NationStates Jolt Archive

I have noticed that when some conservatives are arguing against gay marriage they quickly just start arguing against homosexuality in general. I want to see how many of those who are against gay marriage/unions would also want homosexuality to be banned.

ur a troll

omg!!1

ur a troll

omg!!1
That looks a lot more troll-like than my post.

I think that there's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality at all. Nothing, I mean, what could possibly be wrong with loving someone? Does it matter if they're of the same gender?

Biblical Literalism is such a joke.

As a gay person, I am offended by this thread. Please, do not speculate in my right to exist.

ur a troll

omg!!1

Plutophobia, since I have "known" you, you've been nothing but annoying. I think I speak for everyone when I say...shut up.

No, homosexuality should not be banned. It should be protected along with other sexual rights.

But no, this is a stupid question. How are you going to enforce it? Stoning?

I mean--hey, that's what the Bible says. Unless, of course, you interpret "homosexuality" as meaning "homosexual prostitute", as many scholars agree it is. From what I've seen, there's equal proof for either case, that it's a sin or that it isn't.

But, ethically, if you're truly ignorant of something immoral and there was no way to prevent it, you aren't responsible. So, if the translations have been lost and aren't clear (yes, Fundamentalists, it's not perfect), then you just have to accept that some things are unknown. After all, the only 'unforgivable' sin is blaspheming against the holy spirit.

Talking about this from a secular standpoint, it's outright ridiculous. There's no proof that homosexuality makes society immoral. I mean, compare Netherlands to America. Compare the crime rates. End of story. And they have legalized marijuana too!

Frankly, these are the kind of issues that are destroying democracy.

The best answer is: It doesn't matter.

Homosexual marriage doesn't affect you unless your homosexual, and it's the biggest shame when conservatives in America use so called "morality" to get votes from ignorant people.

What an absurd question. How can you ban sexuality? You could ban homosexual acts, but you could not ban a sexual orientation. That would be like banning "being Chinese".

As a gay person, I am offended by this thread. Please, do not speculate in my right to exist.

He is speculating in your right to practise homosexuality, not to exist.

How about we just kill everyone who isn't exactly like us.

Oh wait that would mean that you would be the only one left alive.

Saying homosexuals can't get married is like saying left handed people can't get married. Both are different from the norm but none do anything harmful to society.

He is speculating in your right to practise homosexuality, not to exist.

Separate your (presumed) heterosexuality from who you are! Well, can you? Also, consult the title of the thread.

Is it any of our business if homosexual persons want to share the joy of marriage?
No.

Does it affect us?
No.

I'm bisexual, btw.

From a Christian perspective I believe homosexual sex to be a sin, and therefore would like it to be banned. But in terms of civil freedoms, I understand the kind of level of intrusion that would cause so I dont think it should happen. In an ideal situation IMHO I think it should be banned and that there would be some way of enforcing it without intruding so much (I have no idea how, so dont ask).

I oppose homosexual marriage because marriage is not just a union between two people. It is a union between a man and a women. Its like changing the defininon of driving liscence to enable you to control an aircraft yet only requiring the same test skills. I do not believe marriage is something that homosexual couples qualify for for the simple reason they are not men and women, but merely two men or two women.

Why do you care what two consenting adults do with their time? (not aimed at anyone in particular, just a sort of...general statement)

Separate your (presumed) heterosexuality from who you are! Well, can you? Also, consult the title of the thread.

I am quite happy to pursue a life of abstiance if the law so requires. How a country could expect to suvive on a policy of hetrosexual abstanice I do not know. What its saying is that it would make the practise of homosexuality illegal (as it was till the early 90's I believe, in the UK)

Tell me how you'll enforce any presumed law against it? *snicker*

Try working on something achievable.

He is speculating in your right to practise homosexuality, not to exist.
Everyone's sexuality is such an intrinsic part of who they are. If the government banned heterosexual sex I would probably be suicidal.

What an absurd question. How can you ban sexuality? You could ban homosexual acts, but you could not ban a sexual orientation. That would be like banning "being Chinese".
I realised the stupidity of the question when writing the poll, which is why I said "homosexual sex" in the poll.

Its like changing the defininon of driving liscence to enable you to control an aircraft yet only requiring the same test skills. I do not believe marriage is something that homosexual couples qualify for for the simple reason they are not men and women, but merely two men or two women.

No because if two men get married they aren't harming anyone yet if I were to get in a plane without knowing how to fly it I could potentially kill other people and most likely myself.

Bad analogy.

I am quite happy to pursue a life of abstiance if the law so requires.

I don't believe you. Would you be happy to not be allowed to marry? Not be allowed to have children? Not be allowed to be christian?

How a country could expect to suvive on a policy of hetrosexual abstanice I do not know. What its saying is that it would make the practise of homosexuality illegal (as it was till the early 90's I believe, in the UK)

Consult the title of the thread. Oh, and do not play word games with me. "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is a bunch of crock, and you know it. Oh, and homosexuality was not illegal in the UK until the early 90's. The UK would have been bitch-slapped by the European Court for Human Rights for it a long time before.

Sometimes it surprises me how intolerant some leftists (or those whom I presume leftists)--who seem to flock under the banner of tolerance--can be.

And for the record, I'm just fine with homosexuals doing what they want unto the point of equality between sexualities.

Actually, uh...
according to dictionaries, same-sex marriage is listed in the defination of marriage. Along with hetrosexual marriage.

1

1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=marriage&x=0&y=0

Can't go wrong with dictionaries. ;)

I am quite happy to pursue a life of abstiance if the law so requires. How a country could expect to suvive on a policy of hetrosexual abstanice I do not know. What its saying is that it would make the practise of homosexuality illegal (as it was till the early 90's I believe, in the UK)
no

I oppose homosexual marriage because marriage is not just a union between two people. It is a union between a man and a women. Its like changing the defininon of driving liscence to enable you to control an aircraft yet only requiring the same test skills. I do not believe marriage is something that homosexual couples qualify for for the simple reason they are not men and women, but merely two men or two women.
This is ridiculous discrimination. It's not comparable because controlling an aircraft requires many different skills to driving. I have reason to believe that someone who only holds a driving licence would be unable to cope with a plane, but I have no reason to believe that homosexual couples could not cope with marriage.

Everyone's sexuality is such an intrinsic part of who they are. If the government banned heterosexual sex I would probably be suicidal.
Homosexuals are in the minority so I dont think it would make a difference. Any way I thought the point of the holy sacrement of marriage was to produce children.

It's like putting a square through a circle.

It doesn't work.

It was suppose to be and is a cirlce through a circle.

Jesus, homosexuality is just disgusting.

Ban the suckers. :mp5:

I have noticed that when some conservatives are arguing against gay marriage they quickly just start arguing against homosexuality in general. I want to see how many of those who are against gay marriage/unions would also want homosexuality to be banned.

I think gaylords and lesbians should be allowed to marry, have civil unions and whatnot. It's nobody else's business. However, what is other people business is adoption of children by gay couples. I don't think that should be legal. I mean come, on. Wouldn't you be made fun of 24/7 in school for having 2 dads or 2 moms ? *ducks in preemption to flamege*

Homosexuals are in the minority so I dont think it would make a difference. Any way I thought the point of the holy sacrement of marriage was to produce children.

Exactly.

Sometimes it surprises me how intolerant some leftists (or those whom I presume leftists)--who seem to flock under the banner of tolerance--can be.
Care to explain that one? Also not all of us who support the "radical" goal of civil rights equality are left-wing.

I'm gonna do my usual response of saying "LIVE AND LET LIVE" what consenting adults do is none of our business and if they are in a stable relationship then why shouldn't they have the same rights and priviledges as hetrosexual couples?

Tell me how you'll enforce any presumed law against it? *snicker*

Try working on something achievable.

they can kill them all.

It's like putting a square through a circle.

It doesn't work.

It was suppose to be and is a cirlce through a circle.

Umm, my boyfriend sure didn't complain when we were putting circles and squares through whatever we wanted last night.

Jesus, homosexuality is just disgusting.

I'll be sure not to care.

I oppose homosexual marriage because marriage is not just a union between two people. It is a union between a man and a women. Its like changing the defininon of driving liscence to enable you to control an aircraft yet only requiring the same test skills. I do not believe marriage is something that homosexual couples qualify for for the simple reason they are not men and women, but merely two men or two women.

Switched sides again, have you? You *have* conceded before that there is a difference between religious and civil marriage and that civil marriage rights should not be denied.

Jesus, homosexuality is just disgusting.

Ban the suckers. :mp5:
"It's disgusting" is not sufficient grounding for law.

I'm against gay marriage on religious grounds (I'm an OMG 3v1L Lutheran).

Civil Unions, though, I have no problem with. Let 'em do what they want, I don't really care.

Homosexuals are in the minority so I dont think it would make a difference. Any way I thought the point of the holy sacrement of marriage was to produce children.
:headbang: Marriage is not just religous it is a legaly recognised contract entitling the participants to around 1500 diferen tState and Federal rights and privlages.

Homosexuals are in the minority so I dont think it would make a difference. Any way I thought the point of the holy sacrement of marriage was to produce children.

Who said anything about the "holy sacrament of marriage"? We are speaking of *civil* marriage here.

Homosexuals are in the minority so I dont think it would make a difference.

So violating the basic human rights of people is OK if it's done to less than a majority?!

Umm, my boyfriend sure didn't complain when we were putting circles and squares through whatever we wanted last night.



I'll be sure not to care.
dude, WTF! Some people are eating.



Shiit.

Civil Unions, though, I have no problem with. Let 'em do what they want, I don't really care.

Marriage is a civil union.

So violating the basic human rights of people is OK if it's done to less than a majority?!
Why of course :rolleyes:

Switched sides again, have you? You *have* conceded before that there is a difference between religious and civil marriage and that civil marriage rights should not be denied.

Yes, but as I said, I was talking from a Christian perspective. From a political one, I can see that there is an arguement for fairness of treatment. But I dont think it should be called marriage and I dont think it should be treated the same way by the government.

It's like putting a square through a circle.

It doesn't work.

It was suppose to be and is a cirlce through a circle.

Jesus, homosexuality is just disgusting.

Ban the suckers. :mp5:

Blimey, you're quite the backwards medieval-minded **** aren't you?

dude, WTF! Some people are eating.



Shiit.

If I were any less of a controlled person, I would tell you to eff off. I do not belittle your sexuality, so do not belittle mine! :mad:

Yes, but as I said, I was talking from a Christian perspective. From a political one, I can see that there is an arguement for fairness of treatment. But I dont think it should be called marriage and I dont think it should be treated the same way by the government.

In other words, you are a bigot - as pointed out many times before.

Meanwhile, you were not talking from a "Christian" perspective, but from a "Neo Cannen's version of Christian" perspective. Try not to confuse the two.

So violating the basic human rights of people is OK if it's done to less than a majority?!

Marriage is not a basic human right

Yes, but as I said, I was talking from a Christian perspective. From a political one, I can see that there is an arguement for fairness of treatment. But I dont think it should be called marriage and I dont think it should be treated the same way by the government.

It should be treated with the same status. If the gripe with marriage is that it has religious connotations, then surely from the point of view of a secular government all civil unions are equal and religious whatnot doesn't come into it?

Marriage is not a basic human right

Equal protection under the law *is* a basic human right. If you would like to ban civil marriage altogether, have at it.

dude, WTF! Some people are eating.



Shiit.

Dude you eat while checkin out a message board?

Marriage is a civil union.

Disclaimer: I can speak only for the US, as I don't how it is in other countries.

Marriage is, in the United States, for the most part, the joining of a man and woman in a state-recognized religious ceremony. True, people can get married by a justice of the peace or whatever, but the vast majority are religious. That's what I was talking about, I apologize if my words were confusing.

Marriage is not a basic human right

Maybe you should read the declaration of the human rights one more time?

Also, maybe you should review your reading comprehension skills, as that was not a comment about marriage.

I think gaylords and lesbians should be allowed to marry, have civil unions and whatnot. It's nobody else's business. However, what is other people business is adoption of children by gay couples. I don't think that should be legal. I mean come, on. Wouldn't you be made fun of 24/7 in school for having 2 dads or 2 moms ? *ducks in preemption to flamege*

Dammit why is noone criticizing/agreeing with my post? Or at least pick up on gay child adoption?

Marriage is, in the United States, for the most part, the joining of a man and woman in a state-recognized religious ceremony. True, people can get married by a justice of the peace or whatever, but the vast majority are religious. That's what I was talking about, I apologize if my words were confusing.

Those are no more religious in the eye of the law or the government than any other. The fact that some people choose to have a religious ceremony/initiation does not make their marriage religious in the least.

Blimey, you're quite the backwards medieval-minded c*** aren't you?
its flame ignore it, unless you want the mods on you

I think there should be more gays, gay men i mean and ALOT more...to leave more straight girls for the rest of us..i mean come on what are you scared of lol them seducing your sons...come on man..lol if they could do that, guess what your sons a mo lol. Anyways yeah i dont see anything wrong with gays or gaydom, dont see a reason too..but religions are all against gay marriage so civil unions are fine ^.^.

Dammit why is noone criticizing/agreeing with my post? Or at least pick up on gay child adoption?

Because it is completely invalid, as I can tell you, since I live in a country where gay adoptions are legal.

Disclaimer: I can speak only for the US, as I don't how it is in other countries.

Marriage is, in the United States, for the most part, the joining of a man and woman in a state-recognized religious ceremony. True, people can get married by a justice of the peace or whatever, but the vast majority are religious. That's what I was talking about, I apologize if my words were confusing.

Actually, you are completely wrong. Civil marriage in the US is a legal status which applies certain rights, responsibilities, and protections to a couple who applies for a marriage license. The fact that it is often given by a religious leader is a matter of convenience, not the point of the civil marriage.

Sadly, I'm not sure it was a flame. There are people in the USA and across the world who genuinely think like that.

Disclaimer: I can speak only for the US, as I don't how it is in other countries.

Marriage is, in the United States, for the most part, the joining of a man and woman in a state-recognized religious ceremony. True, people can get married by a justice of the peace or whatever, but the vast majority are religious. That's what I was talking about, I apologize if my words were confusing.
What the hell does the fact that "most" people have a religous cermony got to do with it, there is also a legal cermony of marriage which is also being denied to same-sex couples.

Care to explain that one? Also not all of us who support the "radical" goal of civil rights equality are left-wing.

Well, this thread was clearly meant to encourage debate of a frequently-debated issue, yet people who you apparently agree with seem to take issue with the very mention the topic. Perhaps "intolerance" isn't the right word, but I definitely am no fan of the defensiveness that often results from someone saying something other than "gay marriage is absolutely right." One day, when I'm more lucid, I'll address that more thoroughly.

And those who view this as a civil-rights battle are, for the most, part left wing--even more so if you only take social issues into account when determining leftness or rightness.

Homosexuals are in the minority so I dont think it would make a difference. Any way I thought the point of the holy sacrement of marriage was to produce children.


Okay, let's follow your logic. If the point of marriage was to produce children, then people who had produced children, or who couldn't would have to have their marriages terminated. Is that right for, say, your grandparents to have to divorce simply because they couldn't have children anymore, even when they had been to together for 50+ years?

Also, along those lines. If marriage were for producing children, then females would be pregnant all of their married lives if they didn't want to divorce. Because along those lines of defense against "the immoral concept of homosexual marraige," females would have to produce children or be in the process of producing them or it would be illegal to claim the legal benefits that make of civil marriage.

Just a thought. . .

The person is should decide on their own to stop or go on. It's not up to the governement to decide. :sniper:

Because it is completely invalid, as I can tell you, since I live in a country where gay adoptions are legal.

Yeah but don't you also live in a country where gay marriage/civil unions are legal? If so, then why did you comment on the topic at all?

Furthermore, your reason is not enough cause for my statement to be invalid because not all countries are like yours.

If I were any less of a controlled person, I would tell you to eff off. I do not belittle your sexuality, so do not belittle mine! :mad:
I will not start arguing on this thread.
I will not start arguing on this thread.
I will not start arguing on this thread.
I will not start arguing on this thread.
I really won't.
No I won't
I want to, but I won't.
It's not going to accomplish anything.
Deep breath in..... Deep breath out.
I am relaxed.
I will not argue on this thread.

Sadly, I'm not sure it was a flame. There are people in the USA and across the world who genuinely think like that.
still considered flame/troll if there is no basis, its just a statement to get a rise out of someone.
In the UK its called Fishing but hey

Well, this thread was clearly meant to encourage debate of a frequently-debated issue, yet people who you apparently agree with seem to take issue with the very mention the topic. Perhaps "intolerance" isn't the right word, but I definitely am no fan of the defensiveness that often results from someone saying something other than "gay marriage is absolutely right." One day, when I'm more lucid, I'll address that more thoroughly.

I have no problem with someone who *personally* believes that homosexuals should not marry or who refuses to recognize such a union in their church. I *do* have a problem with *anyone* who works to *legally* deny equal protection to someone.

Equal protection under the law *is* a basic human right. If you would like to ban civil marriage altogether, have at it.

I would personally like the government to be out of marriage alltogether and make it a purely religious affair as it was originally. Marriage was never a government idea and government recontion of marriage is unessecary. Government recognition of family is somewhat diffrent but as many people know, you do not need to be married to have children.

Dude you eat while checkin out a message board?
I always do that. Surprisingly, I am not fat. But I eat while I am on the computer a lot.

And those who view this as a civil-rights battle are, for the most, part left wing--even more so if you only take social issues into account when determining leftness or rightness.
Left-wing vs. Right-wing is economics. Social issues have nothing to do with left-or-right-wingedness.

I have no problem with someone who *personally* believes that homosexuals should not marry or who refuses to recognize such a union in their church. I *do* have a problem with *anyone* who works to *legally* deny equal protection to someone.

I have a problem with asteriks but you don't see me protesting.

Yeah but don't you also live in a country where gay marriage/civil unions are legal? If so, then why did you comment on the topic at all?

Because it's there and I will not stand by when my existence and rights are questioned.

Furthermore, your reason is not enough cause for my statement to be invalid because not all countries are like yours.

You said they would be bullied. Before Sweden took the decision to allow gay adoption, the government did a large review of all the avaliable research on children with gay parents. The result was simply this: They differed in no way to children of heterosexuals, in any respect.

Banned, and how would you go about doing that. Its not really a choice in many cases so I guess you'd have a lot of criminals. That sounds archaic but something I can see Texas doing someday.

I would personally like the government to be out of marriage alltogether and make it a purely religious affair as it was originally. Marriage was never a government idea and government recontion of marriage is unessecary. Government recognition of family is somewhat diffrent but as many people know, you do not need to be married to have children.

You don't need children to be a family.

Like I said though, go ahead and start working towards getting rid of all the legal protections afforded to marriage.

I always do that. Surprisingly, I am not fat. But I eat while I am on the computer a lot.

Hehe...When I eat I ususally watch some show on my comp :D

Homosexuality is wrong simply because it deviates from an institution that is older than even mankind. The ideal of marriage is simply one man and one women devoted to raising family. When there is deviation from this of any kind, it causes problems. Divorce rates have been rising very quickly in our country and divorce has a very negative effect on the children because they lose the loving home they had before and time spent away from either parent will not provide them with the nescessary maternal and paternal figures that they need to grow up healthy. Not to say that all children of divorce suffer from this, but statistics have shown that it is more likely. Even worse, unhealthy family relationship as a child can lead to an unhealthy family relation ship when that individual person decides to become a mother or father. Kids need certain things in order to realize there full potentional that is only found in the several million year old institution of traditional marriage.

I have a problem with asteriks but you don't see me protesting.

I'm not trying to make your use of them legally compulsory, am I?

I will not argue on this thread.

You already did that when you decided to insult me by belittling my sexuality in such a way.

I have no problem with someone who *personally* believes that homosexuals should not marry or who refuses to recognize such a union in their church. I *do* have a problem with *anyone* who works to *legally* deny equal protection to someone.

I wasn't exactly addressing you in my post, but okay, so noted.

Left-wing vs. Right-wing is economics. Social issues have nothing to do with left-or-right-wingedness.

Err... why not? Maybe the textbook or news program or whatever you're getting the idea from doesn't hold to the idea that social issues can be vaguely defined by the left/right spectrum, but how is the idea not valid? Here you have the social liberals on the left who are advocates of change of the social order, and here you have social conservatives on the right who are advocates of the status quo or even pre-status-quo. Where is the problem?

Homosexuality is wrong simply because it deviates from an institution that is older than even mankind.

No man made instututions are older than mankind.

By the by, homosexuality is older than mankind.

Because it's there and I will not stand by when my existence and rights are questioned.



You said they would be bullied. Before Sweden took the decision to allow gay adoption, the government did a large review of all the avaliable research on children with gay parents. The result was simply this: They differed in no way to children of heterosexuals, in any respect.

That's good to hear, I guess. You won't ever see me among militant opponents of gay adoption, but still...I guess it's just one of those opinions I can't explain with logic. Kinda like a religion

BTW, I hope nobody was offended by me saying "gaylords". I just happen not give a fuck about political correctness. I mean, what kind of person would you prefer: Someone who says "Faggots are okay." or someone who says "Homosexual persons should be rounded up and executed"?

I don't believe you. Would you be happy to not be allowed to marry? Not be allowed to have children? Not be allowed to be christian?



Consult the title of the thread. Oh, and do not play word games with me. "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is a bunch of crock, and you know it. Oh, and homosexuality was not illegal in the UK until the early 90's. The UK would have been bitch-slapped by the European Court for Human Rights for it a long time before.
I agree its as if they're comparing drunks to homosexuals in the sense of calling them "sins" but loving the "sinner". There is no way you could enforce such a ban unless you put cameras in everyone's house. I mean seriously how the fuck are going to tell if someone is homosexual in their own ome?

That's good to hear, I guess. You won't ever see me among militant opponents of gay adoption, but still...I guess it's just one of those opinions I can't explain with logic. Kinda like a religion

As such, it is among the opinions that you should not try to force on others through legislation.

Bisexuality should be compulsory. And marriage is a seriously meaningless idea anyway. The gays are giving in.
Ban all marriage!

Marriage is not a man made institution. Evidence shows that even dinosaurs had a basic family structure.

I'm against gay marriage on religious grounds.I'm against pork consumption on religious grounds.

And beef.

Oh, and shellfish.

Hell; add vegetable, grain, fish, mammal, fruit, insect, reptile and anything else drawn from my Ultimate List of Random Proscriptions.

I like cheese, though, so you're OK there (that bit of the List is clearly out-dated and no longer relevant). Cheddar's my favourite.

Naturally, I'll be lobbying to make these requirements compulsory for the rest of you as well. Sorry. It's for your own good, and the betterment of society as a whole. Your immortal soul will thank me for it one day.

If this were a thread merely about gay marriage or gay rights thats one thing, but not banning homosexuality. That will only cause people to throw shit at each other over something that is highly unlikely and impossible.

Marriage is not a man made institution. Evidence shows that even dinosaurs had a basic family structure.

If we are going by animal pair bonding for this, then we should recognize that many animals often have *homosexual* pair bonds and raise children within them.

Thanks for the argument *for* homosexual marriage!

I am against driving, seeing as it is against my religion. Driving is the tool of satan, its not natural!

I'm for all gay rights, but as of now, I've essentially stopped caring. I think society is either tolerant enough, or stopped caring like I did. So you're gay.
www.cerebralsynergy.com/e107_plugins/autogallery/autogallery.php?show=Funny%2FForum+Replys%2FWho_Cares_-_Meter.gif

where did the children come from

My position is kind of different from most...

I think all government regulation of marriage should be done away with, and replaced with the ability of one or more persons to unite and split their property. I said "civil unions" because that was as close as the pole came to listing my position.

This may seem stupid and uneccassary, but why does the gov. need to regulate marriage in the first place? To tax them? Oh, great reason. More taxes. For divorce? Falls under my property union solution. This is simply the most logical position you can possibly take. It should've been done a while ago, the gay marriage thing just brought it to the forefront. Under my system, gay people can say that they are married, and even polygamous relationships can, but the government doesn't force other people to recongnise it.

Also, whether or not homosexuality is immoral is irrevalent. It's victimless, they aren't hurting anyone. Therefore the govenerment not only shouldn't ban it, it has absolutely no right to.

Homosexuality is wrong simply because it deviates from an institution that is older than even mankind. The ideal of marriage is simply one man and one women devoted to raising family. When there is deviation from this of any kind, it causes problems. Divorce rates have been rising very quickly in our country and divorce has a very negative effect on the children because they lose the loving home they had before and time spent away from either parent will not provide them with the nescessary maternal and paternal figures that they need to grow up healthy. Not to say that all children of divorce suffer from this, but statistics have shown that it is more likely. Even worse, unhealthy family relationship as a child can lead to an unhealthy family relation ship when that individual person decides to become a mother or father. Kids need certain things in order to realize there full potentional that is only found in the several million year old institution of traditional marriage.


With all due respect, you are an idiot. So banning two people who might possibly have children and care for them better than those people that divorce is something that needs to be institutionalized, simply because it's not divorce? That is basically what you are saying. And how can marriage be older than mankind? Were there humans to marry before mankind existed? Think before you write. It leads to a much better line of communication

Marriage is not a man made institution. Evidence shows that even dinosaurs had a basic family structure.
A basic family structure a marrage dose not make.

Marriage is not a man made institution.

Yes, it is.

Evidence shows that even dinosaurs had a basic family structure.

Evidence shows that homosexual animals have such a structure as well. Read up on things before you run your mouth.

where did the children come from

ME.

Homosexuality is wrong simply because it deviates from an institution that is older than even mankind. The ideal of marriage is simply one man and one women devoted to raising family. When there is deviation from this of any kind, it causes problems. Divorce rates have been rising very quickly in our country and divorce has a very negative effect on the children because they lose the loving home they had before and time spent away from either parent will not provide them with the nescessary maternal and paternal figures that they need to grow up healthy. Not to say that all children of divorce suffer from this, but statistics have shown that it is more likely. Even worse, unhealthy family relationship as a child can lead to an unhealthy family relation ship when that individual person decides to become a mother or father. Kids need certain things in order to realize there full potentional that is only found in the several million year old institution of traditional marriage.

You saying you could have a better marriage than me we another man?

I agree its as if they're comparing drunks to homosexuals in the sense of calling them "sins" but loving the "sinner". There is no way you could enforce such a ban unless you put cameras in everyone's house. I mean seriously how the fuck are going to tell if someone is homosexual in their own home?

If this were a thread merely about gay marriage and gay rights thats one thing, but not banning homosexuality. That will only cause people to throw shit at each other over something that is highly unlikely and impossible.

It's impossible to enforce any ban on homosexuality as a whole.

This does not mean that such bans do not exist--I believe that in Texas, for example, sodomy is against the law. And sodomy would include a lot of things--including homosexual sex. Personally I think this ban is important even though it cannot be enforced, because it sort of sets this precedent that homosexuality is wrong; if I were a right-wing anti-gay what-you-call, I would most definitely push for delegalization of homosexual sex because it would effect the mindsets of lots of impressionable people and would actually make others with similar views feel safer. Such is the way things are. You can, in effect, bring back a regression of society by putting in place laws that cannot be enforced.

My position is kind of different from most...

I think all government regulation of marriage should be done away with, and replaced with the ability of one or more persons to unite and split their property. I said "civil unions" because that was as close as the pole came to listing my position.

This may seem stupid and uneccassary, but why does the gov. need to regulate marriage in the first place? To tax them? Oh, great reason. More taxes. For divorce? Falls under my property union solution. This is simply the most logical position you can possibly take. It should've been done a while ago, the gay marriage thing just brought it to the forefront. Under my system, gay people can say that they are married, and even polygamous relationships can, but the government doesn't force other people to recongnise it.

Also, whether or not homosexuality is immoral is irrevalent. It's victimless, they aren't hurting anyone. Therefore the govenerment not only shouldn't ban it, it has absolutely no right to.
Bless you.

If we are going by animal pair bonding for this, then we should recognize that many animals often have *homosexual* pair bonds and raise children within them.

Thanks for the argument *for* homosexual marriage!

Especially Monkey's lol :D . Read from that what you will ;)

As such, it is among the opinions that you should not try to force on others through legislation.

Do you not see the problem with that though? Gay adopters force the adoption onto a child.

It's impossible to enforce any ban on homosexuality as a whole.

This does not mean that such bans do not exist--I believe that in Texas, for example, sodomy is against the law. And sodomy would include a lot of things--including homosexual sex. Personally I think this ban is important even though it cannot be enforced, because it sort of sets this precedent that homosexuality is wrong; if I were a right-wing anti-gay what-you-call, I would most definitely push for delegalization of homosexual sex because it would effect the mindsets of lots of impressionable people and would actually make others with similar views feel safer. Such is the way things are. You can, in effect, bring back a regression of society by putting in place laws that cannot be enforced.
If you can change the mindset of the people, you can do a shitload of damage.

Do you not see the problem with that though? Gay adopters force the adoption onto a child.

As do straight adopters. Should there be a ban on straight adoption?

where did the children come from

I'll assume this was directed at me.

And the answer is, it depends. In some species, one of the pair bond will find a different-sex partner and mate, and then exclude them from raising the offspring - this is pretty common in male pair-bonds in birds. In female birds, the female is sometimes mated with against her will and sometimes she goes looking for it, but always returns to raise the offspring with her female partner. Sometimes two females will both mate with males, but then return to each other and will actually law in the same nest and take care of all of the offspring together.

This does not mean that such bans do not exist--I believe that in Texas, for example, sodomy is against the law.

Those laws were struck down two years ago by the SCOTUS.

religion...

Fuck that. A religion is nothing more than a widely accepted cult.

If gay people want to get married, so be it. They can be miserable like the rest of us. :P

Err... why not? Maybe the textbook or news program or whatever you're getting the idea from doesn't hold to the idea that social issues can be vaguely defined by the left/right spectrum, but how is the idea not valid? Here you have the social liberals on the left who are advocates of change of the social order, and here you have social conservatives on the right who are advocates of the status quo or even pre-status-quo. Where is the problem?

That's an oversimplification.

The way I see it, issues should only be judged by whether they take away liberty from a person.

Although this doesn't always hold true, right-wingers typically believe in freedom on the economic side, and left-wingers typically believe in liberty on the social side. That kind of baffles me, since you'd think that a person who would believe in giving people freedom with their bodies would give them freedom with their money, but that's how things work.

I'm a libertarian, so I believe in liberty on both sides.

This does not mean that such bans do not exist--I believe that in Texas, for example, sodomy is against the law. And sodomy would include a lot of things--including homosexual sex. Personally I think this ban is important even though it cannot be enforced, because it sort of sets this precedent that homosexuality is wrong; if I were a right-wing anti-gay what-you-call, I would most definitely push for delegalization of homosexual sex because it would effect the mindsets of lots of impressionable people and would actually make others with similar views feel safer. Such is the way things are. You can, in effect, bring back a regression of society by putting in place laws that cannot be enforced.

Look up Lawrence v. Texas - the sodomy laws in Texas (and other places) were struck down as unconstitutional.

Why even ask. What somebody does is their own buisness. And yes, I am conservative

Do you not see the problem with that though? Gay adopters force the adoption onto a child.

Most children old enough to think about it *want* to be adopted.

But even so, if you are upset that adoption gets forced upon children, I suppose you should be working for a ban on *all* adoption, not just that of homosexual couples.

As do straight adopters. Should there be a ban on straight adoption?

Dunno. What about single-parent adoption?

"Look up Lawrence v. Texas - the sodomy laws in Texas (and other places) were struck down as unconstitutional."

That law was struck down because it specifically banned homosexual sex. It was enforced for gays but not for straight people. If you banned anal sex for both straights and gays, I think it could, possibly, be thought of as constitutional.

Dunno. What about single-parent adoption?

What about it?

Most children old enough to think about it *want* to be adopted.

But even so, if you are upset that adoption gets forced upon children, I suppose you should be working for a ban on *all* adoption, not just that of homosexual couples.

Yeah, come to think of it, I could carry my point further saying that birth is something forced on the child, so it should be banned aswell :D

That law was struck down because it specifically banned homosexual sex. It was enforced for gays but not for straight people. If you banned anal sex for both straights and gays, I think it could, possibly, be thought of as constitutional.

The law banned *all* sodomy, but was only *enforced* for homosexual.s

Meanwhile, banning a sex act is unconstitutional on the basis that it is (a) unenforceable - and you can argue against a law on that basis and (b) an invasion of privacy.

"Look up Lawrence v. Texas - the sodomy laws in Texas (and other places) were struck down as unconstitutional."

That law was struck down because it specifically banned homosexual sex. It was enforced for gays but not for straight people. If you banned anal sex for both straights and gays, I think it could, possibly, be thought of as constitutional.

http://www.sodomylaws.org/lawrence/lawrence.htm

It wasn't stricken down just because of equal protection, but because of right to privacy concerns as well.

All right, so it appears that the sodomy laws went byebye. Alas, I am shamed. My point remains, however: a ban on homosexual sex, even if unenforceable, can effect a community substantially.

And as for the thing about it being too much of a generalization to categorize someone based on the left/right spectrum on social issues, I am well aware of this. Any time that the left/right spectrum comes into play, it results in the loss of many significant details. The general idea that I was getting at, however, which is that the leftists would support more change in the social structure, seems to make sense to me.

Well, this thread was clearly meant to encourage debate of a frequently-debated issue, yet people who you apparently agree with seem to take issue with the very mention the topic. Perhaps "intolerance" isn't the right word, but I definitely am no fan of the defensiveness that often results from someone saying something other than "gay marriage is absolutely right." One day, when I'm more lucid, I'll address that more thoroughly.

And those who view this as a civil-rights battle are, for the most, part left wing--even more so if you only take social issues into account when determining leftness or rightness.
I don't have any problem with people debating the issue. Being defensive or disagreeable is not the same as being intolerant. And left-wing, right-wing are only measures of economic policies. I am a right-wing social libertarian, so well, screw your one dimensional, black and white political line!

If you feel that homosexuality should be banned because it is 'unnatural' then you must also ban things like flying, driving, roller coaster riding...

If you feel that it should be banned because the Bible calls it a sin, then you must also ban premarital sex, oral sex and masturbation. As someone mentioned earlier, it would be impossible to enforce this without installing cameras everywhere (not just bedrooms).

If you want to ban gay marriage because they don't have children, then you must ban all childless marriages.

If you want to ban homosexuality because you find it revolting, then make sure you stay ignorant, because there are LOTS of more disgusting sexual behaviors.

If you want to ban gays from adopting because their kids will be teased, then you must also ban any marriage that may produce a red-headed child, a fat child, an ugly child, or any other kind of child that might get teased. (this is the most stupid argument of all)

And i must point out that while many couples DO have a religious wedding, no such wedding entitles them to the benefits of marriage. Those couples must STILL apply for a marriage license and file it with the State. The only marriage that is recognized by the courts is a civil union, not church weddings. So if your church does not want to let gays get married in the church, that's fine and covered under religious freedom. But the basic human right of equality under the law requires that if you let two people get married/civilly united, you cannot discriminate on the basis of their gender. Technically, even ASKING them what gender they are is unconstitutional.

Also, at least in the US, we are given the inalienable right to Pursuit of Happiness, which would be denied if you didn't let people marry who they wanted to. A vast majority of one's happiness is reached through this type of bond.

And homosexuality has existed longer than humans, longer than marriage, and it occurs in the animal kingdom plenty. And in human culture, homosexuality was accepted until Christianity decided it wasn't okay. Jesus himself is not quoted anywhere as having spoken out against homosexuality.

why not rail against pedophiles or some other sexual deviation that ACTUALLY HAS A VICTIM??

screw your one dimensional, black and white political line!

I use a three-dimensional box, actually. :P

Each dimension is defined by one line of left/rightness (economic, social, authoritative).

I was just talking about one dimension of said box.

Homosexuality is wrong simply because it deviates from an institution that is older than even mankind.
Wrong. Homosexuality has been observed in many mammals.

Regarding the arguement that Gay Marriage hurts family values:
Why does it destroy family values if we ask homosexuals to adobt the same moral standards that straight couples are expected to have. Gay Marriage would HELP family values. What is wrong with two gay men or women marrying, and maybe adopting some children who didn't have a home any other way. Are two parents of the same gender somehow unable to equal the amount of love two parents of opposite gender can give. If the child has any psycological damage from having two gay parents, its for one reason. WE made it a problem. Christianity MADE it a problem. That kid will be tormented and teased because we think that there is something wrong with being gay. It isn't family values that Gay Marriage is against, its Christian values its against. Don't even get me started on "Faith-Based Initiatives." Christians have no right to inject thier beliefs onto us.

I use a three-dimensional box, actually. :P

Each dimension is defined by one line of left/rightness (economic, social, authoritative).

I was just talking about one dimension of said box.

where's democratic totalitarianism fit? i'd like to know more about your political box

OK...

I wasn't defending the law, I was arguing the consitutionality of the law. Whether or not it's consitutional is irrevalant, though. The government has no right to regulate sex.

Quit asking these same questions over and over again.

All right, so it appears that the sodomy laws went byebye. Alas, I am shamed. My point remains, however: a ban on homosexual sex, even if unenforceable, can effect a community substantially.

Yes, by causing psychological problems in those who are "different".

where's democratic totalitarianism fit? i'd like to know more about your political box

It would fit awkwardly--though much better than dictatorial totalitarianism would.

The box assumes already that democracy is the preferred form of government. If it didn't, I'd need to add a fourth dimension, and then I would no longer be able to draw the little boxes in my head and I would be sad.

The the totalitarianism thing would put you pretty much on the rightward end of the authoritative part of the box--but the rest depends on economic and social values.

Some fellow wrote an article which this box is based off of--I can't for the life of me remember who, but it was pretty decent. Of course, I don't use the boxes much because even with different categories, it still uses "left" and "right" which are both way too general.

I am insulted! We need to keep these damn fags away from us! I mean, telling them to be strait is kind of like telling us strait peopleto be gay! Wait a second, I just destoyed my arguement. Damn.

And as for that dude who was insulted by us judging his right to exist. Stop being such a pussy! You're the kind of person who gives those who are "sexually challenged" a bad name. I'm bisexual myself, but I don't use it as a crutch to say, "Oh, stop beating me, I have a lack of testosterone and can't handle it!"

Who said anything about the "holy sacrament of marriage"? We are speaking of *civil* marriage here.
There is no other form of marriage in my opinon, it is a holy sacrement.

I think gaylords and lesbians should be allowed to marry, have civil unions and whatnot. It's nobody else's business. However, what is other people business is adoption of children by gay couples. I don't think that should be legal. I mean come, on. Wouldn't you be made fun of 24/7 in school for having 2 dads or 2 moms ? *ducks in preemption to flamege*

They probably be teased about as much for being from another country, wearing the wrong clothes, or hell, just not being popular.

As for homosexuality, hey, if two people of the same sex want to be together, let them. From a personal standpoint, I think marriage period (both heterosexual and homosexual) is a waste of time since it seems to be ending in divorce more and more often, but whatever.

And for all the children that use their "God" to condemn homosexuality, well, you kids need stronger arguments to convince us sinners.

The poll is obviously quite clear on the matter. Thank god :p
The few close-minded and bigotted individuals who'd probably ban interracial marriage, universal suffrage or the rule of law, are a minority. It is good that the majority of mankind is socially progressive and does not want to discriminate against fellow humans based on their sexuality, which is an intrinsic and unchangeable factor of an individuum's personality.

I use a three-dimensional box, actually. :P

Each dimension is defined by one line of left/rightness (economic, social, authoritative).

I was just talking about one dimension of said box.
That's quite confusing for those of us without knowledge of your box. What makes left and right? If we take "left" to mean more government and "right" to mean less of it, then surely social conservatives would be on the left?

There is no other form of marriage in my opinon, it is a holy sacrement.

THen you should not apply for a marriage license in your country should you choose to marry - and should not attempt to get the legal protections which go along with *civil* marriage.

THen you should not apply for a marriage license in your country should you choose to marry - and should not attempt to get the legal protections which go along with *civil* marriage.
Laws of the land are struck form ethics which are derived from religion. Marriage
was derived to create families which it turn continue the existance of a country. Two men or two women can not create a functioning family, no matter what people say. A civil marriage is a laywer invented farce.

Honestly, if you guys are getting your knickers in a knot over something that doesn't affect you then you are truly hypocritcal. I understand that you may see it as disgusting or sinful, but its not hurting anyone and no ones telling you that you have to partake in such "unholy" acts. The most that homosexuality produces as negative affects is that it makes people feel uncomfortable. And aren't christians supposed to be open minded?

Yeah, you guys are being REALLY open minded.

<3Lesbian Christian

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=8603633#
fluffle

I would like to preend that those are two women. Honestly, if you guys are getting your knickers in a knot over something that doesn't affect you then you are truly hypocritcal. I understand that you may see it as disgusting or sinful, but its not hurting anyone and no ones telling you that you have to partake in such "unholy" acts. The most that homosexuality produces as negative affects is that it makes people feel uncomfortable. And aren't christians supposed to be open minded?

Yeah, you guys are being REALLY open minded.

<3Lesbian Christian
I dont give two tugs of a dead dogs cock about homosexuals, im only annoyed at peoples opinion of what marriage is is completly wrong.

Laws of the land are struck form ethics which are derived from religion. Marriage
was derived to create families which it turn continue the existance of a country. Two men or two women can not create a functioning family, no matter what people say. A civil marriage is a laywer invented farce.

Then fight to ban civil marriage - since it is all just a farce.

No more separate marriage tax codes, no protection for married couples above and beyond what any normal citizen gets. They do not share anything legally, they are not next-of-kin by law, and the male does not have custody of the children the mother bears unless she specifically states that she wants him to.

Meanwhile, you can only say that *your* ethics are derived from religion - not all people's are.

Hmmm maybe I should throw my hat into the ring.


I'm a homosexual woman, who lives with her partner in the United States.

I personaly believe that Marriage/Civil Unions should be allowed for any person no matter what religion/sexuality or whatever you wana call it.

I really dont care about Marriage that much personaly, but my partner does alot and she wants children as well but would rather adopt then have her own as there are lots of needy children who need a home.

The current form of government here doesn't allow either for us. We both vote, pay taxes, and everything like a normal citizens but are told we can't/won't be reconised by the federal government if we do something thats a human right, as stated on Article 16 on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.


I'm so sick of the Unitied States telling the UN to go f**** themself.

And as for that dude who was insulted by us judging his right to exist. Stop being such a pussy! You're the kind of person who gives those who are "sexually challenged" a bad name.

You should stop being such a self-loathing person.

Okay, everyone should just get the hell over it, clearly you won't be able to ban Homosexuality, it's a silly concept, it's like banning breathing.

RUN FOR THE HILLS HE'S INHALING!

My feeling is that all persons have the right to express and explore their sexuality (insofar as this involves consent among adult partners). So then, why shouldn't homosexuals enjoy all the rights, priviledges, but also the responsibilities and liabilities of legal union? I think time has proven that homosexuals are no more irresponisible (or, for that matter, responsible) citizens than heterosexuals, men, women, africans, asians, caucasians, or any other group (or subset) of humanity one cares to classify. We're all pretty equal in that.

On the other hand, I do *not* believe that homosexuals (or anyone else) have the right to impose their lifestyle on established religions, and demand "holy" union in churches, unless and until such churches themselves reform their views on such issues from within.

So, yes to civil unions, but please, that's what the city registrar is for. The next phase, of course, involves getting certain service providing industries on the bandwagon (health insurance carriers, and banks for instance). It's not going to happen overnight unless governments also amend their constitutions, outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. And that's the larger, more important issue here, really, isn't it?

My feeling is that all persons have the right to express and explore their sexuality (insofar as this involves consent among adult partners). So then, why shouldn't homosexuals enjoy all the rights, priviledges, but also the responsibilities and liabilities of legal union? I think time has proven that homosexuals are no more irresponisible (or, for that matter, responsible) citizens than heterosexuals, men, women, africans, asians, caucasians, or any other group (or subset) of humanity one cares to classify. We're all pretty equal in that.

On the other hand, I do *not* believe that homosexuals (or anyone else) have the right to impose their lifestyle on established religions, and demand "holy" union in churches, unless and until such churches themselves reform their views on such issues from within.

So, yes to civil unions, but please, that's what the city registrar is for. The next phase, of course, involves getting certain service providing industries on the bandwagon (health insurance carriers, and banks for instance). It's not going to happen overnight unless governments also amend their constitutions, outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. And that's the larger, more important issue here, really, isn't it?

As for the US to do such a thing, I'm most likely not gonna live to see that day.

Look at how long the US takes to treat some people equal, its over an entire lifetime.

You should stop being such a self-loathing person.

I think you should take your own advice, Fass. You're really insecure about who and what you are, and it's bleeding all over this thread. You have a right to exist because you do -- Fate, God, Life, whatever you want to call it, has already told you that. You are here, and you are you. Why do you think some loser hiding behind his computer screen talking about hating homos can affect what God's already given you? Ignore them.

As for all of these people who talk about trying to take rights away and promote hate in the name of "Christian morality and goodness": you are fearful posers who don't truly understand the message of Christ. He said love everybody, He said not to judge lest you be judged, and those were His two major messages that we forget all too often. Stop scrambling for snippets in the Bible to justify your own fears, and damn well do what Jesus told us to do!

It's really that simple. There may be things that others do or feel that you find distasteful or against your beliefs. Others have been given the right to choose for themselves. It's your job to do as you feel right for yourself, and to still regard those who are different than you as human and therefore deserving of your love and respect. It's not your place to ban or destroy a damn thing. That's the Lord's job. He'll make that perfectly clear to you when you close your eyes for the last time.

Ge-Ren

I think you should take your own advice, Fass. You're really insecure about who and what you are, and it's bleeding all over this thread. You have a right to exist because you do -- Fate, God, Life, whatever you want to call it, has already told you that. You are here, and you are you. Why do you think some loser hiding behind his computer screen talking about hating homos can affect what God's already given you? Ignore them.

Save me your sanctimoniousness and look up what self-loathing means, because your comment makes no sense.

I think it should be banned... i mean, face it, if you like people of the same gender, your cousin, or your brother or sister there is something wrong with you... dont tell me that god made you that way, tahts total crap, god did not make anyone anything, god just put you here and let you make your own desicions. God didnt make you feel that way, you did. Besides, god created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. :)

Okay, everyone should just get the hell over it, clearly you won't be able to ban Homosexuality, it's a silly concept, it's like banning breathing.

RUN FOR THE HILLS HE'S INHALING!

i do totally agree with this though.

I think it should be banned... i mean, face it, if you like people of the same gender, your cousin, or your brother or sister there is something wrong with you... dont tell me that god made you that way, tahts total crap, god did not make anyone anything, god just put you here and let you make your own desicions. God didnt make you feel that way, you did. Besides, god created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. :)
So much bullshit, so little time...

I think it should be banned... i mean, face it, if you like people of the same gender, your cousin, or your brother or sister there is something wrong with you...

What does homosexuality have to do with incest?

dont tell me that god made you that way, tahts total crap, god did not make anyone anything, god just put you here and let you make your own desicions.

God didn't make anyone. Period.

God didnt make you feel that way, you did. Besides, god created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. :)

You've heard of a little thing called biology? Keep your religious claptrap to yourself.

And, besides, everyone knows that it is Adam and Steve now. Eve was just a temporary confusion on Adam's part. Steve, being a forgiving fellow, bless his heart, took Adam back. I hear they're doing quite well, because, as we all know, once you go gay, you never stray.

As a gay person, I am offended by this thread. Please, do not speculate in my right to exist.

No one is doing that.

No one is doing that.

Read the thread. Read the title. Read a few posts like this: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8604652&postcount=144

Oro?

I've seen lots of interesting discussion on this board.. but gay marriage should be banned because it's wrong to be attracted to your own brother? Jigga-what?

A silly question, but does this then mean that you are straight, and a male, it's wrong to be attracted to your own sister, so ban straight marriage?

Well I call the poll suitably conclusive
The poll never lies, especially when it agrees with me ;) :D

I just don't get it. There is no reason to ban homosexuality, because the only real prohibitions against it are in the Bible, and everyone deserves the freedom to be who they are regardless of what an ancient book says.

It is interesting to note that the ancients of Rome, Greece and the pagan world were considerably more tolerant of homosexualtiy than we are today. In my opinio, this is one area we have definitely moved backwards in.

And, besides, everyone knows that it is Adam and Steve now. Eve was just a temporary confusion on Adam's part. Steve, being a forgiving fellow, bless his heart, took Adam back. I hear they're doing quite well, because, as we all know, once you go gay, you never stray.

Reminds me of a story in Ian Philips' Satyriasis .

He is speculating in your right to practise homosexuality, not to exist.

Homosexuaility isnt something you practice, its *who you are*. Its not like playing the piano. So when people argue about wether homosexuality should be allowed/banned etc, they are talking about our right to exist (I use "our" because I too am gay).
Having said that, I don't find the thread offensive, I welcome the opportunity to talk about thesis issues.

You're asking if the government should ban homosexuality?
To all of those who answer yes: good grief - how much longer until Big Brother starts regulating how heterosexuals have romance?

On the other hand, I do *not* believe that homosexuals (or anyone else) have the right to impose their lifestyle on established religions, and demand "holy" union in churches, unless and until such churches themselves reform their views on such issues from within.


Exactamundo. No truer words've been spoken on this thread, Zappa.
As a homosexual who would like to eventually settle down with a mate, I think it'd be nice to legally share everything I have. I mean, isn't that a part of what love's about? Sharing everything?
Don't ban love, man. That's just gay.

My question to the people who want to ban all of this faggot crap is When in the blue hell did the United States become Jesus Town? Your idea of utopia seems to be some sort of insane, morally-uptight theocracy headed by Bob Jones and Jack Chick.

Hell, I'd move to Mexico. I'd rather earn a hundred bucks a year and endure fecal rainstorms than live in a hell ruled by Jesus.

That's not right wing, man; that's just insane.

Save me your sanctimoniousness and look up what self-loathing means, because your comment makes no sense.

Not only are you self-loathing, but stupid too. You really should consider the fact that I was your defender until you decided to show your ass to the planet.

Geez, talk about shooting yourself in the foot. I would never judge you for being gay. I'll just be annoyed with you for being an eejit.

Ge-Ren

Dear everyone here on this forum.

I am gay and my opinion is (evidently) that gay mariage should be allowed for those who want too.

But, in my personal opinion, I also think mariage and christian religion is all bullshit because it is them who banned gay love. Before christians, there was the romans or even the time of the king Alexander where people were having gay relations. Where it wasn't accepted neither it was accepted, it was just a question of love. You love or you don't love someone. Thats all.

So I say, mary yourself if you want!

(I also think that, considering the argument up there about the romans, being gay for the christians is exactly like saying I am Catosexual because I love my cat...seriously, it doesn't make sense, so why not just love each others at our own will without identification about our sexual orientation.)

Think about it...

Not only are you self-loathing, but stupid too. You really should consider the fact that I was your defender until you decided to show your ass to the planet.

Geez, talk about shooting yourself in the foot. I would never judge you for being gay. I'll just be annoyed with you for being an eejit.

Your comment still makes no sense, is still full of sanctimonious claptrap and your stooping to personal insults and attacks here make my original dismissal of you even more correct.

Thanks for playing, though.

"If a girl prefers girls, can't blame her, so do I.
If a guy is interested in me, at least he has good taste."
-Moderator of the Latopein General Assembly Peter Falstaff

Whatever your personal opinion is, government and politics are not the tool to express that. It is not the state's role to interfere with personal choices. Laws exist to allow citizens to live in security and peace, not to push a particular belief system upon someone who will not follow it as soon as the policeman's back is turned. The General Assembly of The Holy Republic of Latopei will therefore not interfere in the sexual habits of its citizenry. The representative from the Synod of Knox, Arthur Calvin, voiced in a meeting concerning the defense of marriage that he would prefer a committed homosexual union to any heterosexual one in which infidelity occurs. It's not about gender, it's about fidelity in marriage and chastity in singlehood.

Since it's pretty clear that this thread has become a haven for flaming, trolling, flamebaiting, and other sins of the forums, let's just shut it down. There are plenty of other threads on homosexuality and / or gay marriage that haven't descended to this level - go post in one of those instead.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/padlock.gif