NationStates Jolt Archive

whats the big deal, why are you religious people so terrified of the homosexual community?

it doesn't affect you, and the rule is that if your church does not want to marry them, then don't.

Im heterosexual and i don't feel threatened at all.

I have yet to hear one good argument against allowing homosexual marriage, all I ever get are religious rebuttals.

And the fact that we are changing tradition, come on now, thats weak, we change traditions all the time.

theres a massive thread, well, several, all devoted to the issue of gay marriage

actually maybe it got closed because it went over the post limit...who knows?

Aye my friend...This idea has been debated to death on these hallowed forums.

Need not worry, there are many who agree with your point of view, and are just as dumbfounded as you are about the sentiments of religious right.

im glad i live in a country where people aren't quite as uptight, go canada!!!

whats the big deal, why are you religious people so terrified of the homosexual community?


Please don't say "you religious people". I am deeply religious and I am a strong advocate in support of gay marriage. There is more than one way to be religious.

Please don't say "you religious people". I am deeply religious and I am a strong advocate in support of gay marriage. There is more than one way to be religious.

Same here.

It will destroy the sanctity of marriage! ... even though the divorce rate in the first five years is 50% and more and more people arn't getting married.. shit.

Please don't say "you religious people". I am deeply religious and I am a strong advocate in support of gay marriage. There is more than one way to be religious.


sorry about that, the religious people who are so terrified of gay marriage.

It will destroy the sanctity of marriage! ... even though the divorce rate in the first five years is 50% and more and more people arn't getting married.. shit.

How, exactly?

How, exactly?
i dont think he was being serious

I have yet to hear one good argument against allowing homosexual marriage, all I ever get are religious rebuttals.
Here's an interesting argument against it (well, it also argues agaisnt heterosexual marriage too....): If marriage is so sacred a religious insitution to the conservatives, then it must have some religious meaning to them.

Therefore, government-administering of marriage licenses goes against separation of church and state. And as a compromise, we'll just give everybody Civil Unions (but w/the same economic benefits as marriage)

Indeed, he wasn't being serious, Dohnut.

Though if you read some of Senator Santorum's [go pennsylvania?] words on the issue, you'll find that anal sex creates waves of destruction that tear apart the family, society, liberty, as well as the fabric of the universe, creating a hole in the space-time continuum which only the eradication of all gays can cure.

But gay people are soooooooo icky, and i can't stand it when two gay guys kiss.

Obviously letting them marry will make our children think that being gay is a valid way to live. THINKOF THECHILDREN!



- I'm actually a supporter of gay marriage.

How, exactly?

Brain implants at birth.

sorry about that, the religious people who are so terrified of gay marriage.

No harm, no foul. But just know that only certain groups of Christians are the anti-homosexual squad. Jews, Muslims, liberal Christians, etc are either indifferent to it or loud advocates of it. :)

No harm, no foul. But just know that only certain groups of Christians are the anti-homosexual squad. Jews, Muslims, liberal Christians, etc are either indifferent to it or loud advocates of it. :)

I feel you may be guilty of the same. Not all of those groups are for it. Ive met more Muslims that aren't than are.

(Stealing directly from a certain J. Stewart)

Everyone knows its because of the Wonder Twin Power that Gay men have; the marriage of Penis and Ass creates a community-destroying ray!

Otherwise? I'm not so sure why.

I feel you may be guilty of the same. Not all of those groups are for it. Ive met more Muslims that aren't than are.

True ... there are Muslims who are against it ... but there is no basis in Qur'an to be against it. Don't confuse societal tradition with religious law.

A lot of people where I live are opposed to Gay Marriage. I find it sad though because upon asking them why, I found they didn't have a reason except "gay people suck," which is why I'm not out as bi in my town/school.

I think there is basis in the Qur'an against it, though i have studied too many religous books. Forgive me if i get them mixed up (Im agnostic by the way, i consider myself objective towards all religions.)

I think there is basis in the Qur'an against it, though i have studied too many religous books. Forgive me if i get them mixed up (Im agnostic by the way, i consider myself objective towards all religions."

Actually, yes there is basis against it, but it also says in Qur'an that we're not allowed to prevent sin or denegrate those who actively sin. There shall be no compulsion in religion. We cannot, by decree of Allah, impose our moral or world views on anybody, hence, to protest against gay marriage would be a sin in and of itself.

Allah created homosexuals and it is Allah who will decide what to do about it. Not us. As for any Muslims you meet who have fear of homosexual marriage leading to moral decay, just remind them that they should fear nothing except Allah.

Thank you for clarifying that. I do my best, but i only look at religions academically, (like languages and cultures). I take it You are Islamic, Keruvalia?

Thank you for clarifying that. I do my best, but i only look at religions academically, (like languages and cultures). I take it You are Islamic, Keruvalia?

Yes, I am a very proud Muslim. :)

Civil Unions will likely be legal in Connecticut soon.

I for one, am fine with it, so long as it isn't called marriage.

A lot of people where I live are opposed to Gay Marriage. I find it sad though because upon asking them why, I found they didn't have a reason except "gay people suck," which is why I'm not out as bi in my town/school.

Being bi is not an issue public opinion-wise (at least that I've observed). People don't like gays because they find people who follow the gay stereotypes annoying. Few men can deny that lesbians and bi women are hot, and unless they are actively stalking me I think being a bi guy just means you are the pimp of everyone.

Civil Unions will likely be legal in Connecticut soon.

I for one, am fine with it, so long as it isn't called marriage.


All marriages are "civil unions". Your marriage isn't recognized by the State, even if you do it in a Christian church, unless you get a State issued marriage license signed.

I would prefer it to be called marriage. Else its just like saying, "you can exist, but we're going to hide what you really are". now correct me if im wrong, but all religions imply or explicitly state that you should stand up for who and what you are.

I would prefer it to be called marriage. Else its just like saying, "you can exist, but we're going to hide what you really are".

Smacks of Jim Crowe, doesn't it?

I think a lot of people are uncomfortable with gay marriage being allowed, because it might imply that it's ok to be gay, and therefore make more people do it.

In my opinion, that's a fantastic reason to allow it. If you're gay, be gay. If you're not, don't be.

Religious people are only against gay marriage because they're too stubborn to admit that it's not wrong at all. They can't accept the fact that their religious articles (bible, Qur'an, etc.) could be wrong. Now I don't mean to offend anyone, and when I say "religious people" I mean most of them, not all.

If it was required by law, I could marry a woman. And there would be no problem to find very attractive women (I have difficulty to keep them out of my bed, actually).

What puzzles me is, why do these super-religious guys want to have more competition?

in my experience, most people against gay marriage either think that there's something fundamentally wrong with gays or they can't accept people different from them (or both).

Gay-ness period is a deviant activity. Through millions of years of evolution, life evolved with male and female sexes. The purpose of this split was partly for procreation, but also because men and women were specialized in different ways (men could be physically stronger, and women were better at equally important things. Specialization of labor), and as a result, society could function better and more efficiently. And now, some people have decided that this system was not good enough for them. They have to do things differently.

Without heterosexuality, humanity would cease to exist- childrearing could not happen without straight people having children (don't bs about invitro fertilization, the system is not effecient enough to effectively raise enough people to sustain successive generations).

Keep in mind that I am an atheist, and have no religious sentiments. Also remember that I am Libertarian, and do not intend to stop people from engaging in whatever type of activity they wish (I personally am against the government sanctioning marriage in the first place, and think it should be a private affair). These are my personal views.

Here's an interesting argument against it (well, it also argues agaisnt heterosexual marriage too....): If marriage is so sacred a religious insitution to the conservatives, then it must have some religious meaning to them.

Therefore, government-administering of marriage licenses goes against separation of church and state. And as a compromise, we'll just give everybody Civil Unions (but w/the same economic benefits as marriage)
Here's an interesting argument, if eating is so sacred to religious people that they have religious rites such as saying grace attached, and in many cases religious prohibitions/proscriptions with regards to what ought and ought not be eaten, then eating must have religious meaning to them.

Therefore the FDA shouldnt even exist, because it goes against the seperation of church and state. Now some of you may think this is silly because eating wasnt invented by religions, but hey neither so far as anyone has ever been able to prove was marraige. People may also suggest that eating is something the non-religious do, and that it serves a purpose other than religious purposes, but then the exact same thing can be said of marraige. So the government shouldnt regulate anything to do with either marraiges or food....is this a silly argument, well yes, but it is interesting... :rolleyes:

I'm not religious but I am against gay marriage. I have many reasons for this, first of all to every thing in line we must draw a line. If we legalize gay marriage can we then legalize polygamy and then since gay marriage and polygamy is legalized why not legalize incest, WE MUST DRAW THE LINE. Secondly, the percentage of gays in America today is 10%, let’s say gays are born gay, definitely not 10% percent of the population. You see today straight decide to turn gay as an alternate relationship because society accepts it. If gay marriage is legalized then their will be more gays every year. In ancient Rome over 50% of the male population had relationships with little boys. Not because their truly pedophiles but because society accepts it, the same will happen with gays.

//In ancient Rome over 50% of the male population had relationships with little boys. Not because their truly pedophiles but because society accepts it, the same will happen with gays.//

And as a result of declining birth rates, the Roman empire was unable to field enough soldiers to effectively counter barbarian invasions.

I'm not religious but I am against gay marriage. I have many reasons for this, first of all to every thing in line we must draw a line. If we legalize gay marriage can we then legalize polygamy and then since gay marriage and polygamy is legalized why not legalize incest, WE MUST DRAW THE LINE. Secondly, the percentage of gays in America today is 10%, let’s say gays are born gay, definitely not 10% percent of the population. You see today straight decide to turn gay as an alternate relationship because society accepts it. If gay marriage is legalized then their will be more gays every year. In ancient Rome over 50% of the male population had relationships with little boys. Not because their truly pedophiles but because society accepts it, the same will happen with gays.
I'm not religious but I'm against not locking everyone up in a prison at birth. I have many reasons for this, first of all to every think in line we must draw a line. If we dont lock everyone up at birth then we must lock no one up ever. Eventually we wont even punish murderers.

//I'm not religious but I'm against not locking everyone up in a prison at birth. I have many reasons for this, first of all to every think in line we must draw a line. If we dont lock everyone up at birth then we must lock no one up ever. Eventually we wont even punish murderers.//

Actually, this mockery of the previous comment was inane and completely irrelevant, and the comparison is completely invalid.
You could sub in a new term for anything. This does not make you witty. I could say:

"Racism is bad. We should stop it."

And you could easily put in the words:

"Freedom is bad. We should stop it."

Does this mean my original comment was bad? No. It means you played around with words and distorted the original comment.

The church accepted marriage only about 500-1000 years ago.

Homosexuality exists also in the animal kingdom.

God created animals in pairs of male and female, but gave man a woman only as an afterthought.

There are people who say, that families with gay offspring have a better chance to propagate their genes, since the mother has not only her husband as support, but also her gay brother.

So, being gay might have something to do with genes. Genes, that help the woman to find a 'weak' husband - so that it appears that 'weak' fathers have gay sons.

'Strong' fathers might not be desirable, since he most likely gets killed in some fight and is not available for raising offspring.

And then there are those who say that homosexuality is caused by a hormone imbalance during certain developmental stages of the fetus - which could explain, why there was no 'gay gene' found and still sexual preference is determined at the time of the birth. And it could explain transgendered people.


Would it make a difference, if there wouldn't be any financial perks for married people, but only for those who raise children (I mean those who actually raise them not just create them)?

Without heterosexuality, humanity would cease to exist- childrearing could not happen without straight people having children (don't bs about invitro fertilization, the system is not effecient enough to effectively raise enough people to sustain successive generations).

Without females, humanity would cease to excist! Let's ban males!

//I'm not religious but I'm against not locking everyone up in a prison at birth. I have many reasons for this, first of all to every think in line we must draw a line. If we dont lock everyone up at birth then we must lock no one up ever. Eventually we wont even punish murderers.//

Actually, this mockery of the previous comment was inane and completely irrelevant, and the comparison is completely invalid.
The comparison was devoid of meaning, and not silly in the context to which it was applied; it is relevent.

You could sub in a new term for anything. This does not make you witty. I could say:
and so....

"Racism is bad. We should stop it."

And you could easily put in the words:

"Freedom is bad. We should stop it."
Yes indeed I could, although I dont see why I would.


Does this mean my original comment was bad? No. It means you played around with words and distorted the original comment.
Really what do you even mean by 'bad'? The explicit form of the original argument is invalid, I simply provided another example of an argument for which has an indintical explicit form, how is that invalid, irrelevent or inane?

I don't know why both sides are so obsessed with the issue... just legalize the shit already and get on with life.. it's only used to distract people from other issues anyway..

Actually, there is fairly strong scientific evidence that shows that males will cease to exist in about 5000 generations, which admittedly is a VERY long time. I can't remember where I read about it, but they were studying a type of vole that has become hermaphroditic over the last few thousand years. The pattern of evolution that caused this change in the way they reproduce is identical to the pattern that humanity follows. The Y chromosome is decaying, albeit slowly. Each new generation results in less males.

Without a Y chromosome, humanity can continue to exist, so long as we discover some method of joining two ovum. As you may or may not know from biology classes (and/or sex ed), males are XY and females are XX. If the Y chromosome fades, we're left with all X. In otherwords, all children would be female, but reproduction would have to be considerably...different.

The point I am trying to make is that humanity's continued existance does not depend on heterosexual relations. In fact, it doesn't depend on men at all. What it depends on is one man or woman, and another woman. Homosexual relations, as a result, will become nature some day in the very distant future. Today's homosexuals are just perhaps ahead of their time :P Honestly though, homosexuality is quite natural among all other species. It's not deviant. It just doesn't conform to the common societal role.

How can something that is natural be deviant? you can't help it. i have 2 homosexual friends and one is afraid to tell anyon because their afraid no one will accept them, i have because they're my friend no matter what, but there are people who wouldn't.

I don't understand the problem with gay marriages because i am a strong believer that everyone deserves equal rights, if a man and a women want to get married, then they can get married, what's the difference if 2 men want to get married or 2 women want to get married? People are afraid because they're are "different" well noews flash, everyone is different than everyone. The only people that are the same are the ones faking it so they can get what they want, and be accepted by the right people.

I think people in this world just need to be a little more accepting and stop being so afraid all the time.

Marrige is something i look forward to doing pretty soon with my gf, but i am somewhat opposed to gay marrige for a number of reasons, the first is up to great debate and im sorry but history is history, history shows that as soon as a culture excepts gay marrige as a social ideal, that culture experances great problems war and ect. conicadence mabye but either way its something to worry about, examples of this happening are the greeks and romans and anciant japaness empire. Another thing is that in most other parts of the world mainly central amarica and others veiw gay sex as masculian and something to do before you get married to a girl, yes still getting married to a girl, i think thats kinda a cool view cept the masculin part. and of course this may only be the frist redefination of marrige our contry may face, next people might try marrying pets or anything really, yes it is a huge step but one that might happen. and well last but not least. I think that even if gays do get married they will always face trials of people getting in their face some jobs discrimanating against them and other things and well i dont think we should give them that false sense of hope that everythings getting better for them, tele me so i know what you think about what i had to say

Marrige is something i look forward to doing pretty soon with my gf, but i am somewhat opposed to gay marrige for a number of reasons, the first is up to great debate and im sorry but history is history, history shows that as soon as a culture excepts gay marrige as a social ideal, that culture experances great problems war and ect.
History doesnt show any such thing.

conicadence mabye but either way its something to worry about,
Why is it something to worry about if it is merely a coincidence?
examples of this happening are the greeks and romans and anciant japaness empire.
I dont see that you or anyone else has demonstrated that the happenings you refer to are examples of cultures experiancing great problems as soon as those cultures accept gay marraige as a social idea. Even if they did, who is suggesting that gay marraige should be a cultural ideal? I've noticed many suggestions that it ought to be allowed, and/or that it would be allowed in an ideal society, but none that posit it should be a social ideal.

Another thing is that in most other parts of the world mainly central amarica and others veiw gay sex as masculian and something to do before you get married to a girl, yes still getting married to a girl, i think thats kinda a cool view cept the masculin part.
I dont understand why this is a reason for being opposed to people marrying someone of the same sex as themselves.

and of course this may only be the frist redefination of marrige our contry may face,
Actually that's not possible, to be the first it would be necessary that others had not already occured.

next people might try marrying pets or anything really,
So what? They might try that regardless whether or not people are allowed to marry people of their own sex.

yes it is a huge step but one that might happen.
One that might happen whether or not people are allowed to marry others of the same sex as themselves, and one that is no more or less likely if people are allowed to marry others of the same sex as themselves.

and well last but not least. I think that even if gays do get married they will always face trials of people getting in their face some jobs discrimanating against them and other things and well i dont think we should give them that false sense of hope that everythings getting better for them, tele me so i know what you think about what i had to say
Nonesense. People are allowed to hope for whatever they wish to hope for and will form their hopes around their own views, they can have false hope or not regardless of the law. That we dont want people to think things might be perfect, is about the stupidest reason to not make changes that make things less unperfect, that I have heard all day.... :rolleyes:

Hmm...actually I really have to disagree with the statements made above about history and homosexuality being a cause for falls.

The greek empire fell because of foreign invaders, not because of internal problems. If I'm not mistaken, those foreign invaders also didn't care whether one was homosexual or not either.

The roman empire lasted perhaps 1000 years before it finally collapsed. Much of that time (700 years or so), the empire was polytheistic and homosexuality was perfectly normal. Only after it embraced christianity (and thus the doctrine that homosexuality was bad) did it fall.

Evidence that homosexuality destroyed empires in history? I think quite the contrary.

Most empires in history fell due to foreign invaders having superior quality arms or tactics. Superior numbers were seldomly an issue in the destruction of empires. Please check your history before posting "historical fact".

Boy, this didn't take long to fall into the usual "gay marriage is wrong!" festival of pointless squabbling and bickering... I'm waiting for the usual "OMG! U R GAY! U R GOiN 2 HEL!!!1!!!11one1!!!" crowd to turn up and truly wreck the thread.

[If you'll all just excuse me for one moment...
*laughs hysterically at the "historical" arguments*
Feeling better now that I got that out of my system.]

Question: if you ban gay marraiges, shall we next move on to banning marraige between Aryans and the "lesser" races?

I would also like to add that correlation and causation are significantly different things. It's part of why so many things are attributed to causing cancer. The line between the two is often very hard to see.

Correlation or causation: The roman empire fell after it became christian. Did it fall because it was christian? Likely not. This is correlation.

Correlation or Causation: The roman empire fell after they had over extended their armies into a vast number of territories. Their generals having been away from home for so long became less and less loyal. Their armies were eventually comprised of other racial groups who were considered lesser beings and not citizens, thus less loyal. They had angered many tribes all across europe through their conquests, and as a result, those tribes attacked in large numbers with great ferocity. Many of those tribes managed to break all the way to Rome itself. After centuries of warfare, Rome collapsed under it's own weight.... This is all causation.

if you ban gay marraiges, shall we next move on to banning marraige between Aryans and the "lesser" races?

Actually, it's really interesting that you say this. Here in Ohio, the main demographic that was pushing for the ban on gay marriage is also the same exact demographic that was pushing for a ban on cross-culture marriage back in the 60s.

Actually, it's really interesting that you say this. Here in Ohio, the main demographic that was pushing for the ban on gay marriage is also the same exact demographic that was pushing for a ban on cross-culture marriage back in the 60s.
Well they're the conservative demographic. They either want things to not change, or to return to some golden age when fags were in the closet and negroes knew ther place. :rolleyes:

Actually, it's really interesting that you say this. Here in Ohio, the main demographic that was pushing for the ban on gay marriage is also the same exact demographic that was pushing for a ban on cross-culture marriage back in the 60s.

That's kinda scary.

Interestingly, it was also comprised of exactly one senator from state government. None of the others spoke in favor of the gay marriage ban. Unfortunately, the Ohio law was a constitutional amendment. Senate never had a chance to vote on it. Enough signatures and it goes straight to the vote of the people.

Every excuse for banning gay marraige that isn't openly bigoted seems to be a cover for covert bigotry. And to those that scream "Next they'll be allowing polygamy" or "next they'll allow incest" I say "So what?"
I really could give a shit less if consenting adults can marry six people or their sister. I could care less. Do I want to? No. I'd prefer to marry one man who wasn't related to me. Is it going to effect me if someone else does? Hell no. I don't care if someone marries their three brothers, six sisters and a 97 year old hermaphrodite. Let 'um. :rolleyes:

That's kinda scary.

At least it's staying with the same type of people and not spreading outwards. The same people that see gays indivduals as lesser people really don't have that far to jump into beleiving people with different skin tones as lesser as well.

It would be nice to think that someday it would eventually go away but it won't without work.

Actually, it's really interesting that you say this. Here in Ohio, the main demographic that was pushing for the ban on gay marriage is also the same exact demographic that was pushing for a ban on cross-culture marriage back in the 60s.


Fortunately, those guys are afraid of strangers and the unknown - so they stay in Ohio. :D

Actually, yes there is basis against it, but it also says in Qur'an that we're not allowed to prevent sin or denegrate those who actively sin. There shall be no compulsion in religion. We cannot, by decree of Allah, impose our moral or world views on anybody, hence, to protest against gay marriage would be a sin in and of itself.

Allah created homosexuals and it is Allah who will decide what to do about it. Not us. As for any Muslims you meet who have fear of homosexual marriage leading to moral decay, just remind them that they should fear nothing except Allah.
That's awesome, I should note. I had no idea the teachings of Islam were so concerned with privacy and personal liberty.

Without heterosexuality, humanity would cease to exist- childrearing could not happen without straight people having children (don't bs about invitro fertilization, the system is not effecient enough to effectively raise enough people to sustain successive generations).
Arguably, the portion of humanity born naturally homosexual would be unlikely to copulate with members of the opposite sex anyway.

And as a result of declining birth rates, the Roman empire was unable to field enough soldiers to effectively counter barbarian invasions.
God damn it, that's not why Rome fell. What hack is teaching this poor classical history to kids these days?

I don't know why both sides are so obsessed with the issue... just legalize the shit already and get on with life.. it's only used to distract people from other issues anyway..
Yes... yes it is. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Actually, there is fairly strong scientific evidence that shows that males will cease to exist in about 5000 generations, which admittedly is a VERY long time. I can't remember where I read about it, but they were studying a type of vole that has become hermaphroditic over the last few thousand years. The pattern of evolution that caused this change in the way they reproduce is identical to the pattern that humanity follows. The Y chromosome is decaying, albeit slowly. Each new generation results in less males.

Without a Y chromosome, humanity can continue to exist, so long as we discover some method of joining two ovum. As you may or may not know from biology classes (and/or sex ed), males are XY and females are XX. If the Y chromosome fades, we're left with all X. In otherwords, all children would be female, but reproduction would have to be considerably...different.
That depends. There's work being done by a rather renowned scientist whose name I can't really recall [heh, okay, maybe not that renowned]. It posits that the Y chromosome is not decaying, and that it doesn't contain "junk," just complicated genetic material. I don't remember the work completely, as it's been ~6 months since I read about it, but basically, he was able to refute a number of assertions that the scientific community had been making about "Adam's Curse" and the supposedly obsolete nature of the Y chromosome. If I can find it, I'll send it your way.

next people might try marrying pets or anything really,
The development of the issue of gay marriage has been in the works since homosexuality became recognized as something that exists [as opposed to a condition or characteristic, it is now part of one's identity in American culture]. Whereas marrying a rock hasn't been legalized in a number of states as yet. Slippery Slope arguments are usually based on poor logic, because every situation rests in a specific context; gay marriage does. Bestiality does not have a long legal history, nor does marrying a rock.

Evidence that homosexuality destroyed empires in history? I think quite the contrary.
We all need a little gay in us?...

All marriages are "civil unions". Your marriage isn't recognized by the State, even if you do it in a Christian church, unless you get a State issued marriage license signed.

Yes, all marriages are civil unions. But not all civil unions are marriages.
Just as all voters are Americans, but not all Americans are voters. :)

Here in CT, a new law will likely be passed through the state legislature this year. Assuming the verbage is acceptable, Governor Rell (Republican) has said she would sign it.
However, it will have to say that a civil union gives all the benefits of marriage from a governmental perspective, yet states it to NOT be a marriage, as it is not between a man and a woman.

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-gaywed0224.artfeb24,0,1291228.story?coll=hc-big-headlines-breaking

My take:
Marriage by definition includes God, a Civil Ceremony by a Judge does not. I can only assume this is most people's hang up.

Personally, I'm fine so long as it isn't called marriage. The Government may not dictate religion the same was the Church may not dictate politics. (NB: My Church never says ANYTHING about politics...)

As far as I see, the gay opponents of this bill are upset only about it being called Civil Union instead of Marriage. Which, IMHO, is bull plop.

As far as I see, the straight opponents of this bill are upset only about it being "marriage by another name". Which, IMHO, is also bull plop.

Both groups want it their way, and the issue effects all. This is a fair compromise.

Marriage by definition includes God, a Civil Ceremony by a Judge does not. I can only assume this is most people's hang up.

I'd say check your definitions. God is NOT an integral part of traditional marriage. Historically, marriage began as a simple agreement between two people, without any legal or religious intervention.

BTW, Do you consider the civil marriage of a non-religious Heterosexual couple to also be "not a marriage", as it doesn't involve God?

whats the big deal, why are you religious people so terrified of the homosexual community?

the only people who would fear the spread of homosexuality are people who fear they might "catch" it.


it doesn't affect you, and the rule is that if your church does not want to marry them, then don't.

yeah, i don't get that part, either...their constitutional right to hate faggots is secure, so what's their problem?


Im heterosexual and i don't feel threatened at all.

they are heterosexuals who have no self confidence, and who have worthless relationships that are only valuable because somebody in power tells them they are valuable. if people in power extend the special "in-group" of marriage, then these terrified heterosexuals will feel less special. this is because they do not base marriage on love, honor, companionship, trust, or any of the values that a union should include...they base their unions on exclusion, control, and sex. the idea that other people might have more meaningful relationships is hateful to them.


I have yet to hear one good argument against allowing homosexual marriage, all I ever get are religious rebuttals.

i've heard plenty of non-religious rebuttals, too, but none of them hold any water either.


And the fact that we are changing tradition, come on now, thats weak, we change traditions all the time.
exactly. if tradition is so valuable, why are we letting women participate in government?

Marriage by definition includes God, a Civil Ceremony by a Judge does not. I can only assume this is most people's hang up.

*sigh* tell that to my parents. God has NEVER, in any way, been a part of their 30-year marriage. my grandparents were physically married in a church, but their marriage of some 45 years was utterly secular. my aunt and uncle are going on 15 years of Godless marriage.

marriage existed long before any of the modern religions. try reading a book other than the Bible...history can be fun!

I'm against it.... I'm an atheist too.... I feel it isnt natural.... you cant conceive a child, and you dont see gay dogs, cats, elephants, tigers, wolves, etc. being gay with each other, oh and jsut becuase your dog humped another dog of the same gender doesnt mean he's a homo.

I'm against it.... I'm an atheist too.... I feel it isnt natural.... you cant conceive a child,
so i guess you believe that infertile heterosexuals shouldn't be able to marry, right? and if a couple finds out they cannot have children, they should be forced to divorce? and women past menopause shouldn't be allowed to be married? and the 4 million American married couples who describe themselves as "childless by choice" with no intention of ever having kids, they should also have their marriages severed?

and you dont see gay dogs, cats, elephants, tigers, wolves, etc. being gay with each other, oh and jsut becuase your dog humped another dog of the same gender doesnt mean he's a homo.
actually, you see many animals being "gay" with each other. for instance, bottlenose dolphins do not form life-long heterosexual pairings (they just mate and then go their own ways), but they DO form life-long homosexual pairings.

actually, you see many animals being "gay" with each other. for instance, bottlenose dolphins do not form life-long heterosexual pairings (they just mate and then go their own ways), but they DO form life-long homosexual pairings.
Yup, and seals go through a homosexual phase in life too.

Besides, I don't see how the face that homosexuality is "ick" to you has any bearing on the legal status of gay marriage.

I'm not religious but I am against gay marriage. I have many reasons for this, first of all to every thing in line we must draw a line. If we legalize gay marriage can we then legalize polygamy and then since gay marriage and polygamy is legalized why not legalize incest, WE MUST DRAW THE LINE.

Interesting point - and there is some validity in it. If you assume marriage is a promise adult people to eachother make to show they:

a. will care and provide for eachother
b. allow the other to speak on their behalf when they cannot do so themselves

instead of a man-woman union primarily intent on producing kids (or at least having sex on a regular basis) there is no reason to not allow polygamy, or indeed marrying a brother or sister. However, since there are very good biological reasons to not let a brother and sister have children you can forbid that. You cannot forbid the marriage itself in this system, unless you demand that a married couple/collection of individuals has sex reguraly of course ;)

Things like pedophilia, marrying your dog or a rock etc. are not possible in this system, since it requires all participants to be legally capable of making the promise.

Secondly, the percentage of gays in America today is 10%, let’s say gays are born gay, definitely not 10% percent of the population.

Says who ?

You see today straight decide to turn gay as an alternate relationship because society accepts it. If gay marriage is legalized then their will be more gays every year.

No, there will be more people that dare to show their true feelings each year. Nothing wrong with that, is there ?

In ancient Rome over 50% of the male population had relationships with little boys. Not because their truly pedophiles but because society accepts it, the same will happen with gays.
Hmmm.. possibly. But what exactly is wrong with that ? The homosexuals in question are consenting adults after all.

whats the big deal, why are you religious people so terrified of the homosexual community?

it doesn't affect you, and the rule is that if your church does not want to marry them, then don't.

Im heterosexual and i don't feel threatened at all.

I have yet to hear one good argument against allowing homosexual marriage, all I ever get are religious rebuttals.

And the fact that we are changing tradition, come on now, thats weak, we change traditions all the time.
If you have something against religion, then look at the United States Constitution/Declaration of Independence. What do they say? They say "He" and "Father" and yes, they are capitallized. They were refering to God in these points in the Constitution/Declaration of Independence. Furthermore, where do most weddings take place? They take place in churches, where religious people gather, who are against gay marriage, so I think the what you call "religious rebuttals" are quite good enough to prevent gay marriage. And religious people are terrified of gays because gays are going to burn in ****. And gays are not going to take down each other, they are going to turn as many 'strait' people down too "because they are like, totally, hot!" :eek: Thank you, and have a nice day with your gay friends. :fluffle:

No harm, no foul. But just know that only certain groups of Christians are the anti-homosexual squad. Jews, Muslims, liberal Christians, etc are either indifferent to it or loud advocates of it. :)

Jews and Muslims are not Christians.

If you have something against religion, then look at the United States Constitution/Declaration of Independence. What do they say? They say "He" and "Father" and yes, they are capitallized. They were refering to God in these points in the Constitution/Declaration of Independence.

Where exactly ? Because the founding fathers were not all Christians and strongly believed in seperation of church and state.

Furthermore, where do most weddings take place? They take place in churches, where religious people gather, who are against gay marriage, so I think the what you call "religious rebuttals" are quite good enough to prevent gay marriage.

Most, not all. Atheists, muslems etc also get married after all, and quite a lot do this elsewhere.

And religious people are terrified of gays because gays are going to burn in ****.

Then they should pity them, not fear them.

so i guess you believe that infertile heterosexuals shouldn't be able to marry, right? and if a couple finds out they cannot have children, they should be forced to divorce? and women past menopause shouldn't be allowed to be married? and the 4 million American married couples who describe themselves as "childless by choice" with no intention of ever having kids, they should also have their marriages severed?

actually, you see many animals being "gay" with each other. for instance, bottlenose dolphins do not form life-long heterosexual pairings (they just mate and then go their own ways), but they DO form life-long homosexual pairings.

Pleas note that there is a difference between animals and humans. We are NOT animals, you cna't compare us to dolphins and other animals.

Pleas note that there is a difference between animals and humans. We are NOT animals, you cna't compare us to dolphins and other animals.

Bottle was referring to a previous post in which the poster said that homosexuality was not natural because it does not occur in nature.

But it does, and Bottle said so.

Why aren't we animals? I'm just curious here.

gay marriage should not be allowed.

First of all, the law was the same for everyone, 1 single consenting adult male and 1 single consenting adult female.

THE FRIGGIN' RULES WERE THE SAME FOR EVERYONE!

there was NO DISCRIMINATION, because the rules were the same!

If you have something against religion, then look at the United States Constitution/Declaration of Independence. What do they say? They say "He" and "Father" and yes, they are capitallized. They were refering to God in these points in the Constitution/Declaration of Independence.

Sucks then. I thought the US have a separation of church and state?


Furthermore, where do most weddings take place? They take place in churches, where religious people gather, who are against gay marriage,

Incorrect. Actually quite a lot of people - also religious ones - have no problem with gays or allowing same-sex marriages. Many of them also go to churches. There are even gay christians who go to church and pray to god etc. Are those not worthy of calling themselves christians?


And religious people are terrified of gays because gays are going to burn in ****. And gays are not going to take down each other, they are going to turn as many 'strait' people down too "because they are like, totally, hot!" :eek:
Actually, heterosexuals are not likely to turn gay all of a sudden. I have yet to see any heterosexual people turn gay for no reason. If family fathers or mothers figure out that they are gay, then they usually suppressed their true sexuality for long enough to end up in a family. Too bad for them and that is actually quite sad.

Religious people are probably not afraid of people who go to hell. They have no way of knowing who goes to hell anyway. This would be their god to decide. Otherwise, be very afraid of Bush, he's going to hell for killing and lieing :P

Something else I noticed however is the opinion from some heterosexual men, who think gay men would seduce them or hop in bed with them - even if they lack arms and legs or whatever. This is totally ridiculous. Gay men have taste and we do not have sex with everyone.

I have a boyfriend. We're in a monogamous relationship since almost 6 years now and it is fine the way it is. We do not want to marry, but it is nice to know that we could marry, if we wanted to, since it is legal here in Germany. Maybe we will marry one day *shrug* :fluffle:

gay marriage should not be allowed.

First of all, the law was the same for everyone, 1 single consenting adult male and 1 single consenting adult female.

THE FRIGGIN' RULES WERE THE SAME FOR EVERYONE!

there was NO DISCRIMINATION, because the rules were the same!
Your post makes no sense at all. You are a bad representative, considering your nickname.

Where exactly ? Because the founding fathers were not all Christians and strongly believed in seperation of church and state.





where do you get this BS from? What they wanted was a country where religious freedom was absolute. I believe the constitution has an article in there saying, Congress shall not make a law establishing a religion OR PREVENT THE FREE EXCERCISE THEREOF.

Liberal weenies tend to leave out that last bit in their lying campaign about the separation of church and state, and their zealous attempts to get christmas trees banned in schools and city halls.

And don't bring in the ACLU either, the ACLU is an anti american, pro communist organization with an agenda to destroy our great republic. The FBI said a long time ago in a report the ACLU was in fact nothing but a wing of the US communist party. They still are.

Pleas note that there is a difference between animals and humans. We are NOT animals, you cna't compare us to dolphins and other animals.
Humans obviously are a product of nature. Using the theory of evolution, we have evolved from monkeys. Among primates, there are various forms of same-gender sex. Mostly, this serves as stress relief or to express social hierarchy status among members of a family.

Homosexuality is definitely natural, since it occurs in nature. If it had no purpose, it would have been removed from the gene pool long ago. This has not happened, thus I am confident, that science will sooner or later figure out what the benefit of homosexuality is :D

gay marriage should not be allowed.

First of all, the law was the same for everyone, 1 single consenting adult male and 1 single consenting adult female.

THE FRIGGIN' RULES WERE THE SAME FOR EVERYONE!

there was NO DISCRIMINATION, because the rules were the same!
the Supreme Court threw out that exact same argument several decades ago, when it was used to justify laws blocking mixed-race couples from marrying. racists insisted that all people had the same right: to marry only within their own race. the claim of equal oppression wasn't good enough for the Supreme Court then, so why should it be good enough for us now?

where do you get this BS from?

Read the US constitution. Read the letters the founding fathers wrote to eachother. Show me where they say "all Americans should be Christians".

What they wanted was a country where religious freedom was absolute. I believe the constitution has an article in there saying, Congress shall not make a law establishing a religion OR PREVENT THE FREE EXCERCISE THEREOF.

Your point ? This is what i was saying: seperation of church and state. Not adopting a religion as a state religion, nor forbidding people to worship what they like.

Liberal weenies tend to leave out that last bit in their lying campaign about the separation of church and state, and their zealous attempts to get christmas trees banned in schools and city halls.

A school or city hall paid for by the government that publicly displays the holy symbols of only one religion can be said to be favouring that religion over others. This violates the spirit of the first part of the line you quoted - though I personally consider it a bit over the top to actually make a big deal of it.

I'm not religious but I am against gay marriage. I have many reasons for this, first of all to every thing in line we must draw a line. If we legalize gay marriage can we then legalize polygamy and then since gay marriage and polygamy is legalized why not legalize incest, WE MUST DRAW THE LINE.

the slippery slope falacy is just that: a falacy.

by your logic, we shouldn't allow adults to drive cars, because then we will legalize driver's licenses for toddlers. if we legalize alcohol consumption for adults then we will have to let 10 year olds into bars.

just as you say, we must draw the line...and we do. we can, and do, draw the line all the time when it comes to situations like this. you have arbitrarily decided that the line should be drawn in such a way that certain adult citizens do not receive equal treatment under the law. the line could just as easily be drawn to say that consenting adults may enter into whatever legal contracts with each other that they choose to enter, and the law is bound to uphold contracts based on their merits rather than based on the personal details of the people who enter them.


Secondly, the percentage of gays in America today is 10%, let’s say gays are born gay, definitely not 10% percent of the population. You see today straight decide to turn gay as an alternate relationship because society accepts it. If gay marriage is legalized then their will be more gays every year.

the fact that more people "come out" is not evidence of straight people "turning gay." it is evidence that people who were not honest about their sexuality in the past now feel comfortable being honest about it.

also, you have yet to show why it would be a bad thing even IF more straight people were "turning" gay.


In ancient Rome over 50% of the male population had relationships with little boys. Not because their truly pedophiles but because society accepts it, the same will happen with gays.
first of all, back up your numbers.

second of all, pedophilia and homosexuality are no more synonymous than heterosexuality and pedophilia.

third of all, please remember that ancient Rome is regarded as one of the greatest civilizations in human history. saying, "well, the Romans did it, so we shouldn't" is a bit silly, by itself.

Jews and Muslims are not Christians.
he wasnt saying they were

he was saying that Jews, Muslims and liberal Christians are different from the anti-homosexual Christians

he was saying that not all religious people are opposed to homosexuality


if people dont like gays, then i must be like satan...which i find quite amusing

Firstly, what in bloody hell is wrong with polygamy? And secondly, those who argue that homosexuality isn't in nature are just stupid, because they do not care to learn the truth. Saying that allowing homosexuals to marry eachother,indeed, that saying homosexuality is a valid preference and you don't have the right to persecute someone for being homosexual, will somehow lead to pedophilia or a destruction of society as we know it is ignorant, bigotted, and a mark of the utmost stupidity.

Greecians and Romans were CONSTANTLY at war, regardless of the societally recognized acceptable behaviors.

Buth ere's an argument against those cultures, even though they are considered so great. I present it because htere is scarce chance of any bigot or stupid person presenting it. They both condoned slavery and killing people for amusement. Should we?

Firstly, what in bloody hell is wrong with polygamy? And secondly, those who argue that homosexuality isn't in nature are just stupid, because they do not care to learn the truth. Saying that allowing homosexuals to marry eachother,indeed, that saying homosexuality is a valid preference and you don't have the right to persecute someone for being homosexual, will somehow lead to pedophilia or a destruction of society as we know it is ignorant, bigotted, and a mark of the utmost stupidity.

it's not just ignorant, bigotted, and stupid, it's also out dated; the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS were made against mixed-race marriages some 50 years ago. this is the same old hatred and fear being recycled.


Greecians and Romans were CONSTANTLY at war, regardless of the societally recognized acceptable behaviors.

Buth ere's an argument against those cultures, even though they are considered so great. I present it because htere is scarce chance of any bigot or stupid person presenting it. They both condoned slavery and killing people for amusement. Should we?
yeah, that's pretty much the point: we get many great ideas, traditions, and concepts from the Greeks and Romans, but we also know of many places where their culture and government don't fit with ours. we aren't trying to become Rome all over again, we are building our own civilization. just because we get some ideas from history doesn't mean we have to replicate it.

Exactly. I do not see how anyone with any sense of integrity or intellect could possibly view homosexuality, polygamy, mixed-races, or anything that consenting adults choose to do as an affront to themselves. Euthenasia, abortion, sterilization, preserving the encironment....these are all things that come under heavy fire along with homosexuality. Make no sense to me.

Gay-ness period is a deviant activity. Through millions of years of evolution, life evolved with male and female sexes. The purpose of this split was partly for procreation, but also because men and women were specialized in different ways (men could be physically stronger, and women were better at equally important things. Specialization of labor), and as a result, society could function better and more efficiently. And now, some people have decided that this system was not good enough for them. They have to do things differently.

Without heterosexuality, humanity would cease to exist- childrearing could not happen without straight people having children (don't bs about invitro fertilization, the system is not effecient enough to effectively raise enough people to sustain successive generations).

Kriorth, I find it highly interesting what you say. Humanity would cease to exist if Gay Marriage were allowed? I'm confused :confused: . Is everyone gay, bi, lesbian, trans...etc? I live in a very artistic, somewhat gay community. I am lucky enough to go to a very supportive school where I am the president of the Gay Straight Alliance. But now I see no purpose in it. If their are no straight people left! Whew. Takes a load off of my mind.

But seriously. Gay Marriage would be a wonder to America. First of...ADOPTION!!! There are millions and millions of children out their that have no family. Gay couples (*gay* including gay, lesbian, bi, trans) could and do adopt and make lives better for children. As to the arguement that a gay couple would fuck with a childs mind and make them gay too is way way off. I mean, hello. How many openly gay peaple can actually say their parents are gay as hell?!? So, it has so little to do with the parent's orientation, that the weight of help is greater by billions then the weight of hurt.

Also, as it were, homosexuality has been a part of history. If anyone get's the chance, I suggest checking out this site ( http://www.niulib.niu.edu/lgbt/famous_names.html ). Famous and infamous people throughout the ages have enjoyed gay or bi relationships. Way into the past has it been seen that little boys are the target of many high power individuals in state and country. I say this, not agreeing with the act, but mentioning it because this is what happens when people have to hide who they are. The are forced to either hurt for the rest of life or find other ways...sometimes extreme ways...to feel that taste of love that other people get.

wow...that was a rant. sorry.

here, let's just get this right out in the open:

ARGUMENTS AGAINST GAY MARRAIGE
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes 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 license.
10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models 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 will for gays & lesbians.

now, homophobes, you don't need to post any of these 12 arguments any more. if you have something new to present then feel free, but if you are just going to repeat one of the points on this list then you can save yourself the trouble.

here, let's just get this right out in the open:

ARGUMENTS AGAINST GAY MARRAIGE
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes 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 license.
10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models 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 will for gays & lesbians.

now, homophobes, you don't need to post any of these 12 arguments any more. if you have something new to present then feel free, but if you are just going to repeat one of the points on this list then you can save yourself the trouble. *applauds*

Although, i think using the word *homophobe* is a bit off. I've used it too, but then i realized, what the hell. This is turning into a second grade name calling fight. But yes. i like the list. may i show it to my alliance members? they always get a kick out of stuff like this. :D

*applauds*

Although, i think using the word *homophobe* is a bit off. I've used it too, but then i realized, what the hell. This is turning into a second grade name calling fight.

i use the word "homophobe" just as i use the word "racist"; homophobia is the term for "fear, dislike, or contempt for homosexuals and/or homosexuality," so i use the term to refer to people who fit that description. if they don't like the fact that "homophobia" applies to them, then they should consider changing their views.

But yes. i like the list. may i show it to my alliance members? they always get a kick out of stuff like this. :D
it's not my list, it's out on the 'net on a lot of sites. use it with my blessings...hope your group likes it.

i use the word "homophobe" just as i use the word "racist"; homophobia is the term for "fear, dislike, or contempt for homosexuals and/or homosexuality," so i use the term to refer to people who fit that description. if they don't like the fact that "homophobia" applies to them, then they should consider changing their views.
True enough.
it's not my list, it's out on the 'net on a lot of sites. use it with my blessings...hope your group likes it.
I have seen a lot of lists like this...my favorite being the Levels of Homophobia (satyrical) I just like how it was written here. Thanks.

But just know that only certain groups of Christians are the anti-homosexual squad. Jews, Muslims, liberal Christians, etc are either indifferent to it or loud advocates of it. :)

Actually a lot of Muslims are extremely homphobic. Permissive attitudes to homosexuality are one of the things that Al Qaeda and similar groups use to criticise America.

But aside from that little point, I'm with the supporters of gay marriage. All the arguments against are based on either hysteria or religion, and neither of those should be imposed on anyone else by anyone.

I think Bottle's post just about summed up anything I would have to say. So if you anti-gay marriage people have any additional arguements you would like to poise....

Jews and Muslims are not Christians.

:eek: really? Gosh ... I'm so glad you pointed that out to me ... cuz I'd have never otherwise known ... what with my list and all ...

Actually a lot of Muslims are extremely homphobic. Permissive attitudes to homosexuality are one of the things that Al Qaeda and similar groups use to criticise America.


Anyone who is a member of Al Qaeda, a group which endorses the slaughter of the innocent, is apostate and not Muslim. So ...

Interesting definition of permissive...

Currently some 11+ states have banned gay marriage. Perhaps 2 or 3 have allowed it. The others are still undecided. It's going vastly in favor of being against it.

I believe Al Qaeda and other such organizations are more against America because of it's direct support of Israel and more recently, because of their assault on Iraq.

I believe Keruvalia said it best that these people are not true muslim, but more like David Koresh or Rev. Mooney. They are splinter groups who do not comprise the vast majority of muslim culture or ideology. Most Muslims I know specifically say that they don't even consider Al Qaeda to be Muslim and are insulted by their existance and insistance that they are Muslim.

now, homophobes, you don't need to post any of these 12 arguments any more. if you have something new to present then feel free, but if you are just going to repeat one of the points on this list then you can save yourself the trouble.

Gays are hideous space-lizards from the planet Blobnar![/most intelligent argument you'll be hearing]

Gays are hideous space-lizards from the planet Blobnar![/most intelligent argument you'll be hearing]
hey, at least it's something fresh. i'm so sick of hearing the same crap from the 'phobes, especially since all their main arguments were already over-used during the anti-miscegination days.

perhaps that's the fundamental personality conflict between gays and 'phobes: the homophobes are 50 years out of fashion, and we all know how gays feel about that sort of failing :).

hey, at least it's something fresh. i'm so sick of hearing the same crap from the 'phobes, especially since all their main arguments were already over-used during the anti-miscegination days.

perhaps that's the fundamental personality conflict between gays and 'phobes: the homophobes are 50 years out of fashion, and we all know how gays feel about that sort of failing :).

I can't wait until they start using them on people who eat banana-icecream instead of vanilla.

im glad i live in a country where people aren't quite as uptight, go canada!!!

and England! woo!

I can't wait until they start using them on people who eat banana-icecream instead of vanilla.
those perverts. all MORAL people know that bananas are inherently sinful (paging Dr. Freud!), and that anybody who finds pleasure in consuming bananas or banana-based products is a sick freak who should be kept segregated from polite society. these hideous potassium addicts perpetuate obscene nutritional values and try to infect our children with their propaganda, luring innocent young people away from the righteous apples, oranges, and lemons.

won't somebody think of the children?!

those perverts. all MORAL people know that bananas are inherently sinful (paging Dr. Freud!), and that anybody who finds pleasure in consuming bananas or banana-based products is a sick freak who should be kept segregated from polite society. these hideous potassium addicts perpetuate obscene nutritional values and try to infect our children with their propaganda, luring innocent young people away from the righteous apples, oranges, and lemons.

won't somebody think of the children?!

Everyone knows banana's are not natural and responsible for the fall of the Roman empire!

I think a lot of people are uncomfortable with gay marriage being allowed, because it might imply that it's ok to be gay, and therefore make more people do it.

In my opinion, that's a fantastic reason to allow it. If you're gay, be gay. If you're not, don't be.

do you really think people become gay simply because they see other gay people? and if so, then what's bad about that? gay, not gay, we all have one thing in common: we're all human.

do you really think people become gay simply because they see other gay people? and if so, then what's bad about that? gay, not gay, we all have one thing in common: we're all human.

I'm not... :(

I'm not... :(
okay, we're all humans OR zombie cyborg super mutants.

there, do you feel better? :)

do you really think people become gay simply because they see other gay people? and if so, then what's bad about that? gay, not gay, we all have one thing in common: we're all human.
i got the impression that he meant that people who were gay but hadnt come out would be encouraged if it seemed that society would accept them more

okay, we're all humans OR zombie cyborg super mutants.

there, do you feel better? :)

I'm a fluffy little foxyfluff.

Where exactly ? Because the founding fathers were not all Christians and strongly believed in seperation of church and state.



Most, not all. Atheists, muslems etc also get married after all, and quite a lot do this elsewhere.



Then they should pity them, not fear them.
on your first responce, they believed in the seperation of church and state because so many different types of people who had come to America to worship without being interupted. (King said that only Catholics were to exist in England). and here's a quote from the Declaration of Independence: (second paragraph, first sentence) "We hold thefe Trurths to be felf-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." please notice that "Creator" was capitalized, on purpose in the Declaration, meaning that they were refering to God.

Gay marraige is abomination, pure adn simple folks - you know in your heart its true why lie to yourselfs?

Gay marraige is abomination, pure adn simple folks - you know in your heart its true why lie to yourselfs?

Wow, I never realized true love played second fiddle to needless procreation.

Sorry, what i'm hearing here is that any marriage that doesn't result in the conception of new life is a crime against humanity. So women who cannot give birth must forever remain single? There's really not much difference here.

Gay marraige is abomination, pure adn simple folks - you know in your heart its true why lie to yourselfs?
why?

saying something is all well and good, but you need to give a reason

two people of the same people wanting to be happy and get married doesnt affect you in any way, so why be against it

take a look at Bottles list before answering though

Wow, I never realized true love played second fiddle to needless procreation.

Sorry, what i'm hearing here is that any marriage that doesn't result in the conception of new life is a crime against humanity. So women who cannot give birth must forever remain single? There's really not much difference here.

I thought this about gay marraige not women who cannot bive girth. Why are you talking about? Being gey is tragedy, true - but so is a woman who cannot have a child. Its not a crime for her thogh.

Make up your mind and then talk, then you wont get the facts mixed up.

I thought this about gay marraige not women who cannot bive girth. Why are you talking about? Being gey is tragedy, true - but so is a woman who cannot have a child. Its not a crime for her thogh.

...being gay isnt a crime either...unless you live in one of those middle eastern countries like Iran

why?

saying something is all well and good, but you need to give a reason

two people of the same people wanting to be happy and get married doesnt affect you in any way, so why be against it

take a look at Bottles list before answering though

I not against anyone. God is against it thogh check you Holy Bible some time before you say anything. Evrey thing I need to is in there.

...being gay isnt a crime either...unless you live in one of those middle eastern countries like Iran

Maybe by mans law, but God is hateful of homo-sex.

I not against anyone. God is against it thogh check you Holy Bible some time before you say anything. Evrey thing I need to is in there.
im not even remotely interested in what god has to say about it

as far as im concerned, god doesnt exist - and a book written 2000 years ago in a different world shouldnt be used to base the laws of a modern nation on

Maybe by mans law, but God is hateful of homo-sex.
see my above post

I thought this about gay marraige not women who cannot bive girth. Why are you talking about? Being gey is tragedy, true - but so is a woman who cannot have a child. Its not a crime for her thogh.

Make up your mind and then talk, then you wont get the facts mixed up.

My mind is made up, in fact. There is no problem with gay marriage.

I likened gay marriage to women who cannot conceive because they are basically the same instance. Two people in love, living together, trying simply to be happy. Only difference between these two and "normal" marriages is that they cannot have children of their own. Similar circumstances.

There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's fairly natural. It's been around longer than christianity, so I don't see why you'd have a problem with it.

I not against anyone. God is against it thogh check you Holy Bible some time before you say anything. Evrey thing I need to is in there.

But non-religious/non-Christian persons can get married too. It does not even involve a priest: one gets married in city hall. So this argument is completely irrelevant as far as state-marriages are concerned.

I not against anyone. God is against it thogh check you Holy Bible some time before you say anything. Evrey thing I need to is in there.

Do you ever think for yourself? Or does "The Book" do all your thinking for you?

Gay-ness period is a deviant activity. Through millions of years of evolution, life evolved with male and female sexes. The purpose of this split was partly for procreation, but also because men and women were specialized in different ways (men could be physically stronger, and women were better at equally important things. Specialization of labor), and as a result, society could function better and more efficiently. And now, some people have decided that this system was not good enough for them. They have to do things differently.

Without heterosexuality, humanity would cease to exist- childrearing could not happen without straight people having children (don't bs about invitro fertilization, the system is not effecient enough to effectively raise enough people to sustain successive generations).

But what I'm not understanding here is why people seem to hold the view that if homosexual marriage is allowed, that HETEROSEXUAL relations will somehow come to a full stop under its influence. Last time I checked, just because *I* was homosexual didn't mean that any of my heterosexual friends decided that because I was, they had to be homosexual too. No one's challenging the right heterosexuality has to exist - you're right that only a man and a woman can make a baby together, but why should a relatively small minority be singled out -- because conservative thinkers believe they're going to take over the world with their gay-ness? Homosexuality was diagnosed as a mental disease up until the 1970s or something - but it isn't one now, and it's no less catching than it was before. Just because you give someone who acts differently than you do some basic civil rights DOESN'T mean you have to go around emulating them. So explain to me, please, how giving homosexuals the rights that heterosexuals take for granted, will change the world's structure so greatly. You weren't homosexual before this thread - or before the matter came up, either - and I would imagine you're not homosexual now, either. So, if talking about it doesn't turn you into a homosexual, why should granting two people, who love each other just as much as a heterosexual pair do, the right to marry and have all the benefits of marriage that heterosexuals do? And for some homosexuals, it's not even the tax benefits; there IS something special about being married in front of that altar, about declaring one's love to whoever it is one loves, man or woman, to the highest of spiritual beings. So ... I don't understand how you can tell me that it's wrong because it'll erase procreation or something. Please explain....

But non-religious/non-Christian persons can get married too. It does not even involve a priest: one gets married in city hall. So this argument is completely irrelevant as far as state-marriages are concerned.

But thats not marriage in Gods eyes thats a life of Sin, and you be punished for it!!

But thats not marriage in Gods eyes thats a life of Sin, and you be punished for it!!
tell me, hows living in the 19th century?

But thats not marriage in Gods eyes thats a life of Sin, and you be punished for it!!

Even if it is a heterosexual marriage and we both stay faithful ?
But even it is... so what ? We are talking about marriage according to the laws of man, not the laws of God.

Do you ever think for yourself? Or does "The Book" do all your thinking for you?

You sound like you think I can not think for myself. I can I do and I have put my faith in God - does faithlessness help you when you need strength??

I dont think it can honestly. And I'm not against anyone I'm FOR God and Gods country SHOULD reflect HIS will and not special ibterets groups. If thats the life they want so be it they should look somewhere else to lead a sinful life thats all I say. No need for angriness, folks its pure adn spimle.

I guess truth hurts sometimes, sorry to hurt anybody feelinsg!!

You sound like you think I can not think for myself. I can I do and I have put my faith in God - does faithlessness help you when you need strength??
no, but my friends and family do.

alot more than a book could...especially a book that most likely says im a going to hell for some reason or other

no, but my friends and family do.

alot more than a book could...especially a book that most likely says im a going to hell for some reason or other

you can ignor it if you want too its just maybe a book but yes its not just pieces of paper, it's GODs word, so ignor it you want too but your playing with your soul. I pray for all the lost souls evrey night, I will pray just for you salvation tonihgt I make a point of it.

Sorry to butt in without first having read the entire thread, but...

Why did God not make us all perfect?

Answer (that I usually hear): So we could have freedom of choice.

Fair enough. But in that case, isn't any government that imposes something to limit freedom of choice inherently evil and against God?

you can ignor it if you want too its just maybe a book but yes its not just pieces of paper, it's GODs word, so ignor it you want too but your playing with your soul. I pray for all the lost souls evrey night, I will pray just for you salvation tonihgt I make a point of it.
saying im playing with my soul doesnt work when i dont think that not believing in some guy a book of fiction says exists will send me to eternal damnation

I dont think it can honestly. And I'm not against anyone I'm FOR God and Gods country SHOULD reflect HIS will and not special ibterets groups. If thats the life they want so be it they should look somewhere else to lead a sinful life thats all I say. No need for angriness, folks its pure adn spimle.

All right.. what *is* Gods will then ? There are quite a lot of different religions out there that all claim they tell us just that, but they all disagree on so many things. Even subgroups of those religions disagree (vehemently) amongst themselves - take Calvinists and Catholics for example.

So instead of bickering about what God wants, perhaps we should apply "the greatest happyness principle" on society ? IOW: allow people to be happy instead of telling them they are sinners according to holy book interpretation number 413-alpha every 5 minutes ?

I dont think it can honestly. And I'm not against anyone I'm FOR God and Gods country SHOULD reflect HIS will and not special ibterets groups. If thats the life they want so be it they should look somewhere else to lead a sinful life thats all I say. No need for angriness, folks its pure adn spimle.
so whats gods country?

i thought god had no geographical territory, but gods kingdom was in heaven?


well, thats what the bible says

I heart debates. ^_^

"I'm not against anyone I'm FOR God and Gods country SHOULD reflect HIS will and not special ibterets groups. If thats the life they want so be it they should look somewhere else to lead a sinful life thats all I say."

Ooooh, this is not a good start m'dear. The country, which I'll assume here is America, is a secular kinda place. We don't force our religion on anyone, nor do we stop people from practicing their own. Sounds friendly. But hey! If a religious society is the life you want, so be it, you should look somewhere else to lead a Christian life. I mean that in the nicest possible way, of course.

But you know what, you're right. Homosexuality is a sin, and just because God is love, doesn't mean he can't hate everyone who does it. After all, hypocrisy is okay when you're an omnipotent sky fairy! Let's take a look at the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality, shall we? It'll be fun!

"Thou shalt not lie with man, as with woman."

Thing is, darling, I don't know if you've noticed, but this makes no sense. It's essentially saying you're not allowed to have sex with a man. What if you're a woman? So a man can have sex with a woman, but she's not allowed to do it back? Sounds a bit awkward, know what I mean?

In any case, shellfish, nylon, and so on, and so forth. Keep chompin' those oysters!

"..nor homosexual offenders,.."

Translation vagueities are superfun, aren't they? There is no Hebrew word for homosexual. So this could originally have said almost anything.

And as for the other quotes... oh. There aren't any. Whoopsie. *giggles*

As a postscript, let's take a look at one of the most supercool arguments against gay marriage:

"Gay people have the same rights as straights: to marry someone of the opposite sex."

Isn't this pretty? It seems fairly watertight too... if you're stupid.

Did you know, in the British police force, they only make one kind of bullet proof vest? A flat-chested one. Women, as you can imagine, found this pretty uncomfortable. Wouldn't you say this was pretty unfair? Wouldn't you say it was... discrimination?

Except the women are getting exactly the same deal as men! They've got the same rights, the same service... so it's OK! Hooray!

*does dance*

Thanks for reading!

im mean seriously i dont care whut gay ppl do in the bedroom as long as it doesn't bother me. It's a free country, and if they live that way, who cares!
if ppl wanna be straight than be straight, be straight.
if ppl wanna be gay, then be gay....
it really doesn't affect if a person is nice, or caring, or generous etc.
anyway..... lol im really bored.....

Homosexuality makes no sense. Don't same pole magnets repel? Humans should too. If we were meant for homosexuality, we wouldn't have 2 distinct genders.

Homosexuality makes no sense. Don't same pole magnets repel? Humans should too. If we were meant for homosexuality, we wouldn't have 2 distinct genders.

Gender isn't all that "distinct" in humans.

Homosexuality makes no sense. Don't same pole magnets repel? Humans should too. If we were meant for homosexuality, we wouldn't have 2 distinct genders.

People are magnets?

People are magnets?
That would explain why my computer moniter gets all messed up whenever I get near it.

Gender isn't all that "distinct" in humans.
*is friends with a living example of this*

That would explain why my computer moniter gets all messed up whenever I get near it.

You mean it mysteriously starts showing porn when you approach? :p

You mean it mysteriously starts showing porn when you approach? :p
Actually, that's not a problem, that's a feature.
I've got the new Dell Porn-O-Tron 5000.

I'd say check your definitions. God is NOT an integral part of traditional marriage. Historically, marriage began as a simple agreement between two people, without any legal or religious intervention.

BTW, Do you consider the civil marriage of a non-religious Heterosexual couple to also be "not a marriage", as it doesn't involve God?


Um, yes. Yes, it is. Religion has been around for about 8000 years (likely more), and most marriage for the course of human history were performed by a cleric of some kind (priest, rabbi, medicine man, whatever).

Yep. Same as "common law" marriage -- you're bonded together in the eyes of the state, but not before the Almighty.

*sigh* tell that to my parents. God has NEVER, in any way, been a part of their 30-year marriage. my grandparents were physically married in a church, but their marriage of some 45 years was utterly secular. my aunt and uncle are going on 15 years of Godless marriage.

marriage existed long before any of the modern religions. try reading a book other than the Bible...history can be fun!

That's nice for your own family, but I daresay that yours may not be the most common case. Seriously, I live in CT. I know *lots* of people married in Churches and Temples. I know only 3 couples that weren't (I know probably about 70 married couples off the top of my head).

I seriously doubt that marriage existed long before any of the modern religions -- unless you want to draw the lines before cities and civilization. ;)

Why are so many people so, pardon the pun, butt-hurt over gays getting married an enjoying the same rights as straight couples? I could care less if John and Bob want to get married and proclaim their love and get all the tax breaks that come along with it.

So why the hell do people get so crazy over something that doesn't even affect them? live and let live. Find something else to do with your time than harassing others who haven't done jack to you in the first place.

You sound like you think I can not think for myself. I can I do and I have put my faith in God - does faithlessness help you when you need strength??

I dont think it can honestly. And I'm not against anyone I'm FOR God and Gods country SHOULD reflect HIS will and not special ibterets groups. If thats the life they want so be it they should look somewhere else to lead a sinful life thats all I say. No need for angriness, folks its pure adn spimle.

I guess truth hurts sometimes, sorry to hurt anybody feelinsg!!

You can't, if all you can do is point to a book and say "Answer's are in there!" And i've tried faith. It worked for 2 seconds, then failed. I find relying on REAL things, like family, friends and logic to be much more rewarding.

Find me God's Country and i'll agree. In the meantime, America, the country of freedom and liberty, should extend that protection to all those within it's borders. Regardless of race, creed, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. If you want to live in a land of pure religious ignorance, try the Vatican. Though, from what I hear, you won't escape homosexuality for long there.

The truth can hurt. Luckily, you have spoken none of it. Therefore, I am happy to report that your words have hurt no one. Need a tissue?

Why are so many people so, pardon the pun, butt-hurt over gays getting married an enjoying the same rights as straight couples? I could care less if John and Bob want to get married and proclaim their love and get all the tax breaks that come along with it.

So why the hell do people get so crazy over something that doesn't even affect them? live and let live. Find something else to do with your time than harassing others who haven't done jack to you in the first place.

It's the same reason why people care about if others drink, or do drugs, or whatever. Simply put, people enjoy meddling in the affairs of others.

There is a second dynamic: some things are wrong to other groups. For example, it's okay for others to eat pork, but not for Jews or Muslims. If you were serving food and hit pork in their meals (intentionally) you are in voilation of thier rights.
By the same token, there are groups out there that feel the same way about homosexuality as others do for pork.

Magnets. :D

That's the best one yet.

I hope the Christians in this thread do realize that Jesus was a JEW and that JEWS are God's chosen people...

People founded Christianity. God founded Judaism. Just clearing up a nice little misconception before the "God says so because he <3's the Christians" people get out of hand.

With that out of the way... Why not? "Ick" isn't an ethical reason. "My religion says so" isn't a reason for America to keep Gays from marrying. We're a democracy not a theocracy. We're not ruled by God, but by a warmonger (not debating that one here, if you want to, I'll be happy to take it elsewhere, though). God doesn't control America. The people of America do. Gay people are people. Some gay people are in America. Which makes them partial controllers of America. Deal with it.

Marriage in the legal judge-married sense doesn't mean that they're going to rush the churches to all get married. In fact, the churches can deny WHOEVER THEY WANT. There are straight couple who get denyed marriages.

"But what about the sanctity of marriage?" Because after centuries of divorce marriage is really sacred. If anyone can get married then break their vows... Guess what. Not sacred anymore.

I find it amusing that people say humans aren't animals so animals can't be used to justify human behavior. Chimpanzees have been observed in homosexual commitments and their DNA is 99% the same as that of humans. Homo sapiens sapiens is the human species' base nomenclature. We're in the animal kingdom. I'll be fine if someone wants to argue that we should be classified as fungi though. In fact, I'll happily give them that one and find an address for whichever scientific organization happens to do this nomenclature stuff so that they can write a letter informing the scientific community that humans should be classified as fungi. It'll be fun.

In all seriousness though, homosexuality has been around for millinia and will continue to be around until the end of time. That's all there is to it. The government can't stop it. Religion can't stop it... In fact, there are many religions who don't oppose it. Even the Roman Catholic Church condones homosexuality when the preists are involved.

So just get off your high horse and let the world work the way it works and stop trying to change it.

I'm done. XD

There is a second dynamic: some things are wrong to other groups. For example, it's okay for others to eat pork, but not for Jews or Muslims. If you were serving food and hit pork in their meals (intentionally) you are in voilation of thier rights.
By the same token, there are groups out there that feel the same way about homosexuality as others do for pork.

Great, so they don't practice homosexuality, and let us do what we want, just like how we don't force pork and stuff on them? Right?

Great, so they don't practice homosexuality, and let us do what we want, just like how we don't force pork and stuff on them? Right?

It's more along the lines of homosexual marriage is a direct affront to some religions, the way pork is for others. It's a sticky situation -- giving one group a percieved right will infringe upon another.

Personally, I don't see why there must be hoopla. As far as I can see, the CT bill is a fair compromise -- both sides need to understand that they can't have it exactly "their way".

That's nice for your own family, but I daresay that yours may not be the most common case. Seriously, I live in CT. I know *lots* of people married in Churches and Temples. I know only 3 couples that weren't (I know probably about 70 married couples off the top of my head).

i didn't say they were average, just that their marriages are every bit as real and as valid as any religious union, and the law recognizes them as such.

I seriously doubt that marriage existed long before any of the modern religions -- unless you want to draw the lines before cities and civilization. ;)
read a book. seriously. we have fossil evidence of partnership ceremonies that pre-date Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism by centuries, if not millenia.

It's more along the lines of homosexual marriage is a direct affront to some religions, the way pork is for others. It's a sticky situation -- giving one group a percieved right will infringe upon another.

just like how allowing black people to use white bathrooms infringes on the rights of racists?

sorry, there is no Right To Have Your Tender Feelings Protected At The Expense Of Equality, at least not in the US. the fact that some people are offended by the fact that black people get equal rights does not mean a damn thing, just like it doesn't mean a damn thing if some religions are disgusted by gay people receiving equal rights.

eating pork is forbidden to some religions, which is why people can't be forced to consume pork. however, i have yet to see anybody proposing that we force all Americans to conform to Kosher laws in order to avoid offending Jews. i've not seen the Muslim dietary laws being forced upon all Americans, nor have i seen everybody being forced to conform to the ritual fasts of each and every religious group. this is because, as a religious person in America, you may hold your beliefs but you may not force others to conform to them.


Personally, I don't see why there must be hoopla. As far as I can see, the CT bill is a fair compromise -- both sides need to understand that they can't have it exactly "their way".
separate is not equal. we proved that 50 years ago. there are some issues on which compromise is unacceptable.

i didn't say they were average, just that their marriages are every bit as real and as valid as any religious union, and the law recognizes them as such.

read a book. seriously. we have fossil evidence of partnership ceremonies that pre-date Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism by centuries, if not millenia.

When did I ever say they weren't? :)

And religion has been around then, too. Who performed these marriages? Most often than not, some sort of cleric.

just like how allowing black people to use white bathrooms infringes on the rights of racists?

If racism could somehow be a religion, sure. But that's obviously not the case, and I'm a little saddened that you'd reach for such an off-the-wall comparison. :(


sorry, there is no Right To Have Your Tender Feelings Protected At The Expense Of Equality, at least not in the US. the fact that some people are offended by the fact that black people get equal rights does not mean a damn thing, just like it doesn't mean a damn thing if some religions are disgusted by gay people receiving equal rights.

When did I say anything against equal rights or feelings? You youself pointed out that your family's unions are no less real than those of a religious nature. I'm *advocating* civil unions for gays! It's just not marriage. Same way a GED is not a high school diploma...
The folks that disagree with gay marriage have that RIGHT. The gays should have a legal right to be seen (in the eyes of the state) as in a civil union.


eating pork is forbidden to some religions, which is why people can't be forced to consume pork. however, i have yet to see anybody proposing that we force all Americans to conform to Kosher laws in order to avoid offending Jews. i've not seen the Muslim dietary laws being forced upon all Americans, nor have i seen everybody being forced to conform to the ritual fasts of each and every religious group. this is because, as a religious person in America, you may hold your beliefs but you may not force others to conform to them.


And? I'm not saying that gays should not be allowed civil unions. Have you read the CT bill I linked??
Who's asking for my beliefs to be forced on others? Gay marriage does the same thing in REVERSE to some groups. So it's the same debate from the other side.
This is not only an acceptable, but likely the only possible compromise.


separate is not equal. we proved that 50 years ago. there are some issues on which compromise is unacceptable.

Yeah, no kidding. But civil unions are for *everyone*. Straight or gay, you can go get married by the local official. It is *not* a yellow star sewed onto their clothing. It is not seperate drinking fountains or bathrooms, or signs saying "no gays allowed" at a diner. Or being made to sit in the back of the bus.
Rather, it is bringing the gay community INTO the same line as everyone else.

IMHO, ALL civil unions should be (and are, in some states) called just that. Just like "common law marriage" is in use in some places.

I seek to ERASE the difference, not make anyone higher or lower.

You sound like you think I can not think for myself. I can I do and I have put my faith in God - does faithlessness help you when you need strength??

I am strong because i learned to walk without spiritual crutches.

I dont think it can honestly. And I'm not against anyone I'm FOR God and Gods country SHOULD reflect HIS will and not special ibterets groups. If thats the life they want so be it they should look somewhere else to lead a sinful life thats all I say. No need for angriness, folks its pure adn spimle.

I guess truth hurts sometimes, sorry to hurt anybody feelinsg!!

First, arguing in a manner that at least seems educated will win over foaming at the mouth any day.
Second, Gods country would be the Vatican, because you are a catholic, right? If not, you are part of a christian minority and therefore a special interest group yourself.
Third, the only thing that hurts after reading this is my brain.

(King said that only Catholics were to exist in England).
That would have been the same king who is Supreme Governor of the anglican church. I find that rather unlikely.

If racism could somehow be a religion, sure. But that's obviously not the case, and I'm a little saddened that you'd reach for such an off-the-wall comparison. :(

"off the wall comparison"? how so? are you saying that religious beliefs are special in some way? are they somehow more important than other sorts of beliefs? of is it just that you don't like racism, so the beliefs of racists aren't as valuable?

in both cases, you have a group of people who share a given set of beliefs. they are offended by people who choose life partners that don't conform to their belief system. they throw fits and insist that they own the definition of marriage, and insist that nobody should be allowed to use that word unless they use it in a manner that conforms to one particular belief system. i think it's a clean parallel.

When did I say anything against equal rights or feelings? You youself pointed out that your family's unions are no less real than those of a religious nature. I'm *advocating* civil unions for gays! It's just not marriage. Same way a GED is not a high school diploma...

my family members are in HETEROSEXUAL unions. i brought them up as proof that religious arguments are irrelevant to the government's recognition of marriages, and as further proof that the approval of an religious person or organization is not in any way required for legal marriages.

your support of "civil unions" is just like supporting separate water fountains for whites and blacks. separate is not equal. your own comparison of a diploma and a GED proves the point...ask around, and you will find that a GED is regarded as having far less value than a high school diploma, even though they are supposed to be equivalent. try getting a job with a GED versus a diploma. try getting into college with a GED versus a diploma. just as it was unequal to build black kids separate schools, it is unequal to give "special" names to unions that don't fit traditional religious rules.

The folks that disagree with gay marriage have that RIGHT.

they have the right to their opinion. they do not have the right to interfere with other citizens' access to equal rights under the law.


The gays should have a legal right to be seen (in the eyes of the state) as in a civil union.

"the gays" have as much legal claim to MARRIAGE as any straight couple does. to deny this is unjust and, frankly, as low as racism.


And? I'm not saying that gays should not be allowed civil unions. Have you read the CT bill I linked??

separate is not equal. i will keep saying this until you get it through your head. unless you are prepared to refer to ALL LEGAL UNIONS as civil unions, including ALL RELIGIOUS UNIONS, what you are proposing is unjust.


Who's asking for my beliefs to be forced on others? Gay marriage does the same thing in REVERSE to some groups.

gay marriage doesn't force any beliefs on anybody. everybody is free to think gay marriage is horrible, invalid, sinful, unacceptable, or whatever they like. nobody will be forced to perform gay marriages, to attend gay marriages, to have a gay marriage, or to associate with people who do any of those things. they are not being forced to agree with gay marriage in any way.

if you want to claim gay marriage should not be permitted because it "forces" people to accept gay marriage, then you have just made an argument for denying mixed-race couples marital rights; their unions deeply offend many racists and traditionalists, and by allowing their unions to be recognized as "marriages" we are "forcing" racists and traditionalists to accept miscegination.

So it's the same debate from the other side.
This is not only an acceptable, but likely the only possible compromise.

as i said, there are some issues on which there can be no just compromise. equal rights under the law are not negotiable.


Yeah, no kidding. But civil unions are for *everyone*. Straight or gay, you can go get married by the local official. It is *not* a yellow star sewed onto their clothing.

if ANY unions can be refered to as "marriage" in the eyes of the law, then ALL unions must be refered to as such in the eyes of the law. to reserve a special term for certain unions, and to make those unions unavailable to one particular group based purely on their personal beliefs or orientation, is unjust.


It is not seperate drinking fountains or bathrooms, or signs saying "no gays allowed" at a diner. Or being made to sit in the back of the bus. Rather, it is bringing the gay community INTO the same line as everyone else.

i disagree.


IMHO, ALL civil unions should be (and are, in some states) called just that. Just like "common law marriage" is in use in some places.

I seek to ERASE the difference, not make anyone higher or lower.
"marriage" is not a term that belongs to any one religious group. to say that we should pander to the minority of religious groups that stamp their little feet and insist that they own "marriage" is pathetic. if they are offended by the fact that gay people or mixed race people or secular people are using "their" word, they can stuff it...their feelings are of no importance on this subject.

my parents have a marriage, not a civil union. try telling them that their secular union needs to be called something different just because they didn't have a priest babble at them during their ceremony. i dare you :).

"off the wall comparison"? how so? are you saying that religious beliefs are special in some way? are they somehow more important than other sorts of beliefs? of is it just that you don't like racism, so the beliefs of racists aren't as valuable?

in both cases, you have a group of people who share a given set of beliefs. they are offended by people who choose life partners that don't conform to their belief system. they throw fits and insist that they own the definition of marriage, and insist that nobody should be allowed to use that word unless they use it in a manner that conforms to one particular belief system. i think it's a clean parallel.

my family members are in HETEROSEXUAL unions. i brought them up as proof that religious arguments are irrelevant to the government's recognition of marriages, and as further proof that the approval of an religious person or organization is not in any way required for legal marriages.

your support of "civil unions" is just like supporting separate water fountains for whites and blacks. separate is not equal. your own comparison of a diploma and a GED proves the point...ask around, and you will find that a GED is regarded as having far less value than a high school diploma, even though they are supposed to be equivalent. try getting a job with a GED versus a diploma. try getting into college with a GED versus a diploma. just as it was unequal to build black kids separate schools, it is unequal to give "special" names to unions that don't fit traditional religious rules.

they have the right to their opinion. they do not have the right to interfere with other citizens' access to equal rights under the law.


"the gays" have as much legal claim to MARRIAGE as any straight couple does. to deny this is unjust and, frankly, as low as racism.


separate is not equal. i will keep saying this until you get it through your head. unless you are prepared to refer to ALL LEGAL UNIONS as civil unions, including ALL RELIGIOUS UNIONS, what you are proposing is unjust.


gay marriage doesn't force any beliefs on anybody. everybody is free to think gay marriage is horrible, invalid, sinful, unacceptable, or whatever they like. nobody will be forced to perform gay marriages, to attend gay marriages, to have a gay marriage, or to associate with people who do any of those things. they are not being forced to agree with gay marriage in any way.

if you want to claim gay marriage should not be permitted because it "forces" people to accept gay marriage, then you have just made an argument for denying mixed-race couples marital rights; their unions deeply offend many racists and traditionalists, and by allowing their unions to be recognized as "marriages" we are "forcing" racists and traditionalists to accept miscegination.

as i said, there are some issues on which there can be no just compromise. equal rights under the law are not negotiable.


if ANY unions can be refered to as "marriage" in the eyes of the law, then ALL unions must be refered to as such in the eyes of the law. to reserve a special term for certain unions, and to make those unions unavailable to one particular group based purely on their personal beliefs or orientation, is unjust.


i disagree.


"marriage" is not a term that belongs to any one religious group. to say that we should pander to the minority of religious groups that stamp their little feet and insist that they own "marriage" is pathetic. if they are offended by the fact that gay people or mixed race people or secular people are using "their" word, they can stuff it...their feelings are of no importance on this subject.

my parents have a marriage, not a civil union. try telling them that their secular union needs to be called something different just because they didn't have a priest babble at them during their ceremony. i dare you :).

*sigh*.

This is exactly why gay marriage will not be legal for the next 50 years. Maybe more.

*sigh*.

This is exactly why gay marriage will not be legal for the next 50 years. Maybe more.

Could you be more specific?

*sigh*.

This is exactly why gay marriage will not be legal for the next 50 years. Maybe more.

... in nations where civil rights haven't progressed, that is.

Could you be more specific?

Bottle doesn't see (or worse, don't care) that I'm in favor of a moderate compromise.

It's not the same as racism, or even female enfranchisement for one reason: neither of those movements conflicted with another Constitutional right: Freedom of Religion.

Simply put, there are is no legal standing for racism or for women being denied the vote, and no other group was hurt by their emancipation. There is also no legal standing against gay civil unions.

However, by seeking to enact legislation (stating MARRIAGE) that runs counter to most people's very belief system(s), the gay advocacy groups are not making friends.

However, no one has ever challenged the law in a manner that went counter to people's reigious beliefs. And in a nation that is 80% Protestant, Catholic, Jewish or Muslim, religion is taken seriously. Gays should realize this. Slavery wasn't defeated in 1787. Women didn't get to vote in 1880.

And Bottle's refusal to grant that the other side in the debate has as much a valid voice as the gay side means that it's pointless for me to debate further.

... in nations where civil rights haven't progressed, that is.

Yep. I see lots of gay marriages in Sudan.

Bottle doesn't see (or worse, don't care) that I'm in favor of a moderate compromise.

i see that. as i have said, there are certain issues on which compromise is unacceptable. for instance, if a man comes up to you and says, "i want to rape you," and you say "i don't want to be raped," there isn't some nice compromise situation in which he can just rape you a little bit and you will be satisfied that a fair deal has been struck. violation of the rights of human beings is not okay, in my book, and i don't make any compromises on that subject.

i both see and care that you favor what you view as a fair compromise. i disagree with you. can you not see the distinction?

It's not the same as racism, or even female enfranchisement for one reason: neither of those movements conflicted with another Constitutional right: Freedom of Religion.

sure they did! the Bible, along with several other major religious texts, has specific and clear passages forbidding mixed-race marriage. many people base their racism on their religious beliefs, just as many people base their homophobia on their religious beliefs. to claim otherwise is to display your utter ignorance of history.


Simply put, there are is no legal standing for racism or for women being denied the vote, and no other group was hurt by their emancipation.

that is true for gay citizens, as well.


There is also no legal standing against gay civil unions.

there is no legal standing against gay marriages, either.


However, by seeking to enact legislation (stating MARRIAGE) that runs counter to most people's very belief system(s), the gay advocacy groups are not making friends.

so? SOME people in America have "belief systems" that cannot abide gay marriage. many other Americans have "belief systems," both religious and secular, that are quite compatible with gay marriage. just because equality runs contrary to some belief systems doesn't mean we abandon equality to placate the bigots.


However, no one has ever challenged the law in a manner that went counter to people's reigious beliefs. And in a nation that is 80% Protestant, Catholic, Jewish or Muslim, religion is taken seriously. Gays should realize this.

gays realize that religion is powerful in America. gays aren't stupid. however, gays also realize the beautiful fact that the American system of law was specifically designed to prevent tyranny of the majority.

not so long ago, 80% of Americans believed black people shouldn't get to go to school with white people. not so long ago, 80% of Americans (including women) believed that women should not have the right to vote. the majority was not allowed to rule in those situations, even though the majority of people gave RELIGIOUS reasons for their beliefs on those topics...why should we make a special exception now?


Slavery wasn't defeated in 1787. Women didn't get to vote in 1880.

exactly; at the time those issues were resolved, the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS favored continuing the oppression of the minorities in question.


And Bottle's refusal to grant that the other side in the debate has as much a valid voice as the gay side means that it's pointless for me to debate further.
they have as much right to their opinion as anybody else. however, they cannot deny the right to gay marriage any more than racists can deny the right to mixed-race marriage. homophobes may hold whatever beliefs they like on the subject of gay marriage, but the Constitution comes first; all citizens of America are entitled to equal treatment under the law, with no exceptions made based on race, gender, or creed. if that hurts somebody's feelings then that's their problem.

Bottle doesn't see (or worse, don't care) that I'm in favor of a moderate compromise.

If I understand correctly you wish this:

-> All 'marriages' done outside churches are called civil unions. Hetero-hetero, gay-gay,lesbian-lesbian - all doesn't matter, it is still called civil union. This includes everybody that already got "married" - who will now be "unied".

-> All 'marriages' done inside churches are called marriages.

My counterproposal:

-> All legally recognised 'marriages', hetero-hetero, gay-gay,lesbian-lesbian - will be called marriages.
-> All (legally recognised) marriages involving the blessing of a priest are called Holy matrimony or "Marriage before God".

The advantage: everyone can still stay they are married, just like they did for the past 50 years - regardless if a church was involved or not. People that consider Gods blessing important can in addition say they "married before God".

However, by seeking to enact legislation (stating MARRIAGE) that runs counter to most people's very belief system(s), the gay advocacy groups are not making friends.

Oh noes...and who gives a flying phook! Ya know something, if religion was given free reign and absolute control homsoexuals would be mostly in prison or in extreme cases, executed. Christianity and Islam both have an appaling history in this case and while some may wish to hammer out a moderate compromise between religion and a collection of indivdidual's biology, doing so is giving one side a bit (way) too much freedom at the expense of another for the sake of religious freedom which is not at issue here and seems to be more of a fabricated political excuse than a legitimate concern.

Yep. I see lots of gay marriages in Sudan.

Only slightly less than the United States... legal ones anyhow.

My god, man! Don't you know what the queers are doing to our soil?

I'm going to address the slipperly slope argument as to "where to draw the line."

1)Animals-you can't allow legal marriage of man and animal because you can't prove the animal has consent. Marriage is a legally binding contract and both parties need to consent to the contract. An animal does not posess the mental capability of this situation.
2)Polygamy-Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Polygamy is not. You are allowed to practice having many partners in this country, but you may only be married to one of them. I personally have no problem with polygamy at all, provided they do not recieve tax benefits and such beyond a married couple. Perhaps couples that are in polygamous relationships are required to file separately on their income taxes? Hell, just put in a flat tax and that whole tax issue with marriage is solved.
3)Incest-this is a tough one, because I can't find a real compelling argument against it other than than children have a larger chance of birth defects and you can't ban people from breeding...

So anyways, my point is that you draw the line at humans. I'm personally leaning libertarian on the issue of marriage and think the government should do nothing more than issue licenses.

I still have yet to see an argument against homosexual marriage that doesn't involve religion.

I've seen "it goes against nature" many times. But doesn't sex for pleasure go against nature? I think dolphins are the only other animals that do that, so why not outlaw that? I think people don't have a problem with gay marriage, they just have a problem with gays being equal with them.

Oh noes...and who gives a flying phook! Ya know something, if religion was given free reign and absolute control homsoexuals would be mostly in prison or in extreme cases, executed. Christianity and Islam both have an appaling history in this case and while some may wish to hammer out a moderate compromise between religion and a collection of indivdidual's biology, doing so is giving one side a bit (way) too much freedom at the expense of another for the sake of religious freedom which is not at issue here and seems to be more of a fabricated political excuse than a legitimate concern.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger!

If I understand correctly you wish this:

-> All 'marriages' done outside churches are called civil unions. Hetero-hetero, gay-gay,lesbian-lesbian - all doesn't matter, it is still called civil union. This includes everybody that already got "married" - who will now be "unied".

-> All 'marriages' done inside churches are called marriages.

My counterproposal:

-> All legally recognised 'marriages', hetero-hetero, gay-gay,lesbian-lesbian - will be called marriages.
-> All (legally recognised) marriages involving the blessing of a priest are called Holy matrimony or "Marriage before God".

The advantage: everyone can still stay they are married, just like they did for the past 50 years - regardless if a church was involved or not. People that consider Gods blessing important can in addition say they "married before God".

If it were that simple, I'm fine with it. However, I'm more reasonable than most.

Society doesn't like to change. Which is why there is push-back on things. "Harrisment" vs. "Her-ass-ment". Or African-American vs. Black. (I've yet to be called a Slavic-American, btw. ;)

i see that. as i have said, there are certain issues on which compromise is unacceptable. for instance, if a man comes up to you and says, "i want to rape you," and you say "i don't want to be raped," there isn't some nice compromise situation in which he can just rape you a little bit and you will be satisfied that a fair deal has been struck. violation of the rights of human beings is not okay, in my book, and i don't make any compromises on that subject.

What violation of rights? Matrimony is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights!

i both see and care that you favor what you view as a fair compromise. i disagree with you. can you not see the distinction?

Go back and re-read your other post. I'm still picking up the glass from the beer bottle broken over my head. ;)

sure they did! the Bible, along with several other major religious texts, has specific and clear passages forbidding mixed-race marriage. many people base their racism on their religious beliefs, just as many people base their homophobia on their religious beliefs. to claim otherwise is to display your utter ignorance of history.

The Constitution is not a religious document. It acknowledges *a* God, not a Christian one, Jewish one, etc. That many people are effected by the Bible is a given. To say that racism in America *derives* from the Bible isn't. I could go into the whole slave trade (a debate in and of itself).
However, I still contend that as civil unions is not disefrancisement (we are only debating a title/word, not the benefits seen in a legal sense), it is not the same as racism/women's rights BECAUSE man/woman marriage by civil union is no different.

that is true for gay citizens, as well.

Er... no, it isn't. Flat out, by calling it marriage, gay unions run counter to a fixture of society that people hold. It's not seperate but equal. It's equal in the eyes of the law to call them civil unions.
Because of the denial of the label, it's a CULTURAL fight, not a legal one at that point.

there is no legal standing against gay marriages, either.

Er? I said that...

so? SOME people in America have "belief systems" that cannot abide gay marriage. many other Americans have "belief systems," both religious and secular, that are quite compatible with gay marriage. just because equality runs contrary to some belief systems doesn't mean we abandon equality to placate the bigots.

Of course not. And this proposal does just that.

gays realize that religion is powerful in America. gays aren't stupid. however, gays also realize the beautiful fact that the American system of law was specifically designed to prevent tyranny of the majority.

Yep. And the tyranny of the minority, too. You'll note that the KKK isn't forcing us to accept racism, nor the NRA that everyone needs a gun.

not so long ago, 80% of Americans believed black people shouldn't get to go to school with white people. not so long ago, 80% of Americans (including women) believed that women should not have the right to vote. the majority was not allowed to rule in those situations, even though the majority of people gave RELIGIOUS reasons for their beliefs on those topics...why should we make a special exception now?

I can cite my source for 80% of America being of those 4 religions. It's here:
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html
Please cite yours. ;)
Seriously: It took generations for that those things to be accepted, and none of them were taboo for several thousand years. It's not a special exception, it's the little detail that gay marriage runs counter to human history is all.

exactly; at the time those issues were resolved, the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS favored continuing the oppression of the minorities in question.

Er? I was unaware that gays can't vote, own land, etc. I wasn't aware that they were being lynched and hung. Sorry, that's an extreme arguement.

Point: If gays want to be considered equal as a group (and they should be), they must be willing to compromise. When women got the vote, they demanded the right to run for office which went with it. Fine. They didn't demand re-votes for every elected male official.

Gays want the right to marry. This is an avenue to do just that, one that has been denied to them in the past. QED.

they have as much right to their opinion as anybody else. however, they cannot deny the right to gay marriage any more than racists can deny the right to mixed-race marriage.


Man, I can't wait until 2012 when the NAMBLA guys try this arguement out.

homophobes may hold whatever beliefs they like on the subject of gay marriage, but the Constitution comes first; all citizens of America are entitled to equal treatment under the law, with no exceptions made based on race, gender, or creed. if that hurts somebody's feelings then that's their problem.

Yes, the Constitution comes first indeed. And this is a gender issue that directly interferes with a creed issue.

My god, man! Don't you know what the queers are doing to our soil?

Making it more fertile? Have some respect and don't use the word queer.

Hey,
I'm religious and personally do not feel threatened by the homosexual community. I don't condone or dismay gay marriage. I do feel that they have the right like everyone else to fall in love and join in marriage if they are fully committed and in love.

Hey,
I'm religious and personally do not feel threatened by the homosexual community. I don't condone or dismay gay marriage. I do feel that they have the right like everyone else to fall in love and join in marriage if they are fully committed and in love.
Why aren't there more people like you?

What violation of rights? Matrimony is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights!
how would you like it if the government decided that you couldnt marry the person you loved because they didnt like them?

What is the definition of marriage? If it is simply a public affirmation of affection + public declaration that sex is happening between two people for pleasure, then obviously it can be applied to any sexual relationship based on feelings of love...

However, marriage if marriage is a civil contract whereby two people commit themselves to 'be there' for one another exclusively and permanently so that they can raise children in a safe, secure and enduring context for the greater good of society, then obviously only heterosexual relationships qualify...

So, maybe we have too many wooly ideas about what marriage is?

how would you like it if the government decided that you couldnt marry the person you loved because they didnt like them?

About the same way I feel that I can't have an Uzi without getting a category 3 firearms license.

A person's decision to be a homosexual should not affect any other individual that may be unwittingly end up a party to their union/marriage.

Any child adopted by a gay couple will likely be ridiculed throughout their whole school life etc.

Would you want your children to face society's wrath, and selfishly prefer the principled route to child suicide?

This is why I am against calling it marriage. When society is deemed more accepting of homosexuality/more the norm (if ever), then I could change my mind. But at the moment, we still not ready in our mindsets. So Civil Unions are fine (which should be defined as not being able to adopt children - Marriage alone entitles this).

About the same way I feel that I can't have an Uzi without getting a category 3 firearms license.
how do you feel when that happens?

you place marrying the person you want to spend the rest of your life with on the same level as buying a gun?

A person's decision to be a homosexual should not affect any other individual that may be unwittingly end up a party to their union/marriage.
theres no choice involved...

Needs less gay marriage and more jihad.

It will destroy the sanctity of marriage! ... even though the divorce rate in the first five years is 50% and more and more people arn't getting married.. shit.


except that by not allowing homosexual marriages you are limiting the number of people that can get married at all, so how the hell is that ruining marriage. If two people love each other then how come they aren't allowed to marry? and why is everyone so afraid of homosexuality anyway, they're just different okay? just different, so in a way, all you anti-gay people are racists because you don't like someone because they're different! so eat this! :fluffle:

except that by not allowing homosexual marriages you are limiting the number of people that can get married at all, so how the hell is that ruining marriage. If two people love each other then how come they aren't allowed to marry? and why is everyone so afraid of homosexuality anyway, they're just different okay? just different, so in a way, all you anti-gay people are racists because you don't like someone because they're different! so eat this! :fluffle:
the post you quoted went straight over your head didnt it?

Needs less gay marriage and more jihad.
GAY NINJA JIHAD FOR MARRIAGE!!!

What violation of rights? Matrimony is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights!
So what. That doesn't mean it's not a right. Is that fact that freedom of speech is in the Bill of Rights the only reason you are in favour of it?

Yep. And the tyranny of the minority, too. You'll note that the KKK isn't forcing us to accept racism, nor the NRA that everyone needs a gun.

Seriously: It took generations for that those things to be accepted, and none of them were taboo for several thousand years. It's not a special exception, it's the little detail that gay marriage runs counter to human history is all.

1. Bad comparison. The NRA isn't forcing everyone to own a gun. Gays don't want to force everyone else to marry someone of the same sex. That's a better comparison, but inconveniently for the homophobes it is unrealistic.

2. Gay marriage has existed in civilisations in the past. Why do Americans seem to think that it has never been proposed before Massachusetts legalised it? It is legal in Denmark, Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands, Canada, and also existed in ancient Egypt and Greece.

Yes, the Constitution comes first indeed. And this is a gender issue that directly interferes with a creed issue.
No; it's not as if Christianity is the state religion.

Point: If gays want to be considered equal as a group (and they should be), they must be willing to compromise. When women got the vote, they demanded the right to run for office which went with it. Fine. They didn't demand re-votes for every elected male official.
How is the pro-gay marriage argument in any way akin to demanding a re-count for male elected officials?

A person's decision to be a homosexual should not affect any other individual that may be unwittingly end up a party to their union/marriage.

Any child adopted by a gay couple will likely be ridiculed throughout their whole school life etc.

Would you want your children to face society's wrath, and selfishly prefer the principled route to child suicide?

This is why I am against calling it marriage. When society is deemed more accepting of homosexuality/more the norm (if ever), then I could change my mind. But at the moment, we still not ready in our mindsets. So Civil Unions are fine (which should be defined as not being able to adopt children - Marriage alone entitles this).


that post is wrong on so many levels.
1. in what way is it a freakin choice? to be homosexual is just the way someone is, it isn't a choice!
2.i know plenty of people that have gay parents and they have never been mistreated for it!
3. just because someone has a rough life, dosen't mean that they will kill themselves. you are very mrbid if you think that.
4.what the hell do you propose to call it? marriage is the union of two loving people. so dosen't a gay marriage fit into that category?...YES! it does! who ever would have guessed that?...hmmm...
5. you are a very racist person! stop racism!

I have a religion called Black People Are Rubbish. We (my teddy bear and I, as founding members) believe that black people should not be allowed to marry white people, for no particular reason. Therefore, mixed-race marriages infringe on our rights to have our own viewpoints. So we want to ban them. Unfair? Of course.

Now imagine that the Church of Black People Are Rubbish is the most popular religion in the world. Any different? Don't think so.

how do you feel when that happens?

you place marrying the person you want to spend the rest of your life with on the same level as buying a gun?

Given it's impossible, even with the Republicans in the White House, I don't know.

If someone can equate racism with granting people the right to marry, why not? It is no more or less unreasonable.

So what. That doesn't mean it's not a right. Is that fact that freedom of speech is in the Bill of Rights the only reason you are in favour of it?

Er, you are aware that I'm not against it, but rather pointing out that it's not a right... right?


1. Bad comparison. The NRA isn't forcing everyone to own a gun. Gays don't want to force everyone else to marry someone of the same sex. That's a better comparison, but inconveniently for the homophobes it is unrealistic.

Um, it's an excellent comparison. The NRA wants everyone to accept that everyone should own a gun. Gays want everyone to accept that they should have the right to marry, since they don't seem to want to accept civil unions. Both are forcing their ideology on the other.

2. Gay marriage has existed in civilisations in the past. Why do Americans seem to think that it has never been proposed before Massachusetts legalised it? It is legal in Denmark, Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands, Canada, and also existed in ancient Egypt and Greece.

So... the minor detail that you can't name anywhere it was legal from approximately 1000BC to 2000AD is?
Sorry, that's a pretty weak arguing point.


No; it's not as if Christianity is the state religion.

Please quote back to me where I said it was. I merely pointed out that 80% of the population is religious in one of 4 religions, and that you have a gender issue interfering with a creed issue.

How is the pro-gay marriage argument in any way akin to demanding a re-count for male elected officials?

Get the vote/electability = civil unions (read: legally, all the rights of married and affirmed as a union by the state)
recount in elections = marriage (read: Punitive demands, which would disenfrancise others)

I have a religion called Black People Are Rubbish. We (my teddy bear and I, as founding members) believe that black people should not be allowed to marry white people, for no particular reason. Therefore, mixed-race marriages infringe on our rights to have our own viewpoints. So we want to ban them. Unfair? Of course.

Now imagine that the Church of Black People Are Rubbish is the most popular religion in the world. Any different? Don't think so.

Get your religion tax exempt status, and I'm sure the ACLU will be stocking up on Rolaids. :D

Man, I can't wait until 2012 when the NAMBLA guys try this arguement out.

So why aren't they doing it in Holland now?

I have a religion called Black People Are Rubbish. We (my teddy bear and I, as founding members) believe that black people should not be allowed to marry white people, for no particular reason. Therefore, mixed-race marriages infringe on our rights to have our own viewpoints. So we want to ban them. Unfair? Of course.

Now imagine that the Church of Black People Are Rubbish is the most popular religion in the world. Any different? Don't think so.
The point we have been trying to make over and over … just wait till Christianity becomes a minority ;)

So why aren't they doing it in Holland now?

You're saying that there is no man-boy love in Holland? :rolleyes:

It's the North American Man Boy Love Association, btw. Why would they be doing anything political in Holland?

So... the minor detail that you can't name anywhere it was legal from approximately 1000BC to 2000AD is?
If legal tradition is a good argument for you, how do you think about public floggings? Or chopping off the hand of a thief, like in the good old days. Stoning for adultery etc. They were around so long, they have to be good.

You're saying that there is no man-boy love in Holland? :rolleyes:
No legal one.

If legal tradition is a good argument for you, how do you think about public floggings? Or chopping off the hand of a thief, like in the good old days. Stoning for adultery etc. They were around so long, they have to be good.

I'm all for it, actually.

You're saying that there is no man-boy love in Holland? :rolleyes:

It's the North American Man Boy Love Association, btw. Why would they be doing anything political in Holland?

:headbang:

Let me dumb the question down for you:

Why are people in Holland, where same-sex marriages have been legal for a while now, not using Bottle's brilliant argument for same-sex marriages to get man-boy marriages?

You're saying that there is no man-boy love in Holland? :rolleyes:


Much lower percentage then is prevalent in Christian clergy :p

Much lower percentage then is prevalent in Christian clergy :p

Bad UT, very bad. ;) But clever. I sincerely hope it is a little bit of an exageration as well. I've been around a lot of clergy and never had any of those kind of issues, of course, maybe I wasn't an attractive enough boy... :rolleyes: :confused: ;)

I think that the approach to the gay marriage issue has been all wrong. Instead of looking at it as a contract-rights issue, it has turned into a theological one. :headbang:

Marriage is, in essence, a contract between two people sanctioned by the state. The fact of the matter is, two people can get "married" by a priest or minister, but if they do not have a license from the state to bind that contract, there is no marriage. Conversely, you can get a marriage license and have a judge perform a marriage, which is what my wife and I did. Save the money that a church demands in the form of a "donation" for the reception and honeymoon.

Anyway, this is a classic case in which the rendering unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's should be the guide. The only time the Church had a monopoly on marriage is when it was so intertwined with the State as to be the same thing. I think that if the homosexual community (in the US, anyway) were to approach this as a case of the state abrogating their right to enter into a contract, they would have better success. Save the damning and taunting of the "Religious" Right for another time - look towards the goal, first.

Other than the religious objections, I have not heard a good argument why gay marriage shouldn't be legal. All the issue does is expose the true colors of anyone who chooses to take it on.

Bad UT, very bad. ;) But clever. I sincerely hope it is a little bit of an exageration as well. I've been around a lot of clergy and never had any of those kind of issues, of course, maybe I wasn't an attractive enough boy... :rolleyes: :confused: ;)
Me and my friend happened to be attractive enough (though he never got far with me) and yes I was poking fun before (though I am not about my situation)

Actual percentages may actualy be fairly close or higher ... we could compute them if we know total and acts commited (not saying all priests are bad but with their small population 1 or 2 people could have a massive percentage jump ... enough to throw them over statisical norm)

[QUOTE=Fugee-La]But gay people are soooooooo icky, and i can't stand it when two gay guys kiss.

Obviously letting them marry will make our children think that being gay is a valid way to live. THINKOF THECHILDREN!


I am with ya! It would seem that it woulkd led to nothing but more problems. Think about it, society has enbraced in on so mny different levels. It has become the norm, and it isnt. Without a doubt, this could be argueed on so many diff. levels but that is not the point. children need to be aware of different cultures and circumstances. However, they do not need to be introduced to this as being a WAY OF LIFE!!!!!

Much lower percentage then is prevalent in Christian clergy :p

Which as we all know, is a bad thing. :D

(Bad as a concept, not that the clergy should be doing it at all.)

[QUOTE=Fugee-La]But gay people are soooooooo icky, and i can't stand it when two gay guys kiss.

Obviously letting them marry will make our children think that being gay is a valid way to live. THINKOF THECHILDREN!


I am with ya! It would seem that it woulkd led to nothing but more problems. Think about it, society has enbraced in on so mny different levels. It has become the norm, and it isnt. Without a doubt, this could be argueed on so many diff. levels but that is not the point. children need to be aware of different cultures and circumstances. However, they do not need to be introduced to this as being a WAY OF LIFE!!!!!
psst it is a way of life

However, they do not need to be introduced to this as being a WAY OF LIFE!!!!!

How is homosexuality a 'way of life'?

:headbang:

Let me dumb the question down for you:

Why are people in Holland, where same-sex marriages have been legal for a while now, not using Bottle's brilliant argument for same-sex marriages to get man-boy marriages?

Let me ask you to smarten up your query:

1) How long is "a while"?
2) Is there a MBLA in Holland?

Let me ask you to smarten up your query:

1) How long is "a while"?
2) Is there a MBLA in Holland?

Stop trying to dodge the question.

However, they do not need to be introduced to this as being a WAY OF LIFE!!!!!

What are you, guardian of all children on the planet? I would imagine that a great many parents can parent for themselves, without your assistance.

No harm, no foul. But just know that only certain groups of Christians are the anti-homosexual squad. Jews, Muslims, liberal Christians, etc are either indifferent to it or loud advocates of it. :)

Funny. I'm recently visiting one Polish Muslim site pretty often, and I've never seen such gay-bashing as there before. On a meeting with ambassador of Saudi Arabia, his final arguement against western society was something like this: in Islam, homesuality is a great sin, unimaginable sin. And added something like that "is opened practice of this sin what the democracy is about?"
Also, recently I've seen a nice map of the world dealing with legislation concerning gay activities and marriages.
Of Muslim countries, only in post-Atatuerkist Turkey, in Mali, Niger, Chad, (halfly Christian) Eritrea, Jordan, Iraq, in large part Christian (Russians!) Kazakhstan, Azerbeycan, Indonesia and in virtually religionless Albania homosexuality is not a crime.
In the rest, it is, with high penalties (in -agreed, halfly Christian- Nigeria, in Mauretania, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, Iran and Pakistan it's death penalty for it in fact).
When it comes to Christian countries, the only ones that criminalise homosexuality are: in large part Muslim Surinam (as the only state of South America, the only one with significant Muslim popuation there), communist Cuba, Nicaragua and a few of tiny states of Caribean and Oceania (with Papua, though), plus quite some missionary African states (most of which has significant Muslim popuation as well)

Also, all the states that allow gay unions and marriages are those of Christian tradition.

To sum it up, gay activities are, with few exceptions, prohibited in states of Muslim traditions. In Christian world, it is a case of fringes of it, or countries that only recently been -at least nominally- christianised.

That doesn't mean it's been always like that, of course. Unlike what some dolts of the mentioned forum claim, homosexuality was more approved in Muslim than in Christian world in the past. Christianity, perhaps due to Manichean influence, generally disliked sexuality as a whole.

I'm against gay marriage because marriage=tax benefits. Tax benefits for others mean less tax money for me. Said tax benefits are generally there because a marriage usually leads to children and most governments have decided that perpetuating society is something worth subsidizing. Homosexual couples can't perpetuate society (partial exceptions exist). I don't care if they want to get married. I don't care if they want some legal rights over each other. I do care if they want more tax dollars.

I'm against gay marriage because marriage=tax benefits. Tax benefits for others mean less tax money for me. Said tax benefits are generally there because a marriage usually leads to children and most governments have decided that perpetuating society is something worth subsidizing. Homosexual couples can't perpetuate society (partial exceptions exist). I don't care if they want to get married. I don't care if they want some legal rights over each other. I do care if they want more tax dollars.
Ok that is a common example not in fact the biggest motivation … I would say by far bigger motivators are things like

Rights to hospital visitation
Inheritance
Child custody (in event of death)
Rights to make medical decisions if spouse is unable to


And there are hundreds of other reasons … tax’s are just a commonly used example (and with tax law as it is not a very good excuse to start with)

Stop trying to dodge the question.

I'm serious. How long has it been legal? I have no idea. If it's only been like 2 or 3 years, that's one thing. If it's 30, it's quite another.

Further, I do not know if there is or is not a MBLA in Holland. The question posed me was why the guys over there haven't tried that arguement yet. I'm putting it back to you: I'll find out, just tell me where they are on the web. I don't read Dutch.

For one thing, Guargantuan Phallusus, you can't have kids naturally. Just the thought of making out with the same gender creeps me out too, and I'm not very religous at all, and know a lot of gay men.

For one thing, Guargantuan Phallusus, you can't have kids naturally. Just the thought of making out with the same gender creeps me out too, and I'm not very religous at all, and know a lot of gay men.
No one is asking you to make out with someone of the same gender though... And we've been through the "can't have kids argument" many times, concluding that that should be no barrier to marriage as lots of straight couples can't/don't have kids.

Making it more fertile? Have some respect and don't use the word queer.
You missed the joke bucky. Dead Milkman. ;)

I'm against gay marriage because marriage=tax benefits. Tax benefits for others mean less tax money for me. Said tax benefits are generally there because a marriage usually leads to children and most governments have decided that perpetuating society is something worth subsidizing. Homosexual couples can't perpetuate society (partial exceptions exist). I don't care if they want to get married. I don't care if they want some legal rights over each other. I do care if they want more tax dollars.
lol. i just LOVE it when people state made-up problems as their reason for opposing gay marriage.

check American tax statutes, and you will learn that allowing gay marriage would INCREASE tax revenue. if you really are greedy and selfish enough to deny equal rights to ensure your own pocket will be better lined, then at least in this case you have no need to fear...they would get to keep less of their incomes if they were married.

Man, I can't wait until 2012 when the NAMBLA guys try this arguement out.
yes, because children clearly are able to give legal consent and enter into binding contracts, so NAMBLA would have a solid case.

the slippery slope falacy is soooo 1960s. aren't you folks tired of recycling a decades-old "argument" that's been a joke since before i was born?

I'm serious. How long has it been legal? I have no idea. If it's only been like 2 or 3 years, that's one thing. If it's 30, it's quite another.

Further, I do not know if there is or is not a MBLA in Holland. The question posed me was why the guys over there haven't tried that arguement yet. I'm putting it back to you: I'll find out, just tell me where they are on the web. I don't read Dutch.

Alright, it's been legal for a few years now, and no-one is using Bottle's argument to gain man-boy marriages like you said they might if it's allowed in the USA now. Why not?

Alright, it's been legal for a few years now, and no-one is using Bottle's argument to gain man-boy marriages like you said they might if it's allowed in the USA now. Why not?
Slippery slope arguments are a logical flaw in reasoning anyways

Slippery slope arguments are a logical flaw in reasoning anyways

I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Fair enough ... but still
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm

lol. i just LOVE it when people state made-up problems as their reason for opposing gay marriage.

check American tax statutes, and you will learn that allowing gay marriage would INCREASE tax revenue. if you really are greedy and selfish enough to deny equal rights to ensure your own pocket will be better lined, then at least in this case you have no need to fear...they would get to keep less of their incomes if they were married.

Personally, I believe that there should be no marriage filings for taxes at all. Everyone should be taxed as an individual, at a flat rate (say, 15%). This would not only increase tax revenues (no deductions!) but would be much fairer than the current system.

Personally, I believe that there should be no marriage filings for taxes at all. Everyone should be taxed as an individual, at a flat rate (say, 15%). This would not only increase tax revenues (no deductions!) but would be much fairer than the current system.

Actually, married people have the option of filing seperate or joint tax returns.

Actually, married people have the option of filing seperate or joint tax returns.

Yes, I know. But my point is that there shouldn't be *any* combined filings: it gives some an unfair advantage.

Alright, it's been legal for a few years now, and no-one is using Bottle's argument to gain man-boy marriages like you said they might if it's allowed in the USA now. Why not?

Ooooh! Slippery slope. If we let anyone get married, 90 year olds will get to marry infants! Let's outlaw sex, that'll fix it. Wait, if people touch each other, then they'll want to have sex, that could lead to people getting married, and then 90 year olds will have sex with babies! OMG! We must stop it! :rolleyes:

whats the big deal, why are you religious people so terrified of the homosexual community?

it doesn't affect you, and the rule is that if your church does not want to marry them, then don't.

Im heterosexual and i don't feel threatened at all.

I have yet to hear one good argument against allowing homosexual marriage, all I ever get are religious rebuttals.

And the fact that we are changing tradition, come on now, thats weak, we change traditions all the time.
It has nothing to do with fear of the gay community! If Gays are given the right to an official marriage then where does it stop? Marriage will be destroyed as an institution. The Polygamists are already preping their arguements for when the gay challenge is ratified. The man-boy love ass. is also looking at challenging their rights to have their "love" legal and the legal marriage age lowered. This is what we have been fighting against. It was only a matter of time; we were just hoping it wouldn't happen so quickly!

Yes, I know. But my point is that there shouldn't be *any* combined filings: it gives some an unfair advantage.
Actually it is in a couples best interest to file seperate and have the (if there is one) stay at home partner claim part of the working partner's income. Filed together a couple ends up with lower personal claims (although Alberta just made it the same either way but that is only the provincial taxes not the federal). Of course that is Canadian taxes I don't know the Americian system well enough to say for sure but you should check it out. usually the personal amount is 75% for the "dependant" spouse.

I don't care who marries whom. I don't care if a man has forty-six wives. As long as everyone is capable of giving informed consent.

Yes, I know. But my point is that there shouldn't be *any* combined filings: it gives some an unfair advantage.

Funny... no one was complaining until this gay marriage thingy. ;)

...This is what we have been fighting against. It was only a matter of time; we were just hoping it wouldn't happen so quickly!

I'll believe this when I see some slavering fundaloonie blaming everything from 9/11 to tsunamis on polygamists and pedophiles. :rolleyes:

It has nothing to do with fear of the gay community! If Gays are given the right to an official marriage then where does it stop? Marriage will be destroyed as an institution. The Polygamists are already preping their arguements for when the gay challenge is ratified. The man-boy love ass. is also looking at challenging their rights to have their "love" legal and the legal marriage age lowered. This is what we have been fighting against. It was only a matter of time; we were just hoping it wouldn't happen so quickly!


well i have to agree with every thing he just said. i mean where will it end if we allow gays to marry next people are gonna try and get 3 people in one marrige then we will be forced to allow them because we allowed the queers to get married,and thats one thing i will try my best not to allow even though i may be only 15 i can still make a dent.

Funny... no one was complaining until this gay marriage thingy. ;)

I've held this position since I started filing taxes in 1988. :D

Actually it is in a couples best interest to file seperate and have the (if there is one) stay at home partner claim part of the working partner's income. Filed together a couple ends up with lower personal claims (although Alberta just made it the same either way but that is only the provincial taxes not the federal). Of course that is Canadian taxes I don't know the Americian system well enough to say for sure but you should check it out. usually the personal amount is 75% for the "dependant" spouse.

I agree that there are times when it is more advantageous for a couple to file seperately. There are times when it is more advantageous to file together.

That's not the point. The point is that I still pay nearly 34% taxes, even deducting my home and itemizing, and that's just plain too much.

If I got married, I'd save money if my wife worked or not. That's wrong. The current US tax system is hardest on single people/single filers, and we're 15% of all filers.

Alright, it's been legal for a few years now, and no-one is using Bottle's argument to gain man-boy marriages like you said they might if it's allowed in the USA now. Why not?

Like I said: I don't know how long gay marriage has been legal in Holland, and no one has provided me with a date. I couldn't find any information on it in Slovak nor in English, and I do not read Dutch.

a) If it's been less than (say) ten years, I'd chalk it up to that the movement has not gained enough momentum yet.

b) If it's been more than ten, I'd still have to ask if there even *is* a MBLA in Holland, and if they have an agenda to get this legalized.

yes, because children clearly are able to give legal consent and enter into binding contracts, so NAMBLA would have a solid case.

the slippery slope falacy is soooo 1960s. aren't you folks tired of recycling a decades-old "argument" that's been a joke since before i was born?

False. In the US, child emanicpation is on a state-by-state basis, and needs a court okay in most cases.

http://www.jlc.org/home/mediacenter/factsheets/emancipUSA.html and
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Emancipation.htm

Most children in the US *cannot* give legal consent nor enter into binding contracts.


I'm also tired of people thinking that whatever year they're living in is so very enlightened. (It's 1930! Don't you believe in Eugenics!!? It's the newest, most advanced scientific theory! And it's been proved!)

Like I said: I don't know how long gay marriage has been legal in Holland, and no one has provided me with a date. I couldn't find any information on it in Slovak nor in English, and I do not read Dutch.

a) If it's been less than (say) ten years, I'd chalk it up to that the movement has not gained enough momentum yet.

b) If it's been more than ten, I'd still have to ask if there even *is* a MBLA in Holland, and if they have an agenda to get this legalized.

Personally I think it's because they know no-one will support them, and they cannot come up with any argument as to why minors should be able to get married.
Unlike same-sex marriages.

Personally I think it's because they know no-one will support them, and they cannot come up with any argument as to why minors should be able to get married.
Unlike same-sex marriages.

That's certainly a good possibility too. But I never discount the political power of a loud minority.

That's certainly a good possibility too. But I never discount the political power of a loud minority.

I don't hear anyone crying for man-boy marriages... So they're not very loud are they?

I don't hear anyone crying for man-boy marriages... So they're not very loud are they?

Good question. Do you speak Dutch? Holland was given as an example for a place where gay marriage is legal.

If you go back in the thread, I posted that this might happen in 2012 or so, if gay marriage wins *if* one takes Bottles POV from that post.

The funny thing to me is that I'm pro-gay civil unions, as in the (waaay back) post I made of the proposed Connecticut law.

whats the big deal, why are you religious people so terrified of the homosexual community?

it doesn't affect you, and the rule is that if your church does not want to marry them, then don't.

Im heterosexual and i don't feel threatened at all.

I have yet to hear one good argument against allowing homosexual marriage, all I ever get are religious rebuttals.

And the fact that we are changing tradition, come on now, thats weak, we change traditions all the time.

Perhaps the answer lies in what is considered a "Marriage"...

Marriage, in the traditional sense, is a Union between a man and a woman that is condoned by God. Just as our Constitutional Rights are something derived from God. God also considers homosexuality a sin, and while I believe that all sin can be forgiven, it doesn't mean that we have to MAKE God condone it, does it?

Perhaps you could tell me why gay people feel a need for a "Marriage" rather than just a "Union" that may be recognized by the State? Do they believe that if God is part of their Marriage that he somehow now condones homosexuality?!?!

All men are sinners, and I will not say that homosexuality is something to be outlawed, but to say that it should be condoned by God is another matter entirely, is it not?

So this all goes back to a definition of Marriage. If it is a Union condoned by God, then you can see how some may have a problem with extending it to Gay people, can you not?

Regards,
Gaar

I am only gonna say this once, so all morons take note.

THE SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT IS INHERENTLY RETARDED.

Please don't say "you religious people". I am deeply religious and I am a strong advocate in support of gay marriage. There is more than one way to be religious.

True, but nearly everyone against gay marriage are religious.

I'm serious. How long has it been legal? I have no idea. If it's only been like 2 or 3 years, that's one thing. If it's 30, it's quite another.
Gay marriage was made legal in the Netherlands in april 2001. There have been no reports of problems since then - though that could be due to the fact that people/the media are mostly focussing on "foreigners & Dutch people of islamic descent".

Further, I do not know if there is or is not a MBLA in Holland.
Possibly. It definately isn't very vocal or influential, which is probably wise considering our proximity to Belgium and the Dutroux case. But in all honesty I have never even heard of one.

The question posed me was why the guys over there haven't tried that arguement yet. I'm putting it back to you: I'll find out, just tell me where they are on the web. I don't read Dutch.

Well.. one of the reasons gay marriage was passed relatively easily is probably because the seperation/diffference between churchmarriages and state marriages is very obvious to most. Lots of people do not marry in a church, but in city hall. You need to get married by an official of the state to get the marriage recognised by the government. Another reason may have been the "do not get accused of discrimnation" phase our government went through at that time, and a somewhat tolerant attitude towards "non-standard" sex (see e.g. the red light districts which 'always have been around' in the main cities - probably because they are all harbours). IOW: many Dutch have the philosophy "what people do in their own home is their business, as long as they don't bother me with it".

I doubt this would work for pedophilia (under 16), quite simply because children have quite extreme legal protection here, and the public is very protective. But I'll check .

Intruiging little facts btw:
- The Dutch party which resembles the Republicans most is the LPF, founded by Pim Fortuyn - who was very openly gay.
- The Netherlands currently have a very Christian prime-minister ;)

I am only gonna say this once, so all morons take note.

THE SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT IS INHERENTLY RETARDED.
How can we possibly argue with such a well thought out and compelling argument.

(The slippery slope argument being inherently retarded)


THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hey, before anyone compares gay marriage to interracial marriage, remember that society has a stake in the heterosexual marriage, dependent on it to produce the vast majority of its people. though gay couples rightfully should have the choice of adopting, they'll never give society what it expects from a marriage

i'm for gay marriage, by the way. just wanted to explain why it's not the same as discriminating against other types of "unconventional" marriage.

hey, before anyone compares gay marriage to interracial marriage, remember that society has a stake in the heterosexual marriage, dependent on it to produce the vast majority of its people. though gay couples rightfully should have the choice of adopting, they'll never give society what it expects from a marriage

i'm for gay marriage, by the way. just wanted to explain why it's not the same as discriminating against other types of "unconventional" marriage.

And again, you could bring up all the heterosexual couples who deliberately choose not to have children. They even go so far as to get sterilized. Should they not be allowed to get married because they don't want to make babies?

The argument that marriage is for making babies has been shot to hell already.

How can we possibly argue with such a well thought out and compelling argument.

Now you know how talking to you feels.

False. In the US, child emanicpation is on a state-by-state basis, and needs a court okay in most cases.

http://www.jlc.org/home/mediacenter/factsheets/emancipUSA.html and
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Emancipation.htm

Most children in the US *cannot* give legal consent nor enter into binding contracts.

it was sarcasm, honey. my whole point was that children cannot consent, so the claim that homosexual marriage will lead to pedophilic marriage is totally invalid. sorry if that wasn't clear to you.


I'm also tired of people thinking that whatever year they're living in is so very enlightened. (It's 1930! Don't you believe in Eugenics!!? It's the newest, most advanced scientific theory! And it's been proved!)
it has nothing to do with 2005 being an enlightened year. my point was that the slippery slope falacy as applied to marriage was squashed over 40 years ago, and anybody who is still using it is desperately far behind the times.

read more carefully in the future, and you will avoid wasting your time arguing with nonexistent points.

it was sarcasm, honey. my whole point was that children cannot consent, so the claim that homosexual marriage will lead to pedophilic marriage is totally invalid. sorry if that wasn't clear to you.

Well, jeez louise! C'mon, put a :D or a ;) in there or something.
Maybe even a flag... :)

(BTW: Please re-read the post. I was commenting that your point *could* be used by NAMBLA, not that it'd work.)


it has nothing to do with 2005 being an enlightened year. my point was that the slippery slope falacy as applied to marriage was squashed over 40 years ago, and anybody who is still using it is desperately far behind the times.

read more carefully in the future, and you will avoid wasting your time arguing with nonexistent points.

But: my point is that everyone feels this way, that their ancestors were backwards and that they are more enlightened. This is the primary failing of mankind.

Context, mon ami. This is text communication. I can't hear your tone unless you do something to denote an emotion. :cool:

Context, mon ami. This is text communication. I can't hear your tone unless you do something to denote an emotion. :cool:
Ooh, I have learned you weakness! :mad: From now on, in every post I make, I will punctuate it with random emoticons. :headbang: :p

Gay marriage was made legal in the Netherlands in april 2001. There have been no reports of problems since then - though that could be due to the fact that people/the media are mostly focussing on "foreigners & Dutch people of islamic descent".

Thank you!!! Finally, after *days*, someone actually posted what I was asking for.
In light of this, I posit that four years is too short a time for MBLA (if it even exists) as an organization to have put together a viable man/boy marriage platform.


Possibly. It definately isn't very vocal or influential, which is probably wise considering our proximity to Belgium and the Dutroux case. But in all honesty I have never even heard of one.

Thank you for the clarification!

Bottle, ball is in your court if you still want to debate the Holland is a viable example of a state with working gay marriages. Prohibition lasted over a decade, I think that this has a lot longer to play out.


Well.. one of the reasons gay marriage was passed relatively easily is probably because the seperation/diffference between churchmarriages and state marriages is very obvious to most. Lots of people do not marry in a church, but in city hall. You need to get married by an official of the state to get the marriage recognised by the government. Another reason may have been the "do not get accused of discrimnation" phase our government went through at that time, and a somewhat tolerant attitude towards "non-standard" sex (see e.g. the red light districts which 'always have been around' in the main cities - probably because they are all harbours). IOW: many Dutch have the philosophy "what people do in their own home is their business, as long as they don't bother me with it".

I doubt this would work for pedophilia (under 16), quite simply because children have quite extreme legal protection here, and the public is very protective. But I'll check .

Intruiging little facts btw:
- The Dutch party which resembles the Republicans most is the LPF, founded by Pim Fortuyn - who was very openly gay.
- The Netherlands currently have a very Christian prime-minister ;)

Cool. Thanks again.

I am only gonna say this once, so all morons take note.

THE SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT IS INHERENTLY RETARDED.

So is screaming your point of view.

So is screaming your point of view.
to be fair, when an entire side of a debate places their fingers in their ears and sings "la la la, we're not listening," it's easy to see why the opposition might begin raising their voices :).

Ooh, I have learned you weakness! :mad: From now on, in every post I make, I will punctuate it with random emoticons. :headbang: :p

Do as you will. Snarkiness like that, however, is just plain silly.