are entirely natural. I dont recall a ghost serving me last time I went to 'Maccas'...

No they are not natural ... they are human created (sometimes a setaside for natural sometimes not depending on your deffinition)

For example humans creating stone flakes for knives/arrow heads while stone flakes can occur in nature the ones created by humans would be non natural
Human beings are naturally occuring animals, so why would what they make and do be any less natural than what a bee makes or does?

Aside from that, if you wish to suggest human beings are somehow outside nature, then what on earth does the notion 'homosexuality isnt natural' have to do with humans, unless humans and what they do is natural, in which case it would not be true that things that are human created are not natural. Human beings are natural animals, and we manipulate the natural world to make natural potential actual. None of this is unnatural. A nuclear power plant is as natural a beaver dam.

I believe that homosexuality should be punished, but not by death, just by taking away some rights, not too many, and taxing them more.
That is more 'nice' :p .
but I would not let them go off and create too ig of a deal about it.

I hope this is sarcasm. I really can't tell, I'm afraid.

I hope this is sarcasm. I really can't tell, I'm afraid.

I believe he was serious. Which is sad, really.

Hey, if everyone was an intelligent, well-informed, tolerant and compassionnate person, we wouldn't feel so superior now, would we ? :D

I believe he was serious. Which is sad, really.

Hey, if everyone was an intelligent, well-informed, tolerant and compassionnate person, we wouldn't feel so superior now, would we ? :D

But some of them make it too easy. I'd at least like to have to work for it. :p

75 pages is too much to read, but, being bisexual and having a lot of gay friends, i can understand where everyone is coming from. marriage really is just a religious ceremony, therefore the right for the union of two humans is based completely on the religion which the marriage is to be recognized in. a legal marriage isn't really a marriage at all. it's recognized as one, but it's not really one.

75 pages is too much to read, but, being bisexual and having a lot of gay friends, i can understand where everyone is coming from. marriage really is just a religious ceremony, therefore the right for the union of two humans is based completely on the religion which the marriage is to be recognized in. a legal marriage isn't really a marriage at all. it's recognized as one, but it's not really one.


So if a religious organization will marry gay people, they should be able to get married right?

And what of people not married in a religious ceremony? Are they married or not? You are being very "grey" here.

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:

Not to be rude, but your a fuckin' dumbass. :mad: It's not a choice, they really can't help it. There have been studies, and Homosexuals try, but there sexual orientation is sometimes out of their control.(I am straight).

It's not a choice, they really can't help it. There have been studies, and Homosexuals try, but there sexual orientation is sometimes out of their control.(I am straight).

The personal attack isn't really warranted, and I know several homosexuals that don't try, and have no interest in trying, to change their sexuality. They're quite happy they way they are.

And it's not for anyone else to tell them how they should live, IMO.

It's neither choice or disease. It is merely a biological difference. Heterosexuality is at on end of the spectrum, while homosexuality is at the other. Most people are someplace in between, it's just that our society discourages the expression of this. The only way it can be called "abnormal" is in the sense that it's not the average expression of sexuality. I agree with the previous poster's opinion of Hazel.

You know that masturbation is by definition a homosexual act, don't you? :D

Wow. The majority of the male population is gay.

So if a religious organization will marry gay people, they should be able to get married right?

And what of people not married in a religious ceremony? Are they married or not? You are being very "grey" here.

if a religious organization will marry them, they are married in that organization's eyes. the government, which has no religious affiliation (we will be assuming we're talking about the u.s.a.), should allow gay marriage, but, since it seems that the u.s. is mostly a christian country, and the christian and judaism-based religions disagree with homosexuality, they will not allow it.

not being married in a religious ceremony, as i did, indeed say, is not true marriage. legally, yes, it is a marriage, but it's more like a civic union, which gay people are allowed to have.

basically, marriage doesn't matter unless you belong to a religion.

You ppl. r goin' to harp on me severly, but here goes. I'm all out against homosexual marriage due to religious reasoning. To me, it's a joke, but then again, it's also a joke to c celebrities marry n then divorce in 24 hrs. Some common folk due the same, too. Gays SHOULD receive as much care n benefits as everyone else, but if they want they're then entitled to a union n nothin' further than that.

On a personal note, I pray n hope for all of you that there'd b spiritual intervention for all of you. Jus' giving vat I truly feel 'bout this scenario.

if a religious organization will marry them, they are married in that organization's eyes. the government, which has no religious affiliation (we will be assuming we're talking about the u.s.a.), should allow gay marriage, but, since it seems that the u.s. is mostly a christian country, and the christian and judaism-based religions disagree with homosexuality, they will not allow it.

not being married in a religious ceremony, as i did, indeed say, is not true marriage. legally, yes, it is a marriage, but it's more like a civic union, which gay people are allowed to have.

basically, marriage doesn't matter unless you belong to a religion.
Why does not being married in a religious ceremony render one's marraige 'not a marraige'? Saying it is so, doesnt make it so. The knowledge I have about marraige suggests that there is no truth to your assertion whatsoever.

if a religious organization will marry them, they are married in that organization's eyes. the government, which has no religious affiliation (we will be assuming we're talking about the u.s.a.), should allow gay marriage, but, since it seems that the u.s. is mostly a christian country, and the christian and judaism-based religions disagree with homosexuality, they will not allow it.

not being married in a religious ceremony, as i did, indeed say, is not true marriage. legally, yes, it is a marriage, but it's more like a civic union, which gay people are allowed to have.

basically, marriage doesn't matter unless you belong to a religion.


I don't belong to an organized religion, but marriage means quite a lot to me.

So should fat parents not be able to raise kids? Cause odds are, their kids will be fat--and they could get beaten up for that. Or how about black people in a largely white area--shoudl they not have kids because of what might happen? Or maybe Catholics should all get sterilized if they live in a Protestant area, or Christians if they live in a Muslim area, or dwarves because they might get made fun of?

And are you really going to let what BULLIES may or may not do set the rules for what you are willing to do? That's totally fucked in the head man.
That's called "submitting to an appeal to force". Ghandi sure as hell didn't submit to Britan's appeal to force, neither did Martin Luther King Jr.

You ppl. r goin' to harp on me severly, but here goes. I'm all out against homosexual marriage due to religious reasoning. To me, it's a joke, but then again, it's also a joke to c celebrities marry n then divorce in 24 hrs. Some common folk due the same, too. Gays SHOULD receive as much care n benefits as everyone else, but if they want they're then entitled to a union n nothin' further than that.

On a personal note, I pray n hope for all of you that there'd b spiritual intervention for all of you. Jus' giving vat I truly feel 'bout this scenario.


I can deal with this. As long as you think the government should treat us equally, I have no problem whatsoever with you thinking we are going to hell and praying for us. I consider that a sign of concern and appreciate it, even if I do not agree with it. I also have no problemw ith you being opposed to gay marriages in a religious setting.

The only problem gay people have is when people think the government should treat us unequally and the only reasons they can give are religious ones. We do not live in a theocracy.

whoever the imbecile was that made this thread is, should listen to louis black's new cd. *Solve world hunger, fuck that! lets ban gay marriage!* (its sad how dumb people are, it really is.) i dont like what gays do, but i think they should have the same rights as us, and also how is this even close to being important? its sad when a priority on ones list is to make sure no gays can ever be married. to the downfall of western civilization! cheers.
So, you're all about oppressing the civil rights of others and then claiming it shouldn't be a big deal because others are starving somewhere? Nice red herring justification for biggotry. :rolleyes:

Why is not being married in a religious ceremony render one's marraige 'not a marraige'? Saying it is so, doesnt make it so. The knowledge I have about marraige suggests that there is no truth to your assertion whatsoever.



marriage started a religious ceremony. marriage mainly stays as a religious thing. you need legal documents to get married, yes, but you don't have to get married in the eyes of the government or a religion in order to be married. if you think you stand someone forever, you can be "married" but not have a huge ceremony, you know? but you're right, it doesn't render it "not a marriage" it simply gives your marriage no religious affiliation.


which is a good thing.



anyway, this all hurts my head and i don't think i shall be talking about marriage anymore. i'm too young to talk about such things.

That's called "submitting to an appeal to force". Ghandi sure as hell didn't submit to Britan's appeal to force, neither did Martin Luther King Jr.


In this situation, I'll quote The Ark yet again and their wonderful song "Father of a Son." Really a good piece, I highly reccomend everyone listen to it.

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

I realize you aren't arguing for letting the bullies set the rules--I just wanted to work the quote into the conversation again.

No he didnt! Thats unbelievable that you would believe his theory that guys want guys in pornos to have a bigger wang than a smaller one, reason being their a cetain percent gay, the real reason is it would make the porno less exciting if the guys in them had shlongs the size of peanuts.
And why does that make it less exciting? Why do so many guys detest watching a porno starring Ron Jeremy, but don't mind if the star is Peter North?

So, you're all about oppressing the civil rights of others and then claiming it shouldn't be a big deal because others are starving somewhere? Nice red herring justification for biggotry. :rolleyes:


Ummm, you must've misread him/her. S/he was saying that gay marriage isn't a big deal and should be allowed. The people who are fighting so hard against it are the ones using it as a red herring and are wasting our time when there are really bigger things that should be fought--like world hunger and the AIDS epidemic.

At least, that is my understanding of the post you were responding to.

Not to be rude, but your a fuckin' dumbass. :mad: It's not a choice, they really can't help it. There have been studies, and Homosexuals try, but there sexual orientation is sometimes out of their control.(I am straight).
Calling other posters names is most cases is likely to be considered either a flame of a flame bait. They are against the TOS. So far as I can tell, it's not against rules to cuss, but if you are cussing at someone, then that probably wont not be a flame, so you are probably violating TOS. You can edit your posts after you have posted them, if on second thoughts you decide you would have preferred not to post, or to have posted using different words...(at the bottom of your post is an edit delete link, you can use that to do any editing on your own posts, so long as you are logged in as the nation you used to post it).

If the government is to recognize all religions as equal, then it should at least recognize the marraiges preformed by the sects that have no problem with gay marraige. By recognizing only certain religious views, it is endorsing one religion over another.

On a sidenote, I'm an AIMbot now. . . .I really liked being a Cyberfruit Merchant. It really seemed more appropriate.

On a sidenote, I'm an AIMbot now. . . .I really liked being a Cyberfruit Merchant. It really seemed more appropriate.

LOL

If the government is to recognize all religions as equal, then it should at least recognize the marraiges preformed by the sects that have no problem with gay marraige. By recognizing only certain religious views, it is endorsing one religion over another.


this is true, which is why there is such a huge shit over the gay marriage thing.

marriage started a religious ceremony.
That's not true. Marriage was originally an economic cermony that man later sanctioned and blessed with the various gods he invented. Thus, marriage was a secular institution before it was a religious one.

marriage started a religious ceremony.
Really, which particular religion started it, and how do you imagine that you know this?
marriage mainly stays as a religious thing.
I dont know what you are trying to say in this sentence.
you need legal documents to get married,
Not necessarily.
yes, but you don't have to get married in the eyes of the government or a religion in order to be married. if you think you stand someone forever, you can be "married" but not have a huge ceremony, you know? but you're right, it doesn't render it "not a marriage" it simply gives your marriage no religious affiliation.


which is a good thing.



anyway, this all hurts my head and i don't think i shall be talking about marriage anymore. i'm too young to talk about such things.
I dont think you are too young to take part in reasoned dialogue. I think the big mistake you are making is assuming something you have 'guessed' is a fact. Answer these questions to see what I mean

Which religion invented marraige?

How did that religion spread it to cultures that had no contact (even indirect) with the religion, that started it?

Why is it that many cultures regardless of ceremonys dont consider a couple married until certain economic criterias have been filled?

The answer evidently is because marraige is a social institution. It has proved to be adaptive and is primarily based on substinance/economic needs/provisions.

where is the economy in marriage

ALSO I MISTYPED


i meant to type "marriage started as a religious ceremony"

where is the economy in marriage


Ever heard of a dowry?

i have been defeated





i'll return when my various sources of information are more reliable

I don't give a damn whether or not it was originally a religious institution. It's not necessarily so now. The government recognizes civil marraiges and atheists are allowed to marry. If some people can keep religion out of marraige, then the irreligiousity of any marraige should not make any difference.

"Marriage" is SACRED.
Don't believe me?
Take it up with the One who designed it and instituted it.
He wrote the Law, and interpretation does NOT negate INTENT.
Homosexuality/Lesbianism can be NOTHING MORE THAN an
<alternative> lifestyle.
It CANNOT be construed/defined as 'marriage' in any way. It is nothing more than a shallow deception...a plastic game.

Here's a wild idea... Let's do away with marriage, period!

I'm not joking. It's an archaic institution, not fit for this modern world in any way, shape, or form. It was simply a key for people to have children. That key is no longer needed.

If you really do like some one, just live with them. Don't give a damn about what other people think; do it. People have to release themselves from the stranglehold of an ancient book that was meant to control people with an iron fist. People need to learn to do what they want. To be free.

Marriage should be done away with for the good of our future. It's utterly ridiculous and impractical, and very stressful for many people. Just destroy it and we'll all be better off.

Don't agree with me? Fine then, because frankly, I don't care about what you "people", if that's what you call yourselves, think. If you're too naive to realize that your entire lives are being controlled by a BOOK, then you're not fit to argue with me.

Thank you for your time.

"Marriage" is SACRED.
Don't believe me?
Take it up with the One who designed it and instituted it.
He wrote the Law, and interpretation does NOT negate INTENT.
Homosexuality/Lesbianism can be NOTHING MORE THAN an
<alternative> lifestyle.
It CANNOT be construed/defined as 'marriage' in any way. It is nothing more than a shallow deception...a plastic game.


I guess I missed where Jehovah attended the Consitutional Convention that wrote the law.

where is the economy in marriage
The primary function of marraige is to form an economic unit (economic is used in the sense whereby it can be applied to societies that do not have money).

Consider a hunter gatherer society with a genderised division of labour. How is a male or female to ensure continued access to those things which can only be derived from the labour efforts of the opposite gender? One of the primary purposes that marraige can offer in such societies is to ensure access to the labour of someone of the other gender, and to ensure that one's children have access to such labour during the years when they are unable to labour on their own behalf. It also is a means of ensuring that regardless of one's child's gender the child has access to teaching needed to learn their genderised labour skills.

Marraige was instituted so that a male could have exclusive access to a particuliar female. That way he could know that the offspring he invested resources in raising were his genetic offspring.

The primary function of marraige is to form an economic unit (economic is used in the sense whereby it can be applied to societies that do not have money).

Consider a hunter gatherer society with a genderised division of labour. How is a male or female to ensure continued access to those things which can only be derived from the labour efforts of the opposite gender? One of the primary purposes that marraige can off in such societies is to ensure access to the labour of someone of the other gender, and to ensure that one's children have access to such labour during the years when they are unable to labour on their own behalf. It also is a means of ensuring that regardless of one's child's gender the child has access to teaching needed to learn their genderised labour skills.



i have no idea what you just said

Here's a wild idea... Let's do away with marriage, period!
This is not an original idea, certainly it has been raised in this thread more than once, and no one has yet provided good reasons that counter the counter reasons for getting rid of marraige.

I'm not joking. It's an archaic institution, not fit for this modern world in any way, shape, or form. It was simply a key for people to have children. That key is no longer needed.
This is simply not true.

If you really do like some one, just live with them. Don't give a damn about what other people think; do it. People have to release themselves from the stranglehold of an ancient book that was meant to control people with an iron fist. People need to learn to do what they want. To be free.
This ignores the many reasons why marraige is beneficial. Until such benefits are no longer beneficial, and or are better or equally served in some other way, doing away with marraige is an unnecessary removal of a beneficial practise.

Marriage should be done away with for the good of our future. It's utterly ridiculous and impractical, and very stressful for many people. Just destroy it and we'll all be better off.
Prove that it is ridiculous and unstressful. Prove that we would be better off or even equally as well off.

Don't agree with me? Fine then, because frankly, I don't care about what you "people", if that's what you call yourselves, think. If you're too naive to realize that your entire lives are being controlled by a BOOK, then you're not fit to argue with me.
Calling others naive and accusing them of following a book, doesnt make you any less wrong. The fact is you dont appear to know what the benefits of marraige are, so you are not particularly qualified to state whether or not it would be harmful, neutral or beneficial to do away with it.

Thank you for your time.
You're welcome.

i have no idea what you just said
If you desire further clarification, you will need to be more specific. What exactly dont you understand?

This is not an original idea, certainly it has been raised in this thread more than once, and no one has yet provided good reasons that counter the counter reasons for getting rid of marraige.


This is simply not true.


This ignores the many reasons why marraige is beneficial. Until such benefits are no longer beneficial, and or are better or equally served in some other way, doing away with marraige is an unnecessary removal of a beneficial practise.


Prove that it is ridiculous and unstressful. Prove that we would be better off or even equally as well off.


Calling others naive and accusing them of following a book, doesnt make you any less wrong. The fact is you dont appear to know what the benefits of marraige are, so you are not particularly qualified to state whether or not it would be harmful, neutral or beneficial to do away with it.


You're welcome.


1: I do apologize for not reading through the entire topic before posting. After all, so many pages to read... It does get tedious.

2: Tell me why it's not true.

3: I've failed to see exactly why marriage is beneficial. Other people who aren't married, but have had children, seem to be much happier (my third Cousin, Chuck, my Uncle Joe, and Gene Simmons), and have far less or no problems.

4: Rephrase this one and get back to me.

5: Looks like you're repeating yourself. Tell me exactly why following an ancient book your entire life isn't the least bit ridiculous.

5: Looks like you're repeating yourself. Tell me exactly why following an ancient book your entire life isn't the least bit ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

Well basically because it isnt because for the simple fact that the US is gov is based on the Const. which is a document, no different than a book, and we base our whole form of gov. on something that was wrote 200 years ago and to tell the truth I dont see a problem :D with it

1: I do apologize for not reading through the entire topic before posting. After all, so many pages to read... It does get tedious.
As does reading the same 'wild idea' again and again and again...

2: Tell me why it's not true.
I have no need to, the onus is on the positive assertion (due to the practical nature of trying to prove the negative), ergo if you cant substantiate your assertion, you might as well have not made one. The fact is I cant counter arguments I have not been given, your rational could be anything, I'm not going to play 50,000 guesses trying to work out exactly how you arrived at your conclusion, and it's not possible to counter your reasoning without addressing it. If you wish to posit an assertion, you need to be able to back it up if you expect to be taken seriously. Until you do, there is no onus on anyone to counter your argument because in fact you have not presented one.

3: I've failed to see exactly why marriage is beneficial. Other people who aren't married, but have had children, seem to be much happier (my third Cousin, Chuck, my Uncle Joe, and Gene Simmons), and have far less or no problems.
I know married people who are more happy than unmarried people and vice versa. I didnt state that the primary benefit of marraige was to make any particular two people more happy than they would otherwise have been.

4: Rephrase this one and get back to me.
Prove that marraige is ridiculous!

5: Looks like you're repeating yourself. Tell me exactly why following an ancient book your entire life isn't the least bit ridiculous.
Actually as a person who has addressed the 'get rid of marraige' argument more than once already, I am indeed repeating myself in a sense.
Why would I tell you why following a book one's entire life isnt the least bit ridiculous? It really isnt relevent to any comment I have made.

Evidently Arramanar is going to argue with me about gay marraige on every thread but this one. :rolleyes:

Evidently Arramanar is going to argue with me about gay marraige on every thread but this one. :rolleyes:
I don't feel like reading 1159 posts to be up to speed.

I don't feel like reading 1159 posts to be up to speed.

Yay, you made it!

Yay, you made it!
Your posts are generally interesting, and at least half the time well-thought out.

Your posts are generally interesting, and at least half the time well-thought out.

Well, I can only force myself to think half the time. :D

Well, I can only force myself to think half the time. :D
If everyone was as motivated as you these forums would be about 10 times better :p

But it's late, and college calls soon. I must get in 5 hours of sleep before going off to fail some classes. Until we meet again.

but its too late, i already got started

here's the scoop: are any straight people hurt physically or mentally when a gay couple gets married? didn't think so. Why do religious people get worked up over a gay marriage? No idea - the Bible says its wrong but it doesnt give anything remotely resembling a reason. I've never seen anything as nonsensical as this fight against it.

The funny part? I'm hetero and have had a girlfriend for the last 3 years. It's not hurting anyone - GET OVER IT!

Yeah, like it's going to hurt me if every gay in America gets married. :rolleyes:

I was just using it as a joke, mostly...I thought it would be a fun way to lighten up this forum. You people are being too annoying about this anyway...being jerks about gay marriage...

Sorry, you right, this place is too heavy sometimes.

but its too late, i already got started

here's the scoop: are any straight people hurt physically or mentally when a gay couple gets married? didn't think so. Why do religious people get worked up over a gay marriage? No idea - the Bible says its wrong but it doesnt give anything remotely resembling a reason. I've never seen anything as nonsensical as this fight against it.

The funny part? I'm hetero and have had a girlfriend for the last 3 years. It's not hurting anyone - GET OVER IT!

Please don't generalize. Not all religious people get "worked up" over a gay marriage.
There is certainly an abundance of hate in the U.S., and things are getting out of control. I've heard "U.C.S.A." far too often lately, and honestly...I do believe that government and religion should be separate, for reasons that have been made obvious over the last few years.
Blame the president, not the religion.
I mentioned before my views on the matter, and both sides seemed to gloss over them. I have friends and acquaintances from all around the world, and a variety of religions. One in particular is homosexual, and we get along great. If he asked me to perform a marriage ceremony for him, I would do so without a second thought. Not because we're friends (well, that's not the only reason atleast :D ), but because marriage is about feelings, and emotions. Not about sexual orientation.

Please don't generalize. Not all religious people get "worked up" over a gay marriage.
There is certainly an abundance of hate in the U.S., and things are getting out of control. I've heard "U.C.S.A." far too often lately, and honestly...I do believe that government and religion should be separate, for reasons that have been made obvious over the last few years.
Blame the president, not the religion.
I mentioned before my views on the matter, and both sides seemed to gloss over them. I have friends and acquaintances from all around the world, and a variety of religions. One in particular is homosexual, and we get along great. If he asked me to perform a marriage ceremony for him, I would do so without a second thought. Not because we're friends (well, that's not the only reason atleast :D ), but because marriage is about feelings, and emotions. Not about sexual orientation.
A refreshing view that we all to often don’t see … we get mostly “HOMMOSS ARE SINNERS!!1!11!!!” around here

Marraige was instituted so that a male could have exclusive access to a particuliar female. That way he could know that the offspring he invested resources in raising were his genetic offspring.

It was an *attempt* by men to achieve this

I agree with most of what Javea said. I am personally against gay marriage, though not against homosexuality, which seems to be something that those who are pro-gay marriage don't understand. Though some do, most think that if you don't favor homosexuals getting married, then you must be prejudiced. That is quite frankly, NOT TRUE!
I also wanted to add that although President Bush has gone a little too far with the whole ban on gay marriage thing, but only because I think marriage is a religious thing, and there is NO place for it in the government. Sure, there are some political issues that goes along with marriage, but perhaps we might need to rethink even mentioning marriage in legal documents. In the President's state of the union address, he does mention the three main issues that have some Christians and non-Christians all "worked up" which are: abortion, human cloning, and of course, everyone's favorite, gay marriage. These all have to do with his individual morals and ethics, which puts him in a tight spot. Should he agree with things that go against his own morals and sacrifice himself for his nation, or should he just decline to ever do anything about it? I think the only reason this is even an issue is because there are political aspects to marriage. Would it not be easier if we simply did away with all those aspects? It would, but then again, America tends to be a nation that doesn't do well with dramatic change, especially in politics.

I don't like gay people, gay people killed my parents. I will avenge their deaths! :gundge: :sniper: :mp5:
Men and women should be together!
:fluffle: (a man and woman)
Gay marriages should be declared illegal because I say so!
(no offense to gay people, they just freak me out!)
:upyours: = oooh look another random smiley!
They didn't really kill my parents, my parents are alive and are now aiming guns at my head telling me to stop writing this rubbish :sniper:
Bye bye
*Gunshot*
*Gun Reloads*
*Insane laughter*

It's people like this that make me wonder...why...why?
If you aren't going to bother reading other people's opinions, at least have respect for them and keep your irrelevant and tangential comments to yourself. This is also why they have laws on gun possession, obviously.

Ok, before I make my point, I want you to understand a few points:

1 - I am a Roman Catholic
2 - I base a lot of my decisions based on ym faith (example - I refuse to have sex before marriage).
3 - I have speant most my life studying other religions, ethical theories and even learning more of my own faith.
4 - I'm straight

So you guys should be thinking "Well the Roman Catholic faith is against homosexuality, so this guy disagrees with gays too." Let me say BOLLOCKS!

I have no problem with gay people, with gay marriage, gay anything!

Here are a few more facts for you:

1 - Yes, if we are going by the literal defination of a marriage then it is the legal binding of a man and woman.

2 - Gay, according to some weird educational persons I met a year ago, actually means "Good As You" - I cannot guarentee the reliability of this

3 - The church once stated that black people were lower than white people...then they changed their minds. The church also once stated that women were lower than men...but they changed their minds about that. So why can't they accept homosexuality? Hmm?

The fact is, the definition of many words have changed over the years - maybe marriage needs updating. Why shouldn't gay people be allowed to marry? Because it's politically incorrect? Because it goes against the church? They get some benefits that single straight people don't?

If these are your reasons, I'm just gonna tell you to piss off in advance.

I have quite a few mates who are gay, both male and female, and I don't see any of them as below me. Fair point. However, if anyone of them wanted to get married and they couldn't - ya damn right I'd be pissed off.

Marriage is a display of love and trust - not some political battle ground.

And, in response to the prick who said:

"I believe that homosexuality should be punished, but not by death, just by taking away some rights, not too many, and taxing them more.
That is more 'nice' .
but I would not let them go off and create too ig of a deal about it."

YOU NEED TO HAVE SOME KIND OF BLUNT INSTRUMENT REPEATEDLY DRIVEN INTO YOUR HEAD UNTIL YOU GAIN SOME KIND OF MORAL SENSE OR COMPASSION!

Homosexuality should be punish - yeah fucking right. Because loving someone is such a fucking atrosity just because it's with someone of the same sex! The evil bastards, right? I mean, how dare they love another person of their own gender! It's unthinkable!

Grow up you immature, heartless, inconsiderate, immoral fools!

Seriously give it a rest. Christianity and organized religion as a whole is over-rated. Here are some thoughts on Christianity.
The Roman Empire converts to Christianity, Rome gets sacked, the Empire begins to fall, the Empire falls.
Christianity, for 600 years, becomes Europes scapegoat. Every crop failure, savage invasion, disease, death, or arrest is seen as gods will, people are scared to seek the truth about the world that surrounds them (this is the only time in History part of Humanity has REGRESSED). The Bible also gains a few hundred pages during the Dark Ages, who says it is all true now?
The Renaissance begins, and guess what, people who oppose the Church are burned, tortured, or exiled (usually to another Catholic country where it falls to the beginning again). Luckily by now Germany and England have converted away from Catholicism and are more supportive, safe havens for Scientific advancement.


In Short, Religion holds (and is holding) Humanity back. Kill the Clergy, burn the churches, and replace them with scientific institutions and Researchers (and for spite, make them researching Stem Cells).

I agree with most of what Javea said. I am personally against gay marriage, though not against homosexuality, which seems to be something that those who are pro-gay marriage don't understand. Though some do, most think that if you don't favor homosexuals getting married, then you must be prejudiced. That is quite frankly, NOT TRUE!


To be frank most people I've known who were against gay marriage were quite prejudiced with preconcieved notions of what "homosexuals" are such as 'it's a choice', 'it's bad upbringing' or indicative of sexual immorality (not just Christian morals) blah blah blah... and so on.

Okkk.......

here was your point------> .

God did not want men to lay with other men. Thats why they dont have vagina. Its common sense. No body is born gay. Its a sinful choice.

Oh, and God didn't want us to fly - that's why we don't have wings, right?


I was recently (2.5 years ago) ordained, but even in my limited experience as a man of God I must say...you people are something else. For all of you wannabe-rightwing 12 yo wacko "christians" out there, you're really giving all christians a bad name.
The Lord teaches tolerance and respect of the ways of others, and I'd feel exactly the same joining a homosexual couple as a heterosexual couple in marriage. If two people are truly in love, what right is it of yours to judge them? Half of marriages end in divorce, so the problem nowadays isn't whether it's man and man or man and woman...it's if they're in love, and compatible enough to live out the rest of their lives together.

Good for you.

I know that I'm likely to get jumped for this, given what I've seen so far in this thread and others, but why is it that all the actual hard evidence is in the hands of the pro-gay-marriage posters?
Even the majority of the Biblical evidence that involves more than one verse belongs to them. It makes sense, I suppose, but I would think that the homosexual-bashing contingent would be ashamed to keep resorting to insults and quick, badly-spelled rubbish to make their points. Some in particular come to mind, and you know who you are.
A statistic is valid if it comes from an unbiased source. Anything published or approved by most churches (sadly), polarized political organizations of all stripe, your minister, or Jack Chick is biased. Government sources are good, for the most part.
Just because I don't necessarily approve of your point of view doesn't mean I wouldn't consider a reasonable argument. It's simply that I haven't seen any that fails to convince me to change my current beliefs.

Won't it be ironic if God really doesn't care, or - gasp! - approves, and rather than the gays sent to hell, it'll be the people who spent their lives spreading hate? :(

I agree with most of what Javea said. I am personally against gay marriage, though not against homosexuality, which seems to be something that those who are pro-gay marriage don't understand. Though some do, most think that if you don't favor homosexuals getting married, then you must be prejudiced. That is quite frankly, NOT TRUE!

So why are you opposed to gay marriage and to gays having equal rights? I'm sorry, but if you believe that a group that has no choice about being the way they are does not deserve equal rights, then I have no choice but to conclude you are a bigot. Perhaps not prejudiced--those are two different words. However, I think bigot would apply.

Now, I'm more than willing to entertain any logical, coherent, and fact-based arguements you would like to make as to how gays getting equality is a danger to society and the fate of the nation. In fact, I'd love it if you could make one--it would be such a refreshing change.

Won't it be ironic if God really doesn't care, or - gasp! - approves, and rather than the gays sent to hell, it'll be the people who spent their lives spreading hate? :(

It would make me giggle.

I agree with most of what Javea said. I am personally against gay marriage, though not against homosexuality, which seems to be something that those who are pro-gay marriage don't understand. Though some do, most think that if you don't favor homosexuals getting married, then you must be prejudiced. That is quite frankly, NOT TRUE!
The problem is that so far every single person I have encountered who has claimed to be 'against homosexuals getting married' has failed to come up with a sound reason for this. Either they argument is invalid, or the premises of their argument are untrue, and often both apply.

I also wanted to add that although President Bush has gone a little too far with the whole ban on gay marriage thing, but only because I think marriage is a religious thing, and there is NO place for it in the government.
Why do you think marraige is a religious thing? Religions incorporate marraige rites and beliefs about marraige into their system not too much more often than they do likewise with regards to eating...does this mean the government must keep it's nose out of eating and that homosexual people should not eat? Marraige is no more a religious thing than eating...

Sure, there are some political issues that goes along with marriage, but perhaps we might need to rethink even mentioning marriage in legal documents.
Give me some good reasons to. Preferably not unsubstantiated and unlikely claims about marraige somehow being a religious thing at the exclusion of being a social/economic thing (ie at the exclusion of being something which the goverment normatively is cognisent of). If you can demonstrate that marraige is a religious thing in the sense that it is exclusively a religious thing (rather than being primarily a social/economic institution), then you can base an argument on the premise that marraige is a religious thing that government should not be involved in.

In the President's state of the union address, he does mention the three main issues that have some Christians and non-Christians all "worked up" which are: abortion, human cloning, and of course, everyone's favorite, gay marriage. These all have to do with his individual morals and ethics, which puts him in a tight spot. Should he agree with things that go against his own morals and sacrifice himself for his nation, or should he just decline to ever do anything about it?
If he wasnt prepared to 'sacrifice' for his nation, then it was highly immoral of him to have even run for President. Unless he was prepared to put his own beliefs aside in order to do his Presidential duty, then he should never have put himself in such a position. I certainly dont accept that the President of the US should sacrifice the country for his morals, and in fact I cannot imagine how sacrificing the country to be 'moral' is possible. Surely it is immoral to sacrifice the nation you who's well-being you have been entrusted with.
I think the only reason this is even an issue is because there are political aspects to marriage. Would it not be easier if we simply did away with all those aspects? It would, but then again, America tends to be a nation that doesn't do well with dramatic change, especially in politics.
I believe the problem is because there are religious aspects to marraige, wouldnt it be easier to do away with those aspects?

For all those christian people here that are using their religion as an argument against homosexual marriages answer this:

What makes you so sure that your religion is the one and only religion? How can you be sure that the bible is true, there must be many flaws in there. The bible was only written several years after Jesus's death and translated many times. Before the bible was written the stories were passed by mouth, ever heard of chinese whispers?

God instructed the hebrews to kill everyone inhabitting the land promised to them. He even helps them. How about the battle over Jherico for starters?

Further, you're dismissing the OT, as if it didn't happen or isn't important. This is the same god! What part of the NT says that the OT is BS? What part of the NT says the OT doesn't count anymore? Biblically, the law written in the OT is good for the rest of forever.

<whole stack of bible quotes>
*sigh* This is the same God, if you devoutly believe in the Trinity dogma. This isn't the same God, if you read the attitudes present int he OT and the NT. Furthermore, I am not in any way "dismissing" the OT - I stated that in my personal experience, the Christians I know place more importance on Jesus and his message of love and peace.

Tell me, do you eat shellfish or pork?

Won't it be ironic if God really doesn't care, or - gasp! - approves, and rather than the gays sent to hell, it'll be the people who spent their lives spreading hate?It would make me giggle.
Ahh, the sweet smell of poetic justice ...

*sigh* This is the same God, if you devoutly believe in the Trinity dogma. This isn't the same God, if you read the attitudes present int he OT and the NT. Furthermore, I am not in any way "dismissing" the OT - I stated that in my personal experience, the Christians I know place more importance on Jesus and his message of love and peace.

Tell me, do you eat shellfish or pork?
I'm not a theist, so it doesn't matter if I eat pork or shellfish. Besides, Jesus specifically said it's OK to eat pork.

Anway, the OT and NT god are in fact the same god, they have all the same attributes. Both are described as all powerful and all knowing.

True, christians do place more importance on the "flowery" bits and I do prefer that much more then what's in the rest of the bible (war, death, revenge, murder, slavery, oppression, biggotry, xenophobia, etc). My problem is that christians ignore those bits, make lame excuses for them and some even try to claim that they're not there at all (these ones are the easiest to mess with). There is a lot of ugly stuff in the bible, and it has been and is still used to justify inhumane treatment of individuals. Today, the gay marriage issue is only the most recent bit of bible based biggotry to rear its ugly head. Exposing the ugliness that is really in the bible is one thing I can do to let people know what it is that they're REALLY following.

True, christians do place more importance on the "flowery" bitsSo you agree with me? :confused:

I wasn't saying that in my opinion the OT is less important than the NT. I'm not Christian. I'm just saying that most Christians I know believe the NT is more relevant than the OT to life now (assuming, of course, that we avoid ugly topics like gay marriage and abortion). And when I said they weren't the "same", I meant that there are glaring differences between the underlying message of the two testaments.

I'm too tired for coherent theology. Sorry if this is still unclear.

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?

So basically, your objection to gay marriage is that you want to reserve the word 'marriage' for your own personal use? That's a bit childish, really.

You know what, if you think President Bush was being immoral, then you run for president. See who votes for you.

As we all know, the Europeans have no problem at all with gay marriage, or gays.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4283149.stm

Unlike the Americans, who have openly gay members of the clergy, the Europeans in their open-minded ways, have to discuss the whole matter as a "crisis".

For as we all know, the Europeans are so much more open-minded and progressive than the backwards Americans.

hmm, i'd say there should be no gay marriage. actually, we should just get rid of marriage at all. that would solve allot of those problems.

As we all know, the Europeans have no problem at all with gay marriage, or gays.
<sarcasm> Because all Europeans share the same view as the Anglican church leaders. </sarcasm>

[QUOTE=Whispering Legs]As we all know, the Europeans have no problem at all with gay marriage, or gays.QUOTE]
<sarcasm> Because all Europeans share the same view as the Anglican church leaders. </sarcasm>

Hey, people keep telling me that no European opposes gay marriage...
that Europeans are ALL so much more enlightened than ALL Americans...

I wonder what Catholics think of gay marriage. You know, the European Catholics...

I'm straight and I'd prefer a civil union over marriage.

Hey, people keep telling me that no European opposes gay marriage...
that Europeans are ALL so much more enlightened than ALL Americans...
Damn these "people" that know so much. It's almost as bad as this "everyone" person i keep hearing about (he says the strangest things).

[QUOTE=Sharazar]

Hey, people keep telling me that no European opposes gay marriage...
that Europeans are ALL so much more enlightened than ALL Americans...

I wonder what Catholics think of gay marriage. You know, the European Catholics...
Religious bigots are religious bigots, it doesn't matter where they live.

There are anglicans in the u.s. who are opposed to the appointment of the gay bishop, are there not?

[QUOTE=Whispering Legs]
Religious bigots are religious bigots, it doesn't matter where they live.

There are anglicans in the u.s. who are opposed to the appointment of the gay bishop, are there not?

Indeed. So in this case, the Americans seem progressive, and the Europeans in this case appear bigoted.

Makes me laugh.

Indeed. So in this case, the Americans seem progressive, and the Europeans in this case appear bigoted.

Makes me laugh.
Yet while a number of european natonas are on their way to legalizing gay marriage, american conservatives are trying to make gay marriage illegal outright and pushing the canadian government to do the same with threats to the mps.

Furthermore, you are aware that you are taking the example of on egroup from one church in england to show that all of europe is bigoted against homosexuals. That's rediculous, that's like if someone said that that all north americans are for the legalization of marijuana because there exists a marijuana party in canada.

And again, if I'm not mistaken, many american anglicans were against the appointment of the gay bishop.

I believe that homosexuality should be punished, but not by death, just by taking away some rights, not too many, and taxing them more.
That is more 'nice' :p .
but I would not let them go off and create too ig of a deal about it.

Homos are sick if you ask me, who would want to lay another woman? I mean, if you're a woman in the first place. I think they should get jailed for a year. And I think the government should pry into marriges more-- to make sure no one is slipping up about things, like abuse, for one thing.

"Do not practice HOMOSEXUALITY, for it is a detestible sin" Leviticus 18:22

So, do you Nazis have Hitler shrines in your rooms?

Its not a disease, noone thinks that, its just something you are born with.

But you have to think that there is something wrong with gay people. I mean, most of them are nice people and are pretty normal, you know, same intelligence as everyone else. But we are created to reproduce, so when you think about it. A man trying to impregnate another man and a women trying to impregnate another women is just kind of rediculous. So when you get right down to it, it is kind of messed up. Sort of like freaks of nature, but not really

But do you get what Im saying?

By your logic, we also shouldn't allow infertile, elderly, or couples planning to have no children to marry.

Yet while a number of european natonas are on their way to legalizing gay marriage, american conservatives are trying to make gay marriage illegal outright and pushing the canadian government to do the same with threats to the mps.

Furthermore, you are aware that you are taking the example of on egroup from one church in england to show that all of europe is bigoted against homosexuals. That's rediculous, that's like if someone said that that all north americans are for the legalization of marijuana because there exists a marijuana party in canada.

And again, if I'm not mistaken, many american anglicans were against the appointment of the gay bishop.

Not every American is against gay marriage. Something like 60 percent favor at least civil unions for gays.

The fact that we voted Republican was for other reasons.

NO i DISAGREE surely if two people of the same sex want to show their love for each other marrage is the current way. Surely if God didnt want homosexuals he wouldnt of made some people like that.
I just think that in this modern age all people should be accepted. No judgements of their age, sex, sexuallity colour etc.
I am not homosexual, but surely they have just as many rights in this world to be equal as couples, to have the same rites as anyone else!
lets get this homophobic world in shape and keep it that way!

Not every American is against gay marriage. Something like 60 percent favor at least civil unions for gays.

The fact that we voted Republican was for other reasons.
Your government is still passing a bill to make gay marriage illegal though, no?

And there are a bunch of americans who are trying to force canadian mps to vote against an upcoming measure that would make excluding gay people from marriage unconstitutional.

Your government is still passing a bill to make gay marriage illegal though, no?

And there are a bunch of americans who are trying to force canadian mps to vote against an upcoming measure that would make excluding gay people from marriage unconstitutional.
There is? Thought it was a per state thing not a bill in the house/senate

could be wrong

~whats wrong with gay marriage?

Your government is still passing a bill to make gay marriage illegal though, no?

And there are a bunch of americans who are trying to force canadian mps to vote against an upcoming measure that would make excluding gay people from marriage unconstitutional.

It's pointless to talk about proposed legislation that hasn't gotten to the floor for a vote. So, no, the bill is not "passing". It's being talked about.

As for "forcing" canadian mps, I don't recall American troops north of the US border holding canadian mps at gunpoint. While the US does have a history of doing that (the Maryland legislature in 1861 was forced at gunpoint to vote to stay in the Union), calling people on the phone is not "forcing".

If that's "forcing", then UK residents, spurred by the Guardian paper, were "forcing" Ohio residents to vote for Kerry - thereby interfering in our national election.

But no, no one is "forcing" anyone.

well i say let them all get married, why not? its not like being gay is a disease it wont be spred through the genes! if they get married how would it affect our lives? it would make no differance if they were married or not, they are still to people that happen to be attracted to each other. Marraige is marriage the only way you can tell if a couple is married is if they have a ring or if they go telling everyone, so who cares? its not like anyone would notice! :rolleyes:

I'm straight and I'd prefer a civil union over marriage.

You do realize that there is a difference between a civil marriage and a civil union right? Civil Marriage gives you al lthe rights and responsibiltiies of marriages--its the whole package and its not religious. Civil unions give you maybe a dozen of the rights (less than a hundred of what marriage gives) depending on your location--AND NONE OF THE FEDERAL RIGHTS.

People seem to either not understand, refuse to understand or unable to understand the difference between a religious marriage, a civil marriage, and a civil union.

Your government is still passing a bill to make gay marriage illegal though, no?

And there are a bunch of americans who are trying to force canadian mps to vote against an upcoming measure that would make excluding gay people from marriage unconstitutional.

Some members of our federal government are trying to pass an amendment to our consitution. It has not passed yet and hopefully will not do so. If it does, it doesn't mean it represents the majority. It means it represents the loudest people who right now happen to be the homophobes and bigots.

And just because there are some insane Americans trying to force Canada's hand, it doesn't mean all Americans do that. There are those of us who consider that to be on the level of the Brits writing letters trying to influence our presidential election. Some of us do consider that BOTH of these are wrong and that sovreign nations have a right to conduct their own internal affairs as long as they dont' violate international law, etc.

"Do not practice HOMOSEXUALITY, for it is a detestible sin" Leviticus 18:22

What version of the bible are you using?

Your government is still passing a bill to make gay marriage illegal though, no?

And there are a bunch of americans who are trying to force canadian mps to vote against an upcoming measure that would make excluding gay people from marriage unconstitutional.
It depends on what you mean by "your government". Many states have banned it. The constitutional ammendment won't happen. The number of votes needed in the house, senate and state ratification is such that they don't have the votes to do it. This was nothing but a ploy to get a few more votes in November, it has no real teeth and everyone in the states knows it. All this impotent bill did was give the religious nuts a hardon for the president.

Why do people who tell us homosexuality is wrong on biblical grounds usually ignore the rest of Leviticus? Other than the fact that they're hypocrites, that is.

as a child i was told jesus taught(sp) love and exceptance(sp), and if god created us in his image doesnt that make him a man/woman/homosexual//drunk/stoner/anything else that humans do that is stupid?

There's nothing wrong with gay marriage. It's not like they can do anything about their sexuality. That's like saying black people can't get married, only that has to do with race and not sexuality but it's the same idea. Chances are most of you have met a gay person and gotten along with them even if you only talked to them for a couple minutes, but if you had known they were gay before you talked to them you would have ignored them completely.

You do realize that there is a difference between a civil marriage and a civil union right? Civil Marriage gives you al lthe rights and responsibiltiies of marriages--its the whole package and its not religious. Civil unions give you maybe a dozen of the rights (less than a hundred of what marriage gives) depending on your location--AND NONE OF THE FEDERAL RIGHTS.

People seem to either not understand, refuse to understand or unable to understand the difference between a religious marriage, a civil marriage, and a civil union.
as a person in a straight relationship, i also would prefer the option to have a civil union, IF (great big huge monster "if") civil unions were made legally equal to marriages. i want the rights associated with marriage, but i would really really really really love not to have to call my union a "marriage."

frankly, i don't want to dirty my relationship by associating it with the institution of marriage. the religious and the homophobic they want "marriage" to mean the binding union of two people for the purposes of making a particular genital configuration, or for the production of babies, and as far as i am concerned they can have it...the history of the institution of marriage is one of slavery, abuse, and inequality, after all, so their definition is actually pretty fitting. i want a union that means love, respect, companionship, and honor, so marriage clearly is not for me :).

The whole marriage under God thing in the US has been bastardized by divorce and such things. Not to mention you can get be married by, I believe, but wont put money on, the Nevada Gambling commision. Nothing more holy than Las Vegas - Legal prostitution and alcohol are good precursors to your marriage if you ask me. If these conservatives are so afraid of homosexuals they should just out right and say it. If you aren't a practicing christian it's hardly fair to deny others something that brings no harm to themselves or to anyone else and makes them happy. Also, I don't believe the church should have power in the government. Last time I checked it was a Republic, not a theocracy!

as a person in a straight relationship, i also would prefer the option to have a civil union, IF (great big huge monster "if") civil unions were made legally equal to marriages. i want the rights associated with marriage, but i would really really really really love not to have to call my union a "marriage."

frankly, i don't want to dirty my relationship by using the same name for it as religious bigots use for their unions. if they want "marriage" to mean the binding union of two people for the purposes of making a particular genital configuration, then they can have it...the history of the institution of marriage is one of slavery, abuse, and inequality, after all, so their definition is actually pretty fitting. i want a union that means love, respect, companionship, and honor, so marriage clearly is not for me :).


I'm not arguing against you being able to use whatever terminology you like for your . . .well, let's call it a joining. I was just point out to the last person that as they stand, there IS a difference between civil marriage and civil unions (and indeed religious marriage).

But then Bottle, you're probably ten miles ahead of me as normal ;)

Last time I checked it was a Republic, not a theocracy!

Tell that to Falwell, Robertson, my family's minister, and the President.

Tell that to Falwell, Robertson, my family's minister, and the President.

I told them. They just don't care. :headbang:

I'm not arguing against you being able to use whatever terminology you like for your . . .well, let's call it a joining. I was just point out to the last person that as they stand, there IS a difference between civil marriage and civil unions (and indeed religious marriage).

yeah, and it SUCKS. personally, i don't think the government should be involved with private romantic unions in any way, shape, or form, but if it's going to be involved then it should most certainly not muck about with a term as loaded as "marriage"; civil unions are all the government should be concerned with, if it really feels the need to stick its nose in.

But then Bottle, you're probably ten miles ahead of me as normal ;)
lol, don't know about that, but thanks anyway :).

I'm not arguing against you being able to use whatever terminology you like for your . . .well, let's call it a joining.

I'm a little sketchy in that area. Marriage in theory is a religious thing. I really don't expect the churches to perform marriages for gays. They have a valid reason for being against it. Really, just all the benefits a gay couple can't receive that are offered to conventional married couples, that's where I get angry. Perhaps joining is the best term for things.

I'm a little sketchy in that area. Marriage in theory is a religious thing.

no, it's not. my parents have been married for 30 years, and religion has NEVER had a place in their union. marriage existed long before any of the modern religions, and has evolved in many cultures independent from religion.

unfortunately for all of us, marriage in the Western world was co-opted by religion some time ago. in my opinion, that is when "marriage" ceased to have any real value as an institution.

I really don't expect the churches to perform marriages for gays. They have a valid reason for being against it.

nobody is trying to force ANY religious group or individual to marry gay people. gay marriage is about the legal recognition owed to all citizens.


Really, just all the benefits a gay couple can't receive that are offered to conventional married couples, that's where I get angry.
exactly, and that is the ONLY part at issue.

no, it's not. my parents have been married for 30 years, and religion has NEVER had a place in their union.

I disagree. The church is well aware that religion plays little, if no roll, in the live sof many they join. However, like I said, in theory, these couples are blessed under God and whatnot, bound by vows, etc. A homosexual union is a brazen affront to church values. There is a difference.

As to whether being gay is a choice or not, I don't know and I don't care. It's stupid to even think like that.

I am male and generally sexually attracted to women, and occasionally to men. If I had sex with a woman, would that mean I am straight? If I had sex with a man, would I be gay? If first one, then the other, would I have somehow "changed"? Since I'm a virgin, you may as well say that I am completely asexual.

It is my own opinion that heterosexuality and homosexualty are ludicrous ideas that have been spread waaaaaaaaay to far, and no longer only refer to the actual sexual experience but to an identity. Frankly, my sexuality does not define who I am.

As for homosexual marriage, why not? As far as the governemt is concerned, it's the joining of two taxpayers into a joint unit. The government doesn't care what color eyes the taxpayers have -- why should they care what set of genitalia they have? The churches and other relious organizations that have traditionally performed most wedding ceremonies are welcome to practice their religion as they see fit, so they should choose whether they will perform such rites for homosexual couples or not. The government, however, should allow any joining of two consenting adults. (Polygamy comes to mind as a possible topic stemming from this. Oh, to see what the trolls have to say about *that*.)

It's pretty straightforward that a homosexual union will not produce new children without some major outside interference. Nobody will argue that. But as far as the government is concerned, that's not the point of a marriage. Unmarried people can make babies, too. Granted the existence of "sperm banks" and "egg banks", even people who have never met can make babies.

I did not mean this to get so long. Wow.

I disagree. The church is well aware that religion plays little, if no roll, in the live sof many they join. However, like I said, in theory, these couples are blessed under God and whatnot, bound by vows, etc. A homosexual union is a brazen affront to church values. There is a difference.
a non-Catholic married couple is an affront to the Catholic God. to the Muslim God, all Christian marriages are an insult. in America, we do not recognize the supremacy of any one faith over the others, nor do we allow "church values" to supercede civil rights, so it doesn't make a damn bit of difference which unions are an affront to which religious organizations.

my parents are atheists, at this point, so their union is an affront to a great many Christian churches. they have been told as much, point blank, by several people over the years. the celebration of their 25th aniversary was boycotted by several family members who believed their union was sinful because it was "godless." yet, for some crazy reason, they are still allowed to be married in the eyes of the law...imagine that.

As to whether being gay is a choice or not, I don't know and I don't care. It's stupid to even think like that.

I am male and generally sexually attracted to women, and occasionally to men. If I had sex with a woman, would that mean I am straight? If I had sex with a man, would I be gay? If first one, then the other, would I have somehow "changed"? Since I'm a virgin, you may as well say that I am completely asexual.

It is my own opinion that heterosexuality and homosexualty are ludicrous ideas that have been spread waaaaaaaaay to far, and no longer only refer to the actual sexual experience but to an identity. Frankly, my sexuality does not define who I am.

As for homosexual marriage, why not? As far as the governemt is concerned, it's the joining of two taxpayers into a joint unit. The government doesn't care what color eyes the taxpayers have -- why should they care what set of genitalia they have? The churches and other relious organizations that have traditionally performed most wedding ceremonies are welcome to practice their religion as they see fit, so they should choose whether they will perform such rites for homosexual couples or not. The government, however, should allow any joining of two consenting adults. (Polygamy comes to mind as a possible topic stemming from this. Oh, to see what the trolls have to say about *that*.)

It's pretty straightforward that a homosexual union will not produce new children without some major outside interference. Nobody will argue that. But as far as the government is concerned, that's not the point of a marriage. Unmarried people can make babies, too. Granted the existence of "sperm banks" and "egg banks", even people who have never met can make babies.

I did not mean this to get so long. Wow.
Aye Aye to that. Exactly... well I'm not a virgin, but other than that...

I'm a little sketchy in that area. Marriage in theory is a religious thing. I really don't expect the churches to perform marriages for gays. They have a valid reason for being against it. Really, just all the benefits a gay couple can't receive that are offered to conventional married couples, that's where I get angry. Perhaps joining is the best term for things.

Marriage is not in theory or reality solely a religious thing. Marriage is a social thing. Religion may or may not be involved in it (as it has been for at least fifty years and probably more). Further, I take offense at a concept of separate but equal. If as far as the government is concerned everyone gets a "joining" fine. But I will not now nor will I ever agree in principle with one program for straights and one for gays.

And I repeat. Marriage is NOT solely religious. Nor is religious marriage solely for one religious group (you do know that there are other religions out there right? Not eveyone goes to a church).

And no, religious organizations shouldn't be forced to perform gay marriages. But then, no one has asked that they be. We've asked for access to civil marriages which can be performed by a judge or a justice of the peace--just like atheists already have! Religious organizations already have the right to refuse to perform any wedding ceremony they wish--and no one has proposed changing that.

But since you are so keen on religions being able to do as they will, I want you to respond to this. What about the religious groups that already perform gay marriages? Is it not discrimination against them for the government to refuse to recognize their marriages while the recognize the marriages from other groups?

I disagree. The church is well aware that religion plays little, if no roll, in the live sof many they join. However, like I said, in theory, these couples are blessed under God and whatnot, bound by vows, etc. A homosexual union is a brazen affront to church values. There is a difference.


So because the church thinks that it owns sole rights to marriage we are all just supposed to bow down and go "okay?" What happens whent eh church decides it holds sole rights to voting? Are all non-Christians just supposed to stop voting? Face it, Christians, religious people, etc. do not have the right to deny others equality under the government. You can excommunicate me and send me to hell all you like. I really don't care. But you do not have the right to deny me equality from teh government that I pay my taxes too--particularly given that my marriage will in no way takea nything away from you.

As for homosexual marriage, why not? As far as the governemt is concerned, it's the joining of two taxpayers into a joint unit. The government doesn't care what color eyes the taxpayers have -- why should they care what set of genitalia they have? The churches and other relious organizations that have traditionally performed most wedding ceremonies are welcome to practice their religion as they see fit, so they should choose whether they will perform such rites for homosexual couples or not. The government, however, should allow any joining of two consenting adults. (Polygamy comes to mind as a possible topic stemming from this. Oh, to see what the trolls have to say about *that*.)

Rock on!

As to whether being gay is a choice or not, I don't know and I don't care. It's stupid to even think like that.

I am male and generally sexually attracted to women, and occasionally to men. If I had sex with a woman, would that mean I am straight? If I had sex with a man, would I be gay? If first one, then the other, would I have somehow "changed"? Since I'm a virgin, you may as well say that I am completely asexual.

It is my own opinion that heterosexuality and homosexualty are ludicrous ideas that have been spread waaaaaaaaay to far, and no longer only refer to the actual sexual experience but to an identity. Frankly, my sexuality does not define who I am.

As for homosexual marriage, why not? As far as the governemt is concerned, it's the joining of two taxpayers into a joint unit. The government doesn't care what color eyes the taxpayers have -- why should they care what set of genitalia they have? The churches and other relious organizations that have traditionally performed most wedding ceremonies are welcome to practice their religion as they see fit, so they should choose whether they will perform such rites for homosexual couples or not. The government, however, should allow any joining of two consenting adults. (Polygamy comes to mind as a possible topic stemming from this. Oh, to see what the trolls have to say about *that*.)

It's pretty straightforward that a homosexual union will not produce new children without some major outside interference. Nobody will argue that. But as far as the government is concerned, that's not the point of a marriage. Unmarried people can make babies, too. Granted the existence of "sperm banks" and "egg banks", even people who have never met can make babies.

I did not mean this to get so long. Wow.
Yep... I agree

Your point IS my point there. I can't argue, wont argue, and don't want to argue what you've just said. We see eye to eye, even if it's through a funhouse window. If there is one ultimate point I try to make, it's the poor use of religion as an argument for this gay-marriage thing. I said it before. Many of the anti-gay people are hardly practicing christians and likely 'sin' much of the way through their life. There are a lot of drug abusing conservatives around here that get in an up-roar about the whole issue. "Well, now that they let the gays get married I might as well be able to marry my dog! Don't YOU believe in the bible?!" Apparently they forgot about the sexual sin and use of drugs... but it's bad to rely on their opinion, so should I even count it in the argument? Probably not, but if I don't... then I'm arguing against myself. What a terrible cycle.

You know what, if you think President Bush was being immoral, then you run for president. See who votes for you.
If you think such a silly response actually proves anything about anything, you are mistaken. As it happens I can no more run for President than can the present governor of California.

I disagree. The church is well aware that religion plays little, if no roll, in the live sof many they join. However, like I said, in theory, these couples are blessed under God and whatnot, bound by vows, etc. A homosexual union is a brazen affront to church values. There is a difference.
....that had nothing to do with what you quoted.

And not everyone is married in a church by a christian minister...

not everyone is married in a church by a christian minister...

No, but most of the 'valid' arguments come from a christian community. I mentioned myself marriage in Las Vegas. I am well aware not everyone is married by a christian priest, it's just the prevalent religion religion in the US, at least in media coverage on this topic.

No, but most of the 'valid' arguments come from a christian community. I mentioned myself marriage in Las Vegas. I am well aware not everyone is married by a christian priest, it's just the prevalent religion religion in the US, at least in media coverage on this topic.
lol only 'vali' because they pick and choose from their text or compleatly misunderstand it (if they even bothered to read it)

I don't get why there is even a debate about this. Alright, so there are a lot of homophobes out there, but most of them are idiots named "Cletus" or "Skeeter" who live in houses with wheels and marry their cousins, so their opinion can and will be discounted.

Seriously, though. If you don't like the idea of homosexuality, that's fine. Personally, I don't understand it. But that's me! If you wanna be gay, be gay. If you wanna be straight, be straight. SOMEONE'S SEXUAL PREFERENCES ARE NOBODY'S BUSINESS BUT THAT PERSON. If someone is homosexual, it's not hurting you. They're not making you become a homosexual. Why try and make them a hetrosexual? What right do you have to shove your own views on this matter down other people's throats?

Denying gay and lesbian people's rights is the same as denying Blacks or Asians rights - it's discrimination, no matter what you call it.

But since you are so keen on religions being able to do as they will, I want you to respond to this. What about the religious groups that already perform gay marriages? Is it not discrimination against them for the government to refuse to recognize their marriages while the recognize the marriages from other groups?

So because the church thinks that it owns sole rights to marriage we are all just supposed to bow down and go "okay?" What happens whent eh church decides it holds sole rights to voting? Are all non-Christians just supposed to stop voting? Face it, Christians, religious people, etc. do not have the right to deny others equality under the government. You can excommunicate me and send me to hell all you like. I really don't care. But you do not have the right to deny me equality from teh government that I pay my taxes too--particularly given that my marriage will in no way takea nything away from you.

You hit me with a hellstorm and completey skewed what I was trying to get acros. Maybe I'm not very good at explaining things, either way, I'll try to get this one out of the way. I had no intention of creating a seperate system for gays. What I was trying to explain is the west is predominantly Christian, yes? Words take on meanings, and YES they can change, as illustrated by whoever mentioned words gay and cool, etc. Most people accept marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The word has meaning for these people as a religious thing. I'm pretty sure many of the prevalent world religions are opposed to homsexuality, so is it not true they would be offended by using the same word to define a unified gay couple as they would a heterosexual couple? Most dictionaries use the Christian definition of marriage. Yeah, it's mainstream, but in our world mainstream is almost always what matters. Does it matter if we offend them? Maybe it's a moot point, maybe not. I'm all for Gay marriage, but I think people should take it in baby steps. A lot of people aren't ready for gay marriage. Make it sound nicer, get the benefits, change the name later. You can get all rowled up about inequality in the democratic world, like we all seem to do, but it hardly helps your case. Fight the good fight, be reasonable, and things will change over time. That is... unless you can throw a violent, successful coup to speed it up :P. Otherwise you're going to have to weather the discrimination. It happened to the black community. Was it justice? Hardly. It's part of the world, like it or lump it.

Why do people who tell us homosexuality is wrong on biblical grounds usually ignore the rest of Leviticus? Other than the fact that they're hypocrites, that is.
I ask the same question around the 10 commandments.

Christian: The OT doesn't count anymore.
Me: Do you believe in and follow the 10 commandments?
Christian: Absolutley, that is the basis of our legal system and is the perfect law.
Me: The 10 commandments are in the OT though, so doesn't that make them irrelevant?
Christian: Uuuhhhhhh . . . LOOK OVER THERE! *runs away*

as a person in a straight relationship, i also would prefer the option to have a civil union, IF (great big huge monster "if") civil unions were made legally equal to marriages. i want the rights associated with marriage, but i would really really really really love not to have to call my union a "marriage."

frankly, i don't want to dirty my relationship by associating it with the institution of marriage. the religious and the homophobic they want "marriage" to mean the binding union of two people for the purposes of making a particular genital configuration, or for the production of babies, and as far as i am concerned they can have it...the history of the institution of marriage is one of slavery, abuse, and inequality, after all, so their definition is actually pretty fitting. i want a union that means love, respect, companionship, and honor, so marriage clearly is not for me :).
So, you want something LIKE marriage, but is not called marriage? That sounds suspiciously like "seperate but equal" to me.

i think the priority should just getting equal benefits for civil unions and marriages; the labels, though definitely meaningful to many, can be changed later. even dubya has voiced his approval of benefits for civil unions, so a point as nonpartisan as that is a good starting block for ridding our country of discrimination against homosexuals.

As to whether being gay is a choice or not, I don't know and I don't care. It's stupid to even think like that.

I am male and generally sexually attracted to women, and occasionally to men. If I had sex with a woman, would that mean I am straight? If I had sex with a man, would I be gay? If first one, then the other, would I have somehow "changed"? Since I'm a virgin, you may as well say that I am completely asexual.
That makes you bisexual, and me insanely jealous.

You hit me with a hellstorm and completey skewed what I was trying to get acros. Maybe I'm not very good at explaining things, either way, I'll try to get this one out of the way. I had no intention of creating a seperate system for gays. What I was trying to explain is the west is predominantly Christian, yes? Words take on meanings, and YES they can change, as illustrated by whoever mentioned words gay and cool, etc. Most people accept marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The word has meaning for these people as a religious thing. I'm pretty sure many of the prevalent world religions are opposed to homsexuality, so is it not true they would be offended by using the same word to define a unified gay couple as they would a heterosexual couple? Most dictionaries use the Christian definition of marriage. Yeah, it's mainstream, but in our world mainstream is almost always what matters. Does it matter if we offend them? Maybe it's a moot point, maybe not. I'm all for Gay marriage, but I think people should take it in baby steps. A lot of people aren't ready for gay marriage. Make it sound nicer, get the benefits, change the name later. You can get all rowled up about inequality in the democratic world, like we all seem to do, but it hardly helps your case. Fight the good fight, be reasonable, and things will change over time. That is... unless you can throw a violent, successful coup to speed it up :P. Otherwise you're going to have to weather the discrimination. It happened to the black community. Was it justice? Hardly. It's part of the world, like it or lump it.

I misunderstood you before and I apologize for my angry response. I'm so used to different type people on here that I made a mistake. And I do understand where you are coming from and I don't want you to misunderstand me--I will be more than pleased and grateful for any baby steps that occur. I realize that this is going to take time and I'm willing to work on it slowly--but only because I'm forced to do so.

The gulf between theory and practice is often so wide that you almost have to change modes to discuss them. In practice, I realize you are right. What I was arguing from before was in theory. I was arguing what SHOULD be but not what IS. That's part of what I like about the online world. I get to argue those things. In real life, I do take a more practical approach to it.

So in short, thank you for bieng understanding and helping me understand you a little better.

I misunderstood you before and I apologize for my angry response. I'm so used to different type people on here that I made a mistake. And I do understand where you are coming from and I don't want you to misunderstand me--I will be more than pleased and grateful for any baby steps that occur. I realize that this is going to take time and I'm willing to work on it slowly--but only because I'm forced to do so.

The gulf between theory and practice is often so wide that you almost have to change modes to discuss them. In practice, I realize you are right. What I was arguing from before was in theory. I was arguing what SHOULD be but not what IS. That's part of what I like about the online world. I get to argue those things. In real life, I do take a more practical approach to it.

So in short, thank you for bieng understanding and helping me understand you a little better.

See. Baby steps here. We bridge the gap. Gotta be willing to listen to everyone. Unfortunately those openminded people, even if they are opinionated, are few and far betwen. I apologize for any misinterpretation of my writings, and thank you for your apology.

See. Baby steps here. We bridge the gap. Gotta be willing to listen to everyone. Unfortunately those openminded people, even if they are opinionated, are few and far betwen. I apologize for any misinterpretation of my writings, and thank you for your apology.

We should join the state department. They need the help in diplomacy.

i think the priority should just getting equal benefits for civil unions and marriages; the labels, though definitely meaningful to many, can be changed later. even dubya has voiced his approval of benefits for civil unions, so a point as nonpartisan as that is a good starting block for ridding our country of discrimination against homosexuals.
I can still see a lot of discrimination come from it though. "Oh, you're not REALLY married, you just have one of those phony union things. No, you can't see your wife/husband/whatever in the intensive care ward." or "No, you can't inherit your spouse's wealthy, because you weren't REALLY married." or "No, you can't have your dental benefits passed to your spouse, because you aren't REALLY married." or even just informal discrimination that happens around town.

I can still see a lot of discrimination come from it though. "Oh, you're not REALLY married, you just have one of those phony union things. No, you can't see your wife/husband/whatever in the intensive care ward." or "No, you can't inherit your spouse's wealthy, because you weren't REALLY married." or "No, you can't have your dental benefits passed to your spouse, because you aren't REALLY married." or even just informal discrimination that happens around town.
While I think it is not right if it has all the LEGAL standings it would be at least a step ... as long as we are not satisfied with staying there

While I think it is not right if it has all the LEGAL standings it would be at least a step ... as long as we are not satisfied with staying there

Believe me, we aren't satisfied with staying there. I'm not even satisfied that this would probably have to be the first step (if we could make the first step THAT big which I sometimes despair we cannot). I want the whole enchilada--full equality under the government. And we aren't going to stop until we get it.

i'm not about to read through all 84 pages of this, but here, i think this is pertinent, and neatly executes any and all arguments against homosexual marrige:

Twelve Reasons Same-Sex Marriages Will Ruin Society

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.


any arguments that they have against it from this point forwards are now to be shot dead as per these twelve points.

i'm not about to read through all 84 pages of this, but here, i think this is pertinent, and neatly executes any and all arguments against homosexual marrige:




any arguments that they have against it from this point forwards are now to be shot dead as per these twelve points.
lol nice summary (mind if I ask where you found it?)

I believe that homosexuality should be punished, but not by death, just by taking away some rights, not too many, and taxing them more.
That is more 'nice' :p .
but I would not let them go off and create too ig of a deal about it.
No it's not nice at all, it's called moronic.