NationStates Jolt Archive

...turn into a debate about the morality of homosexuality? It's not the issue.

Religion always seems to turn up in them, so I'm pointing my finger at it.

It is the only issue for the detractors of gay marriage. There is no other argument that can't be completely destroyed.

Some people have the idea that their religion's "morality" is relevant. Silly, but they do.

It is the only issue for the detractors of gay marriage. There is no other argument that can't be completely destroyed.

Um... how about gay couples cannot conceive life? ;)

Um... how about gay couples cannot conceive life? ;)

(S)He said "argument".

If we don't allow gay marriage, what is next? Not allowing interracial marriages? Inter-faith marriages? Non-Christian Fundamentalist marriages? Where do we draw the line?

I am kidding by the way. Its because some people beleive that the only reason to ban gay marriage is religious perposes, so of course it will come up. Of course, there is something called seperation of church and state, which is brought up by the people who want to legalise it, so...

Opponents seem to tie religion into marriage.

For those opposed to gay marriage, it gives them footing to de-moralize homosexuality. More so true today, because homosexuality is no longer the tabu it once was.

For those pro gay marriage, it is something that they must constantly refer to, because it helps hinder the social stigma; which homosexuals have always been trounced by.

It also is the most dominant topic of discussion, regarding homosexuality. Humans are generally drawn to drama, which is why they they focus on the controversial.

I support full gay rights(I am not gay though). Somehow religion digs it self into the question. I am not religious, I don't think gays should be killed. I think they should be allowed to get married(maybe churches could be allowed to refuse a marriage) if just having a secular marriage. It is sad that people who are not homosexual care so much. Honestly if I hated gays, it still doesn't bother me if they are legally married or just living together. Right? Leave them alone! Let them get married!

Um... how about gay couples cannot conceive life? ;)

One can do such wonderful things with cloning these days ;)
And non-gay couples that cannot have children do exist. As do couples that do not wish to have children. If they by the same morality would not be allowed to marry, that would be consistent reasoning.
Hmm.. in fact.. to make sure only fertile couples get married, they should have produced children before being allowed to marry *grin*

To the original question: some believe in something called the "sanctity of marriage" - which they cannot explain BUT they are convinced this will be disrupted by homosexuals, because homosexuals are bad. There is your morality already ;)

Um... how about gay couples cannot conceive life? ;)

That can be reasoned out in two very easy ways:

1. Would they not be able to adopt? If not why?

2. Should marriage be defined as a baby making venture? Should people who do not plan to have children not be able to marry?

That can be reasoned out in two very easy ways:

1. Would they not be able to adopt? If not why?

2. Should marriage be defined as a baby making venture? Should people who do not plan to have children not be able to marry?

1. Didn't say that, said they can't have kids biologically.

2. Yep. 8000+ years of proof is all I need.
Plan and have may end up being two different things. ;)

I support full gay rights(I am not gay though). Somehow religion digs it self into the question. I am not religious, I don't think gays should be killed. I think they should be allowed to get married(maybe churches could be allowed to refuse a marriage) if just having a secular marriage. It is sad that people who are not homosexual care so much. Honestly if I hated gays, it still doesn't bother me if they are legally married or just living together. Right? Leave them alone! Let them get married!

While I appreciate your support, I am going to take a moment to clear up a common mistake. Churches are ALREADY allowed to refuse a marriage. No one has proposed changing this. And very amusingly, most people who support gay marriage would be the same people who would march and protest to prevent a private organization (such as a church) from having to give up its rights to believe as it wants on its own property.

One can do such wonderful things with cloning these days ;)

With cats, sure.

And non-gay couples that cannot have children do exist. As do couples that do not wish to have children. If they by the same morality would not be allowed to marry, that would be consistent reasoning.

Hmm.. in fact.. to make sure only fertile couples get married, they should have produced children before being allowed to marry *grin*

To the original question: some believe in something called the "sanctity of marriage" - which they cannot explain BUT they are convinced this will be disrupted by homosexuals, because homosexuals are bad. There is your morality already ;)

Not what I said: my reply to "It is the only issue for the detractors of gay marriage. There is no other argument that can't be completely destroyed." was that gay couples cannot have children biologically. That's an issue. :)

1. Didn't say that, said they can't have kids biologically.

2. Yep. 8000+ years of proof is all I need.
Plan and have may end up being two different things. ;)

You didn't respond to whether or not infertile couples should be able to marry. They can't have kids biologically either.

Not what I said: my reply to "It is the only issue for the detractors of gay marriage. There is no other argument that can't be completely destroyed." was that gay couples cannot have children biologically. That's an issue. :)

Ummmm, actually we CAN have children biologically--just not within the bonds of marriage. Further, that arguement has already been destroyed by its hypocritical applications. Either people use that argument against gay marriage use it against straight marriage in which one or both of the partners are incapable of producing children, or they don't use it all and instead admit that they are bigotted.

(S)He said "argument".

Nope.
The Internet Tough Guy said:
It is the only issue for the detractors of gay marriage. There is no other argument that can't be completely destroyed.

...and gay couples not being able to have children biologically is an issue.

...and gay couples not being able to have children biologically is an issue.

And its not an issue for infertile heterosexual couples?

Ummmm, actually we CAN have children biologically--just not within the bonds of marriage. Further, that arguement has already been destroyed by its hypocritical applications. Either people use that argument against gay marriage use it against straight marriage in which one or both of the partners are incapable of producing children, or they don't use it all and instead admit that they are bigotted.

Then it's not the gay couple having children, now is it? ;)

Look, I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I just brought up the point that it IS another issue. :)

...and gay couples not being able to have children biologically is an issue.

No it isn't, as it's not an issue for straight couples.

Then it's not the gay couple having children, now is it? ;)

Look, I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I just brought up the point that it IS another issue. :)


And I'm making the point that its only an issue in the thoughts of close-minded bigots who are looking for an excuse to enforce their puritanical beliefs off on the rest of us.

I support full gay rights(I am not gay though). Somehow religion digs it self into the question. I am not religious, I don't think gays should be killed. I think they should be allowed to get married(maybe churches could be allowed to refuse a marriage) if just having a secular marriage. It is sad that people who are not homosexual care so much. Honestly if I hated gays, it still doesn't bother me if they are legally married or just living together. Right? Leave them alone! Let them get married!

I for one believe gay marriage should be allowed. Who is anyone to say that people can not get married based on sexual orientation? Marriage is supposed to be about love, therefor anyone should be able to get married. I agree on the churches being able to refuse a marriage based on religious beliefs if the people could go somewhere else to get it done.

On another related topic: If religion is unwilling to accept new things and new idea, religion should be banned. It does more harm that good.

You didn't respond to whether or not infertile couples should be able to marry. They can't have kids biologically either.

I didn't say that gay couples shouldn't be civil unioned (or married, if a religion out there does so), either. Again, all I did was point out another issue, not take sides.

Pre-emtive: Per se, gay couples can't get married as far as I know. I can't think of a single religion that does it. I have no problems with civil unions done by Judge, County Clerk, Ship's Captain, whatever, just as with hetero couples.

1. Didn't say that, said they can't have kids biologically.

2. Yep. 8000+ years of proof is all I need.
Plan and have may end up being two different things. ;)

Well, I personally view homosexuality as immoral (my religion). Don't knock me for it. However, from a legal standpoint, they have the right to marry, especially in the United States, where everyone is equal, meaning you can't discriminate against someone of homosexual orientation. I'm a Muslim, and I'm even saying, constitutionally, it's wrong to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

Now....as for your 8,000+ years of proof. What about times in history when interfaith marriage wasn't allowed? What about times in history where interracial marriage wasn't allowed? Now let's move on to other issues. What about polygamy being accepted, encouraged and approved of by the vast majority of the world's cultures since the beginning of marriage until fairly recently in history (within the last 1000 years for europe...less than that elsewhere)? What about arranged marriage being the norm until even more recently (within the last 400 years or so for europe, still goes on in many places)? Those borders have been broken down. Your excuses for not allowing homosexuals marry from both a historical and legal standpoint are without merit. Besides, as I have read, unions similar to marriage used to occur even in Christian Europe between homosexuals in the early days. There are two Catholic saints who had such a ceremony.

Because some people base their entire opinions on religous dogma.

I honestly don't care what religion has to say on this matter. If you want to marry someone you love, kudos to you. It's nobody's business but your own. What you do in your bedroom has nothing to do with me and will most certainly not effect my life in any way. I truly feel sorry for people who feel insulted about this topic.

And I'm making the point that its only an issue in the thoughts of close-minded bigots who are looking for an excuse to enforce their puritanical beliefs off on the rest of us.

And that's fine.

However: it still remains that gay couples can't have children without science or infidelity. That's an issue for the propogation of the species. :D

I didn't say that gay couples shouldn't be civil unioned (or married, if a religion out there does so), either. Again, all I did was point out another issue, not take sides.

Pre-emtive: Per se, gay couples can't get married as far as I know. I can't think of a single religion that does it. I have no problems with civil unions done by Judge, County Clerk, Ship's Captain, whatever, just as with hetero couples.

Hinduism and Buddhism do not discourage homosexuality "per se". However, their respective cultures now typically dissapprove, despite the fact that homosexuality used to be quite accepted in both Indian and East Asian cultures, and is documented in historical texts and the Kama Sutra.

I didn't say that gay couples shouldn't be civil unioned (or married, if a religion out there does so), either. Again, all I did was point out another issue, not take sides.

Pre-emtive: Per se, gay couples can't get married as far as I know. I can't think of a single religion that does it. I have no problems with civil unions done by Judge, County Clerk, Ship's Captain, whatever, just as with hetero couples.

Marriage is a civil union. There is no difference between having it done by some casino owner in Vegas and having it done in a church.

Also, there are countries where gay marriage is legal and no distictions are made. Gays even get married in churches there! :eek:

And that's fine.

However: it still remains that gay couples can't have children without science or infidelity. That's an issue for the propogation of the species. :D

As has been said before, NEITHER CAN QUITE A LOT OF STRAIGHT COUPLES. From a legal standpoint, all arguements fail. Only religion can refute it, and in a secular country, that can't hold up.

Pre-emtive: Per se, gay couples can't get married as far as I know. I can't think of a single religion that does it. I have no problems with civil unions done by Judge, County Clerk, Ship's Captain, whatever, just as with hetero couples.
in several states in the jesus belt marriages/unions only take place in churches, even for heterosexual couples

I didn't say that gay couples shouldn't be civil unioned (or married, if a religion out there does so), either. Again, all I did was point out another issue, not take sides.

You seem to be confusing civil unions for civil marriage. Civil marriage exists in all fifty states (yes I am only speaking of the US, I can't speak for other nations) and does not require any religious input and can be performed by a judge or justice of the peace. It afford ALL the rights of what we commonly call marriage and what you incorrectly equate with religion.

Civil unions only exist in a handfull of states. They grant about a dozen of the rights we associate with marriage at their best. According to the GAO, there are over 1000 rights associated with full marriage. Further, civil unions do not grant ANY of the federal rights of marriage--courtesy of the Defense of Marriage act violating States Rights and the 14th Amendment.


Pre-emtive: Per se, gay couples can't get married as far as I know. I can't think of a single religion that does it.

The Church of God
The United Church of Christ
The Unitarian Universalist Church
The Reconciling Methodist Congregations
A variety of Episcopal churches throughout the nation.
Some sects of Judaism.


I have no problems with civil unions done by Judge, County Clerk, Ship's Captain, whatever, just as with hetero couples.

See above on why these are unfair and are NOT equal to marriage.

I support gay rights and have found to date nothing in the Bible that says homosexuality is wrong. Homosexuality is not immoral and forbidding gay marriage is discrimination against them. I would like to challenge any religious fundamentalist who comes across this thread to give me three good reasons why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

The purpose of marriage is not to raise children, although that was its original function. Many couples marry and have no children. Many more have children and do not marry. And since marriage is defined by religion (i.e. a Christian missionary would not find two African tribespeople legally married and vice versa), one could say that the purpose of marriage is to bring two (or more) people to live together. One of its purposes is to increase the human population, but that is not the only one.

Hinduism and Buddhism does not discourage homosexuality "per se". However, their respective cultures now typically dissapprove, despite the fact that homosexuality used to be quite accepted in both Indian and East Asian cultures, and is documented in historical texts and the Kama Sutra.


You show me a Temple performing same sex marriages, and I'll reverse my previous statement. But at this point, I don't see *any* religion that does so.

PS- They used to feed deformed children to the wolves in the old days, too.

And that's fine.

However: it still remains that gay couples can't have children without science or infidelity. That's an issue for the propogation of the species. :D


And amazingly still doesn't address the issue of heterosexual couples who are in the same situation. Gee, Iw onder if you are avoiding reality for a reason?

However: it still remains that gay couples can't have children without science or infidelity. That's an issue for the propogation of the species. :D

I think we're past the whole "marry to ensure that our species survives" era in history.

Hinduism and Buddhism do not discourage homosexuality "per se". However, their respective cultures now typically dissapprove, despite the fact that homosexuality used to be quite accepted in both Indian and East Asian cultures, and is documented in historical texts and the Kama Sutra.


Homosexual unions are also documented in the Catholic records and artwork right up until at least the 18th century. I wonder why they never mention that these days?

Well, I personally view homosexuality as immoral (my religion). Don't knock me for it. However, from a legal standpoint, they have the right to marry, especially in the United States, where everyone is equal, meaning you can't discriminate against someone of homosexual orientation. I'm a Muslim, and I'm even saying, constitutionally, it's wrong to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

I'm not saying they can't marry, I said I don't know of any Churches that do so. Big difference.

Now....as for your 8,000+ years of proof. What about times in history when interfaith marriage wasn't allowed? What about times in history where interracial marriage wasn't allowed? Now let's move on to other issues. What about polygamy being accepted, encouraged and approved of by the vast majority of the world's cultures since the beginning of marriage until fairly recently in history (within the last 1000 years for europe...less than that elsewhere)? What about arranged marriage being the norm until even more recently (within the last 400 years or so for europe, still goes on in many places)? Those borders have been broken down. Your excuses for not allowing homosexuals marry from both a historical and legal standpoint are without merit. Besides, as I have read, unions similar to marriage used to occur even in Christian Europe between homosexuals in the early days. There are two Catholic saints who had such a ceremony.

Um, go back and reread the thread. At no point have I said that there should be no gay marriage. :p

I'm not saying they can't marry, I said I don't know of any Churches that do so. Big difference.

And, as I said: Marriage is a civil union.

And amazingly still doesn't address the issue of heterosexual couples who are in the same situation. Gee, Iw onder if you are avoiding reality for a reason?

In case you haven't noticed, I'm deliberately not taking a side on the gay marriage debate, so why should I take one on the infertile couple debate? ;)

I for one believe gay marriage should be allowed. Who is anyone to say that people can not get married based on sexual orientation? Marriage is supposed to be about love, therefor anyone should be able to get married. I agree on the churches being able to refuse a marriage based on religious beliefs if the people could go somewhere else to get it done.

On another related topic: If religion is unwilling to accept new things and new idea, religion should be banned. It does more harm that good.Religion should not be banned, no matter how backwards its views are. People have the right to believe whatever they want. I identify myself as a civil libertarian (see also my nation) and believe that if gay marriage and religion can coexist, they should. If not, we should find some way (i.e. secular marriages) of allowing them to do so. But by all means do not outlaw religion.*

* Besides, it violates the First Amendment. :)

You show me a Temple performing same sex marriages, and I'll reverse my previous statement. But at this point, I don't see *any* religion that does so.

PS- They used to feed deformed children to the wolves in the old days, too.


Base don the way you've avoided responding to many points, I would guess that is because you don't want to see them.

You show me a Temple performing same sex marriages, and I'll reverse my previous statement. But at this point, I don't see *any* religion that does so.

PS- They used to feed deformed children to the wolves in the old days, too.

You're the one using history to prop up your argument, not me. In Hinduism and Buddhism, the temples don't perform marriage. The same is true of Islam. Marriage does not need to take place in a mosque, or by a sheikh or religious leader. It's a contract. Also, someone already showed you various Christian and Jewish sects which allow gay marriage (or would, if it were legal in the U.S. and do in other countries where they are present and gay marriage is legal).

Many debates turn into the nature vrs. nurture issue. So it isnt all morals. If it is proven that hmosexual relationships are caused by nurture then one could argue that it is a psychological disorder. Perhaps heterophobia? I dont think homosexuality is a disorder, but it is an example of an argument not based on morals.

Of course people allways say that this research is led by quack scientists so it currently isnt serious.

I didn't say that gay couples shouldn't be civil unioned (or married, if a religion out there does so), either. Again, all I did was point out another issue, not take sides.

Pre-emtive: Per se, gay couples can't get married as far as I know. I can't think of a single religion that does it. I have no problems with civil unions done by Judge, County Clerk, Ship's Captain, whatever, just as with hetero couples.

As mentioned previously, changing religions isn't at issue here. So, it really isn't relevent if any religion allows gay marriage or not.

So, why would you want to restrict gay unions to civil unions instead of marriage (a vast distinct in the United States). Civil unions do not have the same standing of marriage, thus the argument for marriage, not simply civil unions.

I am not gay, but I do not want to get married. First, I am not religious, so I have no desire to have any relationship "sanctified" by god. Second, I have no wish to participate in state sanctioned discrimination. I am fully capable of maintaining a long-term, monogamus relationship, raising children with my siginificant other, without legal documentation that is only allowed for heterosexual couples. I won't participate until homosexual couples are allowed to participate as well.

In case you haven't noticed, I'm deliberately not taking a side on the gay marriage debate, so why should I take one on the infertile couple debate? ;)


Perhaps you haven't noticed, but by continuing to espouse and defend that viewpoint, you are in fact taking a side. If you don't want to take a side, you don't need to be involved.

I'm not saying they can't marry, I said I don't know of any Churches that do so. Big difference.



Um, go back and reread the thread. At no point have I said that there should be no gay marriage. :p


Yet you don't seem to realize that you dont' have to have a religion to be married. You can be married and never have a priest, rabbit, minister, imam, or any other person involved.

Homosexual unions are also documented in the Catholic records and artwork right up until at least the 18th century. I wonder why they never mention that these days?

Hypocracy, my dear Watson.

As mentioned previously, changing religions isn't at issue here. So, it really isn't relevent if any religion allows gay marriage or not.

So, why would you want to restrict gay unions to civil unions instead of marriage (a vast distinct in the United States). Civil unions do not have the same standing of marriage, thus the argument for marriage, not simply civil unions.

I am not gay, but I do not want to get married. First, I am not religious, so I have no desire to have any relationship "sanctified" by god. Second, I have no wish to participate in state sanctioned discrimination. I am fully capable of maintaining a long-term, monogamus relationship, raising children with my siginificant other, without legal documentation that is only allowed for heterosexual couples. I won't participate until homosexual couples are allowed to participate as well.

Like I said, I agree from a legal standpoint homosexuals should be allowed to marry, even though religiously I don't agree. However, you're just causing more problems for yourself by not getting married to someone you are basically married to anyway. Depending on where you live, that may or may not be considered "common law marriage". Meaning, your significant other MAY be treated legally as your wife, and be able to get those precious rights of a wife, or MAY NOT be. Let's say you have yourself a little Terry Shiavo-esque court battle. You probably will not be considered next of kin, which, in plain words, would suck.

In case you haven't noticed, I'm deliberately not taking a side on the gay marriage debate, so why should I take one on the infertile couple debate? ;)
Because you claimed repeatedly that homosexual couples being unable to reproduce is "an issue." It would behoove you to explain why it's an issue--for gay couples--and not for straight couples, if you want to claim to be an impartial observer who merely notes issues instead of an active opponent of gay marriage who contrives issues.

Marriage is a civil union. There is no difference between having it done by some casino owner in Vegas and having it done in a church.

Um... yes, there is a HUGE difference.
Marriage is before God. Civil Unions *serve* the same legally, but it is not the same thing.
Simply put, the powers weilded by the person marrying two people at a Civil Cermony comes from the people of the state (government). The powers weilded by the person marrying to people in a Religious Ceremony comes from God.
The people are not Gods, therefore they cannot invest someone else with the power to marry.
Civil Union? Yes.
Is there a legal difference? No.
But it's *not* marriage unless it is done by a religious official. QED.

Also, there are countries where gay marriage is legal and no distictions are made. Gays even get married in churches there! :eek:

Name 'em.
Holland started about 5 years ago, and it is Civil, not Religious Ceremonys.

Yet you don't seem to realize that you dont' have to have a religion to be married. You can be married and never have a priest, rabbit, minister, imam, or any other person involved.

Yes you do. Please see post #52. :)

Um... yes, there is a HUGE difference.
Marriage is before God. Civil Unions *serve* the same legally, but it is not the same thing.
Simply put, the powers weilded by the person marrying two people at a Civil Cermony comes from the people of the state (government).

You can choose to confuse the words. However, I've already explain to you why civil unions do not equate to marriage in the eyes of the government--and that's the only thing that matters here. Freedom of Religious prevents the government from regulating religions matters--therefore, if "marriage" were purely religious, there would be NO rights associated with it.


The powers weilded by the person marrying to people in a Religious Ceremony comes from God.

In a religion ceremony yes. But as I've pointed out, you can be married in a non-religious ceremony already. Are athetists not married evne though they are married?


The people are not Gods, therefore they cannot invest someone else with the power to marry.
Civil Union? Yes.
Is there a legal difference? No.
But it's *not* marriage unless it is done by a religious official. QED.


There IS a legal difference. Keep on living in your dream world if you like--but in the real word there is a major legal difference between civil unions and marriage and there is NO legal difference between marriages perforemd in a church by a minister and those performed in a courthouse by a judge.



Name 'em.
Holland started about 5 years ago, and it is Civil, not Religious Ceremonys.

Sweden with marriages performed by the church of Sweden. Same in Norway.

And I've already pointed out to you that there are religious groups in America that are all for gay marriages. Why do you ignore that point?

Because you claimed repeatedly that homosexual couples being unable to reproduce is "an issue." It would behoove you to explain why it's an issue--for gay couples--and not for straight couples, if you want to claim to be an impartial observer who merely notes issues instead of an active opponent of gay marriage who contrives issues.

I've already done that. The point was made that all arguements fail except for morality. Not having biological children is an issue.

That depends on the straight couple, no? Are they just electing to not have kids, or is one infertile? Can they not afford it?

Look, my point was that it most certainly is an issue, as w/o science or infidelity, gay marriage cannot create new life. That's a set-up for failure should one of the two have second thoughts.

Yes you do. Please see post #52. :)


Once you wake up and leave the dream world, we'll talk. In the meantime, I'm going to continue living in reality.

Look, my point was that it most certainly is an issue, as w/o science or infidelity, gay marriage cannot create new life. That's a set-up for failure should one of the two have second thoughts.

And without science or infidelity, some heterosexual marriages cannot create new life. Why is that any different than gay couples? Why can infertile (READ NOT ABLE TO HAVE CHILDREN NATURALLY) straight couples marry but gay couples cannot because they are in the same situation?

Um... yes, there is a HUGE difference.
Marriage is before God. Civil Unions *serve* the same legally, but it is not the same thing.
Simply put, the powers weilded by the person marrying two people at a Civil Cermony comes from the people of the state (government). The powers weilded by the person marrying to people in a Religious Ceremony comes from God.
The people are not Gods, therefore they cannot invest someone else with the power to marry.
Civil Union? Yes.
Is there a legal difference? No.
But it's *not* marriage unless it is done by a religious official. QED.

You are mistaken. Marriage is secular before the state. And that is all that counts. A religious initiation ceremony does not change that.


Name 'em.
Holland started about 5 years ago, and it is Civil, not Religious Ceremonys.

Belgium, Netherlands, Canada. Churches who wish to do perform the ceremony. See, your arguments that "marriage" is religious is incorrect. Marriage is a civil union - there is no difference if the initiation ceremony is done by a priest or a captain or judge or whatever. That's why your argument fails:

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> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union

in several states in the jesus belt marriages/unions only take place in churches, even for heterosexual couples

1. Find a boat and a captain. 90% of all Americans live within 100 miles of a coast.

2. You're telling me they can't drive to Vegas, or at least a major city?

Look, this is America. You can get married anywhere you want. It's not like it's the USSR. :D

I think we're past the whole "marry to ensure that our species survives" era in history.


But in 2014... oh, shit... sorry, just ignore this. :D

1. Find a boat and a captain. 90% of all Americans live within 100 miles of a coast.

2. You're telling me they can't drive to Vegas, or at least a major city?

Look, this is America. You can get married anywhere you want. It's not like it's the USSR. :D


Actually, that's not true. In MA you can only get married there if you are planning on moving there or are already a resident. They didn't enforce that law until gay marriage became legal there. Funny how it makes staight people bite their ownselves in the ass.

Not what I said: my reply to "It is the only issue for the detractors of gay marriage. There is no other argument that can't be completely destroyed." was that gay couples cannot have children biologically. That's an issue. :)
It's not an issue. We allow infertile couples to get married. The idea that marriage is a baby-making venture. If anything it prevents baby-making. Our male nature is to have sex with as many women as possible in order to make the most babies possible. Marriage prevents/hinders this.

On another related topic: If religion is unwilling to accept new things and new idea, religion should be banned. It does more harm that good.
Not at all. I am in favour of gay marriage, but banning religion would be just as much, maybe worse, of an attack on civil liberties. There is, believe it or not, a happy medium between theocracy and mandatory atheism, and it's called secularism.

Pre-emtive: Per se, gay couples can't get married as far as I know. I can't think of a single religion that does it. I have no problems with civil unions done by Judge, County Clerk, Ship's Captain, whatever, just as with hetero couples.
I think that I hve heard of religions that allow it. The pro side wants to allow those religions to wed gay couples. We're not interested in forcing Christian churches or mosques to do it. If there was a religion that allowed gay marriage, would you be all for legalising it?

However: it still remains that gay couples can't have children without science or infidelity. That's an issue for the propogation of the species. :D
But not an issue for marriage. Get out of my thread.

PS- They used to feed deformed children to the wolves in the old days, too.
You are plainly showing your bigotry when you equate homosexual marriage to killing children. Get out of my thread.

Um, go back and reread the thread. At no point have I said that there should be no gay marriage. :p
I've seen you stating your position in other threads. You think that gays should be allowed civil unions, but that marriage in any form should remain off-limits to them.

Homosexual unions are also documented in the Catholic records and artwork right up until at least the 18th century. I wonder why they never mention that these days?

(Channels Jerry Maguire)
Show me the data!

(Channels Jerry Maguire:)
Show me the data!

http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html

You're the one using history to prop up your argument, not me. In Hinduism and Buddhism, the temples don't perform marriage. The same is true of Islam. Marriage does not need to take place in a mosque, or by a sheikh or religious leader. It's a contract. Also, someone already showed you various Christian and Jewish sects which allow gay marriage (or would, if it were legal in the U.S. and do in other countries where they are present and gay marriage is legal).

Where? I said for 8000+ years marriage has been a vehicle for raising children. And it has.

Yes, it does. Please see post #52. :)

Since I'm replying to at least 4 people, it's a little hard to reply to every one. I haven't GOTTEN to post #33 yet, since I've had the forums stop on my twice so far. Be patient, grasshopper. :p

Yes you do. Please see post #52. :)

No, you don't. A Civil Union is NOT the same as a Civil Marriage. Emperor Joseph II of Austria was the first ruler to institute the idea of Civil Marriage, meaning, state-sanctioned marriage without a religious leader presiding. That's how it works today. Marriage is called marriage without having been performed in a church.

Also, for your information, marriage in Islam has always been via contract.

Sweden with marriages performed by the church of Sweden. Same in Norway.

That is incorrect. The church of Sweden is not allowed to wed gay couples and while "partnerskap", as they are called, give all the rights of marriage and are actually equated to marriage by the law, they remain separate.

This was due to the fact that gay couples could not adopt when the "partnerskapslagen" was instated and lesbians didn't have a right to be inseminated in hospitals in a similar way as heterosexuals women could.

As those two impediments no longer apply (gays can adopt now and lesbians have the same rights to be inseminated), the law governing marriage, "Äktenskapslagen", is going to be changed soon, as there is no longer any reason to separate the two entities.

And I've already pointed out to you that there are religious groups in America that are all for gay marriages. Why do you ignore that point?
I notice that Markreich is answering your posts very selectively. He's just not responding to the strongest points.

Look, my point was that it most certainly is an issue, as w/o science or infidelity, gay marriage cannot create new life. That's a set-up for failure should one of the two have second thoughts.
So all marriages without children are failures?

That is incorrect. The church of Sweden is not allowed to wed gay couples and while "partnerskap", as they are called, give all the rights of marriage and are actually equated to marriage by the law, they remain separate.

This was due to the fact that gay couples could not adopt when the "partnerskapslagen" was instated and lesbians didn't have a right to be inseminated in hospitals in a similar way as heterosexuals women could.

As those two impediments no longer apply (gays can adopt now and lesbians have the same rights to be inseminated), the law governing marriage, "Äktenskapslagen", is going to be changed soon, as there is no longer any reason to separate the two entities.


Hmm, I stand corrected. Thanks for the info. Still doesn't change the fact that there are already other churches/religious groups here in the US that want to marry gay people. Still, having the right facts is definitely a good thing.

If we don't allow gay marriage, what is next? Not allowing interracial marriages? Inter-faith marriages? Non-Christian Fundamentalist marriages? Where do we draw the line?

I am kidding by the way. Its because some people beleive that the only reason to ban gay marriage is religious perposes, so of course it will come up. Of course, there is something called seperation of church and state, which is brought up by the people who want to legalise it, so...


If we DO allow gay marriage, what is next? allowing incestual marriages? Inter-species marriages? Marrying objects? Allowing gay couples to somehow use clonation to "give birth"? Where do we draw the line?

Seriously, the fact that you don't allow something too liberal doesn't mean that society will turn upside down (that it will become extremely intolerant). If most people don't feel comfortable with something, why should they allow it? You gotta be in the middle.

Where? I said for 8000+ years marriage has been a vehicle for raising children. And it has.

Yes, it does. Please see post #52. :)

Since I'm replying to at least 4 people, it's a little hard to reply to every one. I haven't GOTTEN to post #33 yet, since I've had the forums stop on my twice so far. Be patient, grasshopper. :p

It's also been a vehicle to bind economic, military, and political alliances without always having the intention of producing a child from it. One such example is Lucrezia Borgia. Her father wed to her to many different nobles and royals over her life, and he frequently had her divorced from them. She had no children from the majority of them, nor was she intended to. This has taken place throughout history. Your arguements haven't been working for a while now.

As mentioned previously, changing religions isn't at issue here. So, it really isn't relevent if any religion allows gay marriage or not.

Um, it absolutely is. The US government can't tell a church what to do, and vice versa. And since (by my definition in #52) marriage can only take place by religious official, so it's VERY relevent.
And, again for those of you out there: If a Church WERE to marry gay folks, that's fine with me. But the Mayor of San Francisco, or the Captain of the Queen Mary can only CIVIL UNION people.

So, why would you want to restrict gay unions to civil unions instead of marriage (a vast distinct in the United States). Civil unions do not have the same standing of marriage, thus the argument for marriage, not simply civil unions.

Um, they have EXACTLY the same status in the US.

I am not gay, but I do not want to get married. First, I am not religious, so I have no desire to have any relationship "sanctified" by god. Second, I have no wish to participate in state sanctioned discrimination. I am fully capable of maintaining a long-term, monogamus relationship, raising children with my siginificant other, without legal documentation that is only allowed for heterosexual couples. I won't participate until homosexual couples are allowed to participate as well.

I'm not for discrimination of any kind, either. :)

If we DO allow gay marriage, what is next? allowing incestual marriages? Inter-species marriages? Marrying objects? Allowing gay couples to somehow use clonation to "give birth"? Where do we draw the line?

This is called he slippery slope fallacy. You assume that if we allow something, all these other horrible things will happen because in your mind they are similiar. However, the fact remains that there is a crucial difference between most of the things you describe and gay marriage--gays harm no one by marrying.


Seriously, the fact that you don't allow something too liberal doesn't mean that society will turn upside down (that it will become extremely intolerant). If most people don't feel comfortable with something, why should they allow it? You gotta be in the middle.

So if one day in the not so distant future most people don't feel comfortable with Christians getting married or having kids, you would be okay with that?

If we DO allow gay marriage, what is next? allowing incestual marriages? Inter-species marriages? Marrying objects? Allowing gay couples to somehow use clonation to "give birth"? Where do we draw the line?

Seriously, the fact that you don't allow something too liberal doesn't mean that society will turn upside down (that it will become extremely intolerant). If most people don't feel comfortable with something, why should they allow it? You gotta be in the middle.

Well, there is precedence in history for gay marriage. It used to happen under church sanctioned ceremonies, it was just called something else. As far as I know, inter-species marriage was never culturally present anywhere, and neither has there been any kind of ceremony for marrying objects. Incest has taken place. According to your Bible, Abraham married his sister Sarah. Now, in Islam, we allow the marriage of first cousins, but nothing closer.

Um, it absolutely is. The US government can tell a church what to do, and vice versa. And since (by my definition in #52) marriage can only take place by religious official, so it's VERY relevent.
And, again for those of you out there: If a Church WERE to marry gay folks, that's fine with me. But the Mayor of San Francisco, or the Captain of the Queen Mary can only CIVIL UNION people.

The government can tell religious people what do and vice-versa?!? ROFLMAO!!!! Have you ever read the consitution?



Um, they have EXACTLY the same status in the US.


Is this a hidden camera act? And really, how old are you? I really don't say this as an insult, but you seem to be missing a very LARGE amount of information on the way the world works.

If we DO allow gay marriage, what is next? allowing incestual marriages? Inter-species marriages? Marrying objects? Allowing gay couples to somehow use clonation to "give birth"? Where do we draw the line?

Seriously, the fact that you don't allow something too liberal doesn't mean that society will turn upside down (that it will become extremely intolerant). If most people don't feel comfortable with something, why should they allow it? You gotta be in the middle.

Sometimes the slippery slope arguement just gets stupid. If we allow marraiges at all, people will marry parrots. If we allow adoption people will start adopting 21 year old Asian girls as sex slaves. If we allow homos to adopt children they'll indoctrinate them as gays. You can take anything to a rdiculous extreme.
Though I could care less about incestuos marraiges. I don't care if a guy wants to marry his eight brothers. It won't hurt me a bit.

Let's just clear this up. You CAN NOT create a definition of marriage. Currently, Civil Marriage and Civil Unions are two different things. Marriage DOES NOT need a religious official. This idea has been around a long time, and is the current legal standard of the United States. Get that through your head.

You can choose to confuse the words. However, I've already explain to you why civil unions do not equate to marriage in the eyes of the government--and that's the only thing that matters here. Freedom of Religious prevents the government from regulating religions matters--therefore, if "marriage" were purely religious, there would be NO rights associated with it.

I'm not confusing anything, this is a very BASIC point that defines where religion stops and the government starts, and vice versa.

Really? Please list the posts that ENUMERATE how Civil Unions differ legally from Marriages. I have yet to see ONE.

If rights were purely political, there would be NO religion associated with it. Yet, all but 3 Presidents have sworn on Bibles during inauguration. God is mentioned in the Pledge, on currency, in Courthouses.

You seem to be trying to convince me that the Government can marry people. All I'm saying is that it is not so, as in post #52. QED.

In a religion ceremony yes. But as I've pointed out, you can be married in a non-religious ceremony already. Are athetists not married evne though they are married?

Atheists are Civilly Unioned. There is no non-religious marriage.


There IS a legal difference. Keep on living in your dream world if you like--but in the real word there is a major legal difference between civil unions and marriage and there is NO legal difference between marriages perforemd in a church by a minister and those performed in a courthouse by a judge.

Keep living in denial if you want (see, I can insult you, too. Now let's cut that out, eh?).
Okay... LIST the differences!


Sweden with marriages performed by the church of Sweden. Same in Norway.

Church of Sweden: http://www.svenskakyrkan.se/
Of all the couples in the country who marry, more than half choose to do so in the Church of Sweden. The wedding unites man and woman in marriage. In order to be married in the Church of Sweden, at least one of the spouses must be a member.

Church of Norway: http://www.kirken.no/english/artsok.cfm
I couldn't find anything as to if they allow it. Otherwise, I can find only that Civil Unions are allowed in Norway.

And I've already pointed out to you that there are religious groups in America that are all for gay marriages. Why do you ignore that point?

Because I'm responding to THE ENTIRE DAMN FORUM and haven't had time to RESEARCH post #33. :p

I'm not confusing anything, this is a very BASIC point that defines where religion stops and the government starts, and vice versa.

Really? Please list the posts that ENUMERATE how Civil Unions differ legally from Marriages. I have yet to see ONE.

If rights were purely political, there would be NO religion associated with it. Yet, all but 3 Presidents have sworn on Bibles during inauguration. God is mentioned in the Pledge, on currency, in Courthouses.



3 Presidents? ROFL. congrats, you've just made your way onto my ignore list. You are only person number three to receive that honor.

3 Presidents? ROFL. congrats, you've just made your way onto my ignore list. You are only person number three to receive that honor.

Amazing how debating someone whom mostly agrees with you gets me on your ignore list.

BTW: http://www.svenskakyrkan.se/

Church of Sweden:
Of all the couples in the country who marry, more than half choose to do so in the Church of Sweden. The wedding unites man and woman in marriage. In order to be married in the Church of Sweden, at least one of the spouses must be a member.

I'm not confusing anything, this is a very BASIC point that defines where religion stops and the government starts, and vice versa.

Really? Please list the posts that ENUMERATE how Civil Unions differ legally from Marriages. I have yet to see ONE.

If rights were purely political, there would be NO religion associated with it. Yet, all but 3 Presidents have sworn on Bibles during inauguration. God is mentioned in the Pledge, on currency, in Courthouses.

You seem to be trying to convince me that the Government can marry people. All I'm saying is that it is not so, as in post #52. QED.



Atheists are Civilly Unioned. There is no non-religious marriage.




Keep living in denial if you want (see, I can insult you, too. Now let's cut that out, eh?).
Okay... LIST the differences!




(Looking this up, please be patient).



Because I'm responding to THE ENTIRE DAMN FORUM and haven't had time to RESEARCH post #33. :p

LOOK. Civil Unions are for gays. They are limited. An atheist marriage is just like a Christian marriage, from a legal standpoint. If you are married in a church, you must also be married by the state. There are some churches who marry gays, however, their marriages are not legal in the United States because the government does not recognize them. Civil Marriage is the EXACT same thing as a marriage performed in a church, other than the location of where it was performed and who presided over it. Legally, there is no distinction. You should know this. Look it up.

Let's just clear this up. You CAN NOT create a definition of marriage. Currently, Civil Marriage and Civil Unions are two different things. Marriage DOES NOT need a religious official. This idea has been around a long time, and is the current legal standard of the United States. Get that through your head.

Some people told me the moon was made from cheese. I didn't believe them, either. ;)

Look: my belief is that only those empowered by God can marry other folks, and that the Government can't. No one has done anything crazy like POSTED what they consider the grevious differences are between civil unions and marriage, yet.

And as I've said... if there are religions out there that marry gay people, fine. They're married. (Note: I'm still working on many posts on this thread, which is ironic, since I'm not arguing against gay marriage, just over whom CAN marry people. Funny, that.)

LOOK. Civil Unions are for gays. They are limited. An atheist marriage is just like a Christian marriage, from a legal standpoint. If you are married in a church, you must also be married by the state. There are some churches who marry gays, however, their marriages are not legal in the United States because the government does not recognize them. Civil Marriage is the EXACT same thing as a marriage performed in a church, other than the location of where it was performed and who presided over it. Legally, there is no distinction. You should know this. Look it up.

LOOK: Until someone posts HOW they are limited, you've got no legs to stand on with me.

Actually, that's not true. In MA you can only get married there if you are planning on moving there or are already a resident. They didn't enforce that law until gay marriage became legal there. Funny how it makes staight people bite their ownselves in the ass.

Wow. And I thought MA firearms laws were bad!! :D

Seriously: the point was for those poor hetero couples that can't get Civil Union'd in the mid-west. But your point is valid... fortunate that MA is on a coast, eh?

God is a gay basher. O:

It's not an issue. We allow infertile couples to get married. The idea that marriage is a baby-making venture. If anything it prevents baby-making. Our male nature is to have sex with as many women as possible in order to make the most babies possible. Marriage prevents/hinders this.

But it promotes the RAISING of those children. Surely, you're not proposing a "gigalo" class of citizen? :)

Not at all. I am in favour of gay marriage, but banning religion would be just as much, maybe worse, of an attack on civil liberties. There is, believe it or not, a happy medium between theocracy and mandatory atheism, and it's called secularism.

Yep.

I think that I hve heard of religions that allow it. The pro side wants to allow those religions to wed gay couples. We're not interested in forcing Christian churches or mosques to do it. If there was a religion that allowed gay marriage, would you be all for legalising it?

I never said I was against gay marriage. I only said that I didn't know of it being DONE by any religion (in the US).

But not an issue for marriage. Get out of my thread.

That's rather belligerant, but if you want, I will.

You are plainly showing your bigotry when you equate homosexual marriage to killing children. Get out of my thread.

I was using an example that not eveything in the good ol' days was good. That's ALL.

I've seen you stating your position in other threads. You think that gays should be allowed civil unions, but that marriage in any form should remain off-limits to them.

Um... no. And I said as much in my posts. If there ARE religions that allow it, then those couples are married.

i believe there should be a constitutional ammendment banning the institution of marriage and replacing it with Civil Unions for gay and straight alike

i believe there should be a constitutional ammendment banning the institution of marriage and replacing it with Civil Unions for gay and straight alike

I would support that as long as in the eyes of the government, gays and straights would be equal. It would save a lot of confusion from those who are unable to accept that there can be more than one definition for a word (IE that marriage can be secular or religious).

If rights were purely political, there would be NO religion associated with it. Yet, all but 3 Presidents have sworn on Bibles during inauguration. God is mentioned in the Pledge, on currency, in Courthouses.

Which 3 Presidents? Why didn't they use the Bible?

The government can tell religious people what do and vice-versa?!? ROFLMAO!!!! Have you ever read the consitution?

I think you know that was a typo. Mea culpa. I've gone back and put the "'t" back where it belongs.


Is this a hidden camera act? And really, how old are you? I really don't say this as an insult, but you seem to be missing a very LARGE amount of information on the way the world works.

I thought I was on your ignore list?

But it promotes the RAISING of those children.

I was using an example that not eveything in the good ol' days was good. That's ALL.

Um... no. And I said as much in my posts. If there ARE religions that allow it, then those couples are married.
1. Agreed. Still, childless marriages are not merely allowed, but are even the norm.

2. I doubt he was trying to say that everything in the old days was good. He was saying that attitudes to gay marriage have not always been the same.

3. If civil marriages and civil unions are the same, why is there a legal difference in defenition between them?

...turn into a debate about the morality of homosexuality? It's not the issue.

It's the jesus-people. They always take the conversation down that road.

Which 3 Presidents? Why didn't they use the Bible?

http://www.yakscorner.com/stories/inaugural_oath.htm

Only three presidents did not swear on a Bible at their inaugurations: Chester Arthur, Teddy Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge.

I don't know as to why, of course.

1. Agreed. Still, childless marriages are not merely allowed, but are even the norm.

2. I doubt he was trying to say that everything in the old days was good. He was saying that attitudes to gay marriage have not always been the same.

3. If civil marriages and civil unions are the same, why is there a legal difference in defenition between them?

1. All this stems from one guy saying that there was no other issue, and me being contrarian. Given I'm pro Civil Unions for all, and pro Marriage for all (if the religion in question allows it), I'm staggered by how many posts I've generated.

2. Yes, but by the same token, I don't recall anywhere on Earth where gay marriage has been the norm, either.

3. You tell me. No one has yet done so... even though I keep asking them to!

LOOK: Until someone posts HOW they are limited, you've got no legs to stand on with me.

Hope this is helpful. General commentary from the 'Freedom to Marry' website: http://www.freedomtomarry.org/document.asp?doc_id=1774

For specifics on differences between marriage and civil unions:
http://www.glad.org/rights/Marriage_v_CU_chart.pdf

This touches on benefits:
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/MarriageDifferences.pdf

My religion (Unitarian Universalist) marries same-sex couples, as do other religions. Seven of the fourteen marriage plaintiffs in Massachusetts were UUs. The President of our denomination officiated at the marriage ceremony of the lead plantiffs:
http://www.uua.org/news/2004/040517c.html

Coalition of Faith Leaders and Theologians Declare Religious Support for Marriage:
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/document.asp?doc_id=1908

This is called he slippery slope fallacy. You assume that if we allow something, all these other horrible things will happen because in your mind they are similiar. However, the fact remains that there is a crucial difference between most of the things you describe and gay marriage--gays harm no one by marrying.



So if one day in the not so distant future most people don't feel comfortable with Christians getting married or having kids, you would be okay with that?

And this isn't a slippery slope of fallacy? Funny I didn't see anyone comment on this ridiculous statement.


If we don't allow gay marriage, what is next? Not allowing interracial marriages? Inter-faith marriages? Non-Christian Fundamentalist marriages? Where do we draw the line?

That is what he was responding too, and if what the above poster says could happen then it goes without saying that if you allow something you are opening the door for other things to be allowed. Both are false of course and really have no relevance in any discussion.

For the record I believe all Marriage issues should be out of the Federal Government and into the hands of the individual states. The Feds do not issue the marriage license, the States do. Whether you get married in a church, justice of the peace, Casino dude that looks like Elvis, a ship captain no matter what. You need that license from the state you reside in to become considered a married couple and receive all said benefits. If any politician, no matter what the party, amends the constitution of the US to define Marriage period will never ever receive my vote and get someone that loves to go door to door and explain to potential voters why said political party is wrong for the nation during election season. Of course said amendment needs to be ratified by 2/3 of the states to even take effect so not really much of an issue there.

Those that oppose gay marriage will also tell you how you may "legally" fuck your wife.
Choose freewill.

Hope this is helpful. General commentary from the 'Freedom to Marry' website: http://www.freedomtomarry.org/document.asp?doc_id=1774

For specifics on differences between marriage and civil unions:
http://www.glad.org/rights/Marriage_v_CU_chart.pdf

This touches on benefits:
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/MarriageDifferences.pdf

My religion (Unitarian Universalist) marries same-sex couples, as do other religions. Seven of the fourteen marriage plaintiffs in Massachusetts were UUs. The President of our denomination officiated at the marriage ceremony of the lead plantiffs:
http://www.uua.org/news/2004/040517c.html

Coalition of Faith Leaders and Theologians Declare Religious Support for Marriage:
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/document.asp?doc_id=1908

Think you can find anymore biased sites to get your info from? Going by your sites though it seems that those not married have even less rights than those with a civil union.

As I said in a differnt post, I am all for marriage for everyone just as long as the Federal government doesn't define what marriage is. They have to much control over our lives as it is, they do not need to meddle in this.

Look: my belief is that only those empowered by God can marry other folks, and that the Government can't.
The Church of England was created by King Henry VIII so that he could divorce his wife. Were the priests of said church empowered by God, or by Henry VIII? If I as mayor of Rhodestown create the Church of Rhodestown to marry gays, are my slacker friends I appoint as ministers empowered by God? How exactly is one "empowered by God" anyway?

The Church of England was created by King Henry VIII so that he could divorce his wife. Were the priests of said church empowered by God, or by Henry VIII? If I as mayor of Rhodestown create the Church of Rhodestown to marry gays, are my slacker friends I appoint as ministers empowered by God? How exactly is one "empowered by God" anyway?


Isn't it obvious? You agree with Markreich.

Amazing how debating someone whom mostly agrees with you gets me on your ignore list.


Regarless of whom you argree with (e.g. even if you are playing devil's advocate), you can still come off as an idiot. I believe that is why (if I a may interpret another's actions) you have "earned" the right be added to one's ignore list.

By the way, you've made mine now too. Just to be clear, it is because you have chosen to argue from your own definition of marriage instead of using the one the rest of us have been -- how the state denfines both marriage and civil unions.

Think you can find anymore biased sites to get your info from? Going by your sites though it seems that those not married have even less rights than those with a civil union.

As I said in a differnt post, I am all for marriage for everyone just as long as the Federal government doesn't define what marriage is. They have to much control over our lives as it is, they do not need to meddle in this.

Certainly these sites are subjective, and have a point of view they are trying to promote. Nevertheless, I haven't found anything that counters the veracity of their claims as to the differences between marriage and civil unions.

The more conservative sites I reviewed do not appear interested in highlighting the differences, as they are opposed to same-sex couples having access to either marriage or civili unions.

Civil unions do appear to confer some benefits for some people in some geographic locations. Those without a civil union, or those unmarried, do not have access to these beneifts. Neither group have all of the rights and responsibilities as married couples.

I also agree that marriage should not be legislated at the Federal level.

Those that oppose gay marriage will also tell you how you may "legally" fuck your wife.
Choose freewill.

Marriage is no fun without buggery, lust and sin...

Isn't it obvious? You agree with Markreich.
Oh, right. Silly me, I thought calling him on his ill-formed overgeneralization he refers to as a "belief" was disagreeing with him. Now I see that in fact I agree with everything he says. Since we're falsely reading into what people are saying, I must state that I further agree with Markreich that Government officials are empowered by God to make decisions, especially ones relating to marriage.

Like I said, I agree from a legal standpoint homosexuals should be allowed to marry, even though religiously I don't agree. However, you're just causing more problems for yourself by not getting married to someone you are basically married to anyway. Depending on where you live, that may or may not be considered "common law marriage". Meaning, your significant other MAY be treated legally as your wife, and be able to get those precious rights of a wife, or MAY NOT be. Let's say you have yourself a little Terry Shiavo-esque court battle. You probably will not be considered next of kin, which, in plain words, would suck.

Common law marriage and who has guardianship over you if/when you become incapacitated are important issues to take into consideration, but you can get around both if you know the laws in your state, and take the proper precautions.

Another quick note: I am a woman, not a man. So, my significant other will be (*hopefully there will be one*), a man. I did not take offense to your post, or any comments therein. I just wanted to point out that even if you are being helpful, you can make pretty large errors when assuming another's gender -- thus making yourself look silly, even if you are, in fact, rather intelligent and making valid points.

Um... how about gay couples cannot conceive life? ;)


Alright, how do you explain taking the sperm of a male friend and inserting into a lesbian parent? Wow..to think tht could make a child...hmmmm. Or a male inpregnating a willing female friend and having a child THAT way. Maybe not between themselves, no, but beig Gay doesn't exactly make you sterile. You can HAVE children. And if you're a lesbian like ymself, then you already have a willing father picked out and have it planned...so not being able to have children shouldn't even be a concievable argument..because we ARE still fertile.

Oh, right. Silly me, I thought calling him on his ill-formed overgeneralization he refers to as a "belief" was disagreeing with him. Now I see that in fact I agree with everything he says. Since we're falsely reading into what people are saying, I must state that I further agree with Markreich that Government officials are empowered by God to make decisions, especially ones relating to marriage.


LOL, I think you missed my point. Or maybe I missed your's.

You asked how you get God to give the right to speak for him or something along those lines. My response was that you have to agree with Markreich. Sorry if there was ambiguity.

Certainly these sites are subjective, and have a point of view they are trying to promote. Nevertheless, I haven't found anything that counters the veracity of their claims as to the differences between marriage and civil unions.

The more conservative sites I reviewed do not appear interested in highlighting the differences, as they are opposed to same-sex couples having access to either marriage or civili unions.

Civil unions do appear to confer some benefits for some people in some geographic locations. Those without a civil union, or those unmarried, do not have access to these beneifts. Neither group have all of the rights and responsibilities as married couples.

I also agree that marriage should not be legislated at the Federal level.


A quick search on google didn't yeild many sites less bias either. I do like the fact they atleast post the differences and will probably use those sites in my next debate with people at work on this issue. It seems to come up once a month. In time and lots of educating I believe that all people in the US will have the same benifits. Throughout history it has happened eventually, Hell it took 80 years from the first civil rights law to pass, to the law we have now tearing down the walls finally from slavery. Gay marriage to my knowledge hasn't been much of an issue till the last 20-30 years. That is when I first read the very first stories pertaining to it anyway.

Hope this is helpful. General commentary from the 'Freedom to Marry' website: http://www.freedomtomarry.org/document.asp?doc_id=1774

For specifics on differences between marriage and civil unions:
http://www.glad.org/rights/Marriage_v_CU_chart.pdf

This touches on benefits:
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/MarriageDifferences.pdf

My religion (Unitarian Universalist) marries same-sex couples, as do other religions. Seven of the fourteen marriage plaintiffs in Massachusetts were UUs. The President of our denomination officiated at the marriage ceremony of the lead plantiffs:
http://www.uua.org/news/2004/040517c.html

Coalition of Faith Leaders and Theologians Declare Religious Support for Marriage:
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/document.asp?doc_id=1908

Thanks! I'm reviewing your post, and will reply as soon as I'm done w/ post #33.

BTW: re: the Glad.Org article: It is defining Civil Unions only in the Vermont context. I'm talking about ANY Civil Ceremony as being a Union, and not Marriage (please see post #52).

Alright, how do you explain taking the sperm of a male friend and inserting into a lesbian parent? Wow..to think tht could make a child...hmmmm. Or a male inpregnating a willing female friend and having a child THAT way. Maybe not between themselves, no, but beig Gay doesn't exactly make you sterile. You can HAVE children. And if you're a lesbian like ymself, then you already have a willing father picked out and have it planned...so not being able to have children shouldn't even be a concievable argument..because we ARE still fertile.

That's not a gay couple, then. ;)

I've said it ^nth time already, I guess I'll say it again: I was being contrarian in order to point out that there were other issues aside from morality. A gay couple, within the bounds of marriage cannot biologically have children w/o science or infidelity. Ipso facto, that is a possible cause of failure.
At no time have I ever said I was against it.

Alright, how do you explain taking the sperm of a male friend and inserting into a lesbian parent? Wow..to think tht could make a child...hmmmm. Or a male inpregnating a willing female friend and having a child THAT way. Maybe not between themselves, no, but beig Gay doesn't exactly make you sterile. You can HAVE children. And if you're a lesbian like ymself, then you already have a willing father picked out and have it planned...so not being able to have children shouldn't even be a concievable argument..because we ARE still fertile.


But then that wouldn't be a biological child between both couples, which is where he is basing his arguement to begin with. No matter how you frame the arguement gay couples can not biologically have a baby.

You need an egg and sperm to make a baby, man/man is two sperm donors, women/women is two egg donors. To make a child you still need one from each sex, thereby making gay couples sterile inside their relationship. You can think of it this way, without your dna's combining you are ineffect cutting out a whole new strain of DNA and possible killing off the humane race altogether. I know a long shot but there have been even more ridiculous statements made in this thread.

Adoption is always the best choice imho for gay couples and those that can not have babies naturally. Atleast if said couples are adopting then it will save 1000's of innocent babies a year if not more.

The Church of England was created by King Henry VIII so that he could divorce his wife. Were the priests of said church empowered by God, or by Henry VIII? If I as mayor of Rhodestown create the Church of Rhodestown to marry gays, are my slacker friends I appoint as ministers empowered by God? How exactly is one "empowered by God" anyway?

That's a really good question!
Henry VIII was "Defender of the Faith", and Catholic before the whole CofE schism he created. By the Divine Right of Kings, he was chosen by God to rule. But the clergy are (by nature of their vows) servants of God, and have the right to performs rites, including marriage. I don't know the answer to that, to tell you the truth. I suspect there isn't a good one, either.

I'd have to say no to that, unless your Mayor has the Divine Right of Mayors, or it is also a member of the clergy.

Empowered: the clergy of a sect, by nature of their devotion, scholarship and work are vested in the ability to perform rites. It's the basic definition of any holy man, really: a conduit between the worshipers and the worshipped.

Oh, right. Silly me, I thought calling him on his ill-formed overgeneralization he refers to as a "belief" was disagreeing with him. Now I see that in fact I agree with everything he says. Since we're falsely reading into what people are saying, I must state that I further agree with Markreich that Government officials are empowered by God to make decisions, especially ones relating to marriage.

NB: I've edited that post to include the "'t" that was missing in my haste to reply to the flurry of responses. Please note post #90.

LOL, I think you missed my point. Or maybe I missed your's.

You asked how you get God to give the right to speak for him or something along those lines. My response was that you have to agree with Markreich. Sorry if there was ambiguity.
Yeah, I think we were working at cross-points here. I took your post as a reference that Markreich keeps trying to say that you and he agree on nearly everything, when in fact, you don't. And my reference to "falsely reading into what others say" was referring to Markreich, not you.

Regarless of whom you argree with (e.g. even if you are playing devil's advocate), you can still come off as an idiot. I believe that is why (if I a may interpret another's actions) you have "earned" the right be added to one's ignore list.

By the way, you've made mine now too. Just to be clear, it is because you have chosen to argue from your own definition of marriage instead of using the one the rest of us have been -- how the state denfines both marriage and civil unions.

Cute. I've offended a newbie.

Aha. And that was posted... where?
No really. The first person to offer ANY comparisons was Radclyffe in post #95. :rolleyes: I stated in post #52 my point of view. No one has refuted it to say WHY the Government should be allowed to join people as religions do. No one has refuted (or even acknowledged) that I keep saying that legally, Civil Unions and Marriages are LEGALLY EQUAL using the definitions I've laid out.

Can someone here who is a supporter of gay marriage (or for that fact, someone who is a supporter of "traditional marriage" can also jump in) explain to me what the justification is for having the bureaucratic state recognize marriage, gay or straight? Why don't we simply leave marriage up to private individuals and institutions and get the state out of it? This matter has not been brought up in the prior discussion.

I personally find it pretty absurd that many gay activists feel that the government should "stay out of the bedroom" when it comes to anti-sodomy laws but think it's fine and dandy for the government to recognize them as married couples. In addition, marriage is traditionally a religious ceremony and sacrament, involving the state in it breaks the church/state barrier in the American Constitution.

That's a really good question!
Henry VIII was "Defender of the Faith", and Catholic before the whole CofE schism he created. By the Divine Right of Kings, he was chosen by God to rule.
So we're into Divine Right of Kings, now? Sweet Jesus, but I never thought this would be brought up.
Ok, Divine Right of Kings implies that whosoever happens to be in charge of whichever government at any given time was placed there by God, for better or worse. Therefore, whatever said govenment official does or says is the will of God. Continuing with the premise, government officials are therefore empowered by God to make decisions regarding their constituants. One final step, and we're there: government officals who preside over what they decree to be a marriage ceremony makes it so. Congratulations, by giving credence to Divine Right of Kings, you've disproved your own statement.

I'd have to say no to that, unless your Mayor has the Divine Right of Mayors, or it is also a member of the clergy.

Empowered: the clergy of a sect, by nature of their devotion, scholarship and work are vested in the ability to perform rites. It's the basic definition of any holy man, really: a conduit between the worshipers and the worshipped.
1. If the Mayor is the Mayor, he's obviously there by the will of God, just as a King is there by God's decree. See previous.
2. I am an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church, and have presided over three marriages. I became a minister by filling out a form on the internet. By your definition, I am empowered by God. Does that seem right to you?

My biggest problem with your views, Markreich, is that while you have serious grievance with calling a ceremony performed by a government offical "marriage," you've no problem with marriage being the same ceremony done by clergy, even if said clergy is some bum who formed the Holy Church of the Divine Overpass and started joining the rats in divine matrimony.

You seem to be confusing civil unions for civil marriage. Civil marriage exists in all fifty states (yes I am only speaking of the US, I can't speak for other nations) and does not require any religious input and can be performed by a judge or justice of the peace. It afford ALL the rights of what we commonly call marriage and what you incorrectly equate with religion.

Ah! Thanks. I stand corrected, then.
Note: Please substitute Civil Marriage for Civil Unions in all my prior posts on this forum. I'll gladly change terms.

Civil unions only exist in a handfull of states. They grant about a dozen of the rights we associate with marriage at their best. According to the GAO, there are over 1000 rights associated with full marriage. Further, civil unions do not grant ANY of the federal rights of marriage--courtesy of the Defense of Marriage act violating States Rights and the 14th Amendment.

That's not what I had meant, so I apologise.


The Church of God
The United Church of Christ
The Unitarian Universalist Church
The Reconciling Methodist Congregations
A variety of Episcopal churches throughout the nation.
Some sects of Judaism.

Which Church of God?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_God
United Church of Christ: They are obviously for it, but I could not find anything on http://www.ucc.org that said they perform gay marriages.
Unitarian Universalism: Same as above. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism didn't tell me that they perform gay marriages, just that they're not against them.
I also couldn't find anything on the Methodists (Reconciling or otherwise) performing gay marriages.
Episcopal? At least from this, I don't think it's a done deal, officially: http://www.nhregister.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13759326&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=517515&rfi=6
I couldn't find the Judiastic sects you speak of.

If you can provide me with any links to the contrary, I'm happy to read them.

See above on why these are unfair and are NOT equal to marriage.

Noted.

So we're into Divine Right of Kings, now? Sweet Jesus, but I never thought this would be brought up.
Ok, Divine Right of Kings implies that whosoever happens to be in charge of whichever government at any given time was placed there by God, for better or worse. Therefore, whatever said govenment official does or says is the will of God. Continuing with the premise, government officials are therefore empowered by God to make decisions regarding their constituants. One final step, and we're there: government officals who preside over what they decree to be a marriage ceremony makes it so. Congratulations, by giving credence to Divine Right of Kings, you've disproved your own statement.

A) I said I didn't know what the answer was. There is a difference.
B) "government officals who preside over what they decree to be a marriage ceremony makes it so": Ah, but that's the clergy in this example. At least in theory, the King had no right to create a new church.

1. If the Mayor is the Mayor, he's obviously there by the will of God, just as a King is there by God's decree. See previous.

If that's the case in your mythic city, okay.

2. I am an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church, and have presided over three marriages. I became a minister by filling out a form on the internet. By your definition, I am empowered by God. Does that seem right to you?

If you're considered clergy, you're clergy. (Note: I'm assuming that the US Government accepts that the ULC is a religion.)

My biggest problem with your views, Markreich, is that while you have serious grievance with calling a ceremony performed by a government offical "marriage," you've no problem with marriage being the same ceremony done by clergy, even if said clergy is some bum who formed the Holy Church of the Divine Overpass and started joining the rats in divine matrimony.

I've finally gotten through most of the thread, and have agreed that I made the mistake of confusing Civil Marriage with Civil Union. I have absolutely no problem with anybody getting a Civil Marriage, and am NOT for Civil Unions.

I apologise for any confusion I caused by using an incorrect term.

I am from the Druid path. It is both lifestyle and religion to me. In our faith, the bonds of love are more important than the sexuality or numbers of people involved. My current priestess has performed both polygamous and gay marriages as sanctioned by our faith. However, she could not register those marriages with the state and therefor those couples could not apply for health care for their spouse. Couldn't do a lot of things.

Wicca as a whole (Druids are considered part of this group) is responsive to the needs of its people. We do not make a distinction between hetero and gays in a relationship or marriage. Certainly if we lived somewhere where it is legal, she would be registering the marriages she performs.

Feel free to burn me at the stake now. J/k.

...turn into a debate about the morality of homosexuality? It's not the issue.

I daresay that 8 pages later, that it's not the case this time!

Which Church of God?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_God
O blessed irony.

United Church of Christ: They are obviously for it, but I could not find anything on http://www.ucc.org that said they perform gay marriages.
Unitarian Universalism: Same as above. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism didn't tell me that they perform gay marriages, just that they're not against them.
You obviously haven't been reading your posts. Someone reported previously that the president of the UU church personally presided over the marriage of the head plaintiffs in the Massachusetts gay marriage lawsuits.

I couldn't find the Judiastic sects you speak of.
Judaistic? Do you mean Judaic, or Jewish? Please tell me "Judaistic" is a joke, or a typo.

O blessed irony.

?Que?

You obviously haven't been reading your posts. Someone reported previously that the president of the UU church personally presided over the marriage of the head plaintiffs in the Massachusetts gay marriage lawsuits.

In over an hour of non-stop reading and typing, it's inevitable that I'll miss something (ergo the missing 't I had to go back and edit, as posted in #90.).


Judaistic? Do you mean Judaic, or Jewish? Please tell me "Judaistic" is a joke, or a typo.

I'm just replying to whatever I'm given.

Um... how about gay couples cannot conceive life? ;)

There are plenty of heterosexual couples that can't concieve either for many reasons. Should they be denied marriage, too? Should people who breed out of wedlock be forced to marry?

I got nothing 'gainst same-sex marriage, cept... why does it have to be so dern gay?

A) I said I didn't know what the answer was. There is a difference.
B) "government officals who preside over what they decree to be a marriage ceremony makes it so": Ah, but that's the clergy in this example. At least in theory, the King had no right to create a new church.
So, do you believe in Divine Right of Kings, or don't you?

If you're considered clergy, you're clergy. (Note: I'm assuming that the US Government accepts that the ULC is a religion.)
As far as I know, the First Amendment makes sure that there's no "accepted" and "non-accepted" status for any religion in the United States. And as the county clerk's office accepted my credentials, I'd say I'm golden.
Now, the ULC has no stated problem with homosexual marriage, and I'm all for it. So there's the church you were looking for. My sect of the ULC will gladly perform gay marriages to any and all who ask. They just won't be recognized under the current laws of California.

Some people have the idea that their religion's "morality" is relevant. Silly, but they do.
Just wondering, on which basis do you believe laws should be made?

So, do you believe in Divine Right of Kings, or don't you?

In circa 1500 England? Sure. In 2005 America? Nope.

As far as I know, the First Amendment makes sure that there's no "accepted" and "non-accepted" status for any religion in the United States. And as the county clerk's office accepted my credentials, I'd say I'm golden.

I agree, re: the 1st Amendment.
However, there are laws regarding what constitutes a religion:
The 1964 concurring opinion by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Douglas, in the case of United States v. Seeger, (380 U.S. 163), confirmed that the United States is a pluralistic nation, founded on the belief that religion must not be used to indoctrinate or coerce. This was also supported by the majority ruling in Lee v. Weisman, (505 U.S. 577) in 1992.
...so the folks at Waco (as far as I can tell) wouldn't be part of a religion as far as I can see by this ruling.

Then you are. :)

Now, the ULC has no stated problem with homosexual marriage, and I'm all for it. So there's the church you were looking for. My sect of the ULC will gladly perform gay marriages to any and all who ask. They just won't be recognized under the current laws of California.

Fair enough.
In that case, the laws should be changed.

Just wondering, on which basis do you believe laws should be made?

How about reason? Logic? Equality? Mutual Benefit? Those sound like a good basis, and while religion can encompass them, they are not reliant upon it.

Originally Posted by Markreich
Not what I said: my reply to There is no other argument that can't be completely destroyed."

My only comment is that the argument can be destroyed.
Argument: Gays cannot marry because two males or two females cannot naturally produce a child combining thier two dna strands.

Using this reasoning all couples who are infertile must be divorced.
All elderly (post-menapausal) women cannot marry
all men and women who have had their tubes tied cannot marry
Any woman who has had her uterous removed and all men with no testicles cannot marry

Now, ya'll are typing faster than I can read before bed time so I could be off.
Original thread don't use religion to argue
so without using religion (ie marriage is god, civil union is human)
and without using procreation defend:
why shouldn't gays marry?


oh yeah....raising children in single family homes.....every hear the quote "it takes a villiage to raise a child" I often wonder if we are doing harm by confining the raising of children to just one couple.

Okay, the topic was very long. I hope I am not repeating myself.

What if people who practice homosexuality now really do have the same rights? Just bear with me.

Someone who prefers straight relationships is allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender. So is someone who prefers a gay relationship (not saying I would encourage it, but it is true).

Someone who prefers a gay relationship is not allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender. Neither is someone who prefers a straight relationship.

Granted, one persuasion is still happy and another still unhappy, but what are the thoughts on this?

Should they be denied marriage, too? Should people who breed out of wedlock be forced to marry?
Yes, no. Marriage should only be granted to people with children. Churches can do whatever they want.

SHUT THE HELL UP ALREADY! All of these Christian fundamentalists talk about homosexuality being immoral, and yet they completely ignore everything else going on in the world! Is prostitution moral by your standards? Adultery? Are you doing anything to stop that? No? Then shut up and let the gay people live their lives!

SHUT THE HELL UP ALREADY! All of these Christian fundamentalists talk about homosexuality being immoral, and yet they completely ignore everything else going on in the world! Is prostitution moral by your standards? Adultery? Are you doing anything to stop that? No? Then shut up and let the gay people live their lives!
No. No. No.

What do you want me to do about it? Go arrest prostitutes? Go shoot adulters? I believe adultery should be a crime. To take your ridiculous argument and use it for something else, when's the last time you donated a dollar to a starving kid in India? Clearly, since you don't care about starving Indians, you're hypocritical for supporting starving Americans. You bastard.

No. No. No.

What do you want me to do about it? Go arrest prostitutes? Go shoot adulters? I believe adultery should be a crime. To take your ridiculous argument and use it for something else, when's the last time you donated a dollar to a starving kid in India? Clearly, since you don't care about starving Indians, you're hypocritical for supporting starving Americans. You bastard.
The thing is, when is the last time you saw a thread here about making adultery illegal? About how to stop prostitution? The focus is clearly on gay marriage, here and elsewhere. Whens the last time anyone went and tried to get laws passed to ban adultery(On a publicized level)?
As for your example, I won't even dignify it with a response, since it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

The thing is, when is the last time you saw a thread here about making adultery illegal? About how to stop prostitution? The focus is clearly on gay marriage, here and elsewhere. Whens the last time anyone went and tried to get laws passed to ban adultery(On a publicized level)?
As for your example, I won't even dignify it with a response, since it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
I'm against a lot of things, doesn't mean I need to make a thread about it. If you stay here for any period of time you'll notice that it tends to be a group of about 5% of the posters who start topics. I myself generally do not. I just respond to what is posted. Same with most people on NS. If a law banning adultery was proposed, I'd support. If a law supporting gay marriage was proposed, I'd oppose it. I'd debate either in a thread. Actually, your whole argument has nothing to do with gay marriage, but I was just humoring you.

Marriage should only be granted to people with children.

I thought sex outside of wedlock was a big no no in Christianity :confused:

I'm not accusing you, personally of anything. But there are so many people that pick one issue to argue about, despite the fact that there are many more important ones. If you are against gay marriage because of your religion, then don't selectively apply your morals to a few things, and ignore the rest.

I thought sex outside of wedlock was a big no no in Christianity :confused:
Yeah, but there should be two types of marriages, religious ones and real ones. Religious ones just get you a nice piece of paper and moral legitimacy, if that's your bag. Real ones get you power of attorney and what not.

I'm not accusing you, personally of anything. But there are so many people that pick one issue to argue about, despite the fact that there are many more important ones. If you are against gay marriage because of your religion, then don't selectively apply your morals to a few things, and ignore the rest.
I'm against gay marriage because I am against marriage as the institution as it exists today. But that's another argument. Incidentally, my religion is against gay marriage, but that is not my objection to it on legalistic grounds.

Again, I am not attacking you personally. I'm talking about a large majority of others.

Again, I am not attacking you personally. I'm talking about a large majority of others.
The large majority of others don't start threads about it because they don't care about adultery any more than gay marriage. The difference is that the pro-gay marriage people are a lot more vocal than the pro-adultery people.

Okay, the topic was very long. I hope I am not repeating myself.

What if people who practice homosexuality now really do have the same rights? Just bear with me.

Someone who prefers straight relationships is allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender. So is someone who prefers a gay relationship (not saying I would encourage it, but it is true).

Someone who prefers a gay relationship is not allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender. Neither is someone who prefers a straight relationship.

Granted, one persuasion is still happy and another still unhappy, but what are the thoughts on this?

This is very simliar to the CA cases over interracial marriages. It was argued that whites could not marry into other races, so it was not discimination that blacks could not marry into other races. The judges in the case found that a system such as that is inherantly disciminatory.

Further, if gay marriage were recognized, everyone would still have the same rights. A straight man could marry another man. It's the same arguement as a gay man marrying a woman and still having equal rights is it not?

Yeah, but there should be two types of marriages, religious ones and real ones. Religious ones just get you a nice piece of paper and moral legitimacy, if that's your bag. Real ones get you power of attorney and what not.


Ummmm, those exist. They are called Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage. Granted, I believe you can get moral legitimacy from civil marriages, but if you don't believe that, its fine by me. Just let me live my life the way I see fit and I'll let you live yours the way you see fit. That way we all get along.

This is very simliar to the CA cases over interracial marriages. It was argued that whites could not marry into other races, so it was not discimination that blacks could not marry into other races. The judges in the case found that a system such as that is inherantly disciminatory.

Further, if gay marriage were recognized, everyone would still have the same rights. A straight man could marry another man. It's the same arguement as a gay man marrying a woman and still having equal rights is it not?
Race and sexual orientation are different things. Why should sexual preference be a protected class?

Ummmm, those exist. They are called Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage. Granted, I believe you can get moral legitimacy from civil marriages, but if you don't believe that, its fine by me. Just let me live my life the way I see fit and I'll let you live yours the way you see fit. That way we all get along.
They exist, but they're interwoven. The idea is to seperate them.

Race and sexual orientation are different things. Why should sexual preference be a protected class?

Because its as natural and no more of a choice than race is. All people have a basic right to pursue happiness, but the government chooses to stand in the way of one group and not in the way of another. That is a violation of the 14th amendment. Further, gay marriage harms no one and nothing. There is no reason for the government to refuse to recognize them.

They exist, but they're interwoven. The idea is to seperate them.

They are separate. You can get married in a church and never tell the government about it. You can get married ina courthouse and never have the word god mentioned. They are only often combined because people want to and because the government allows religious organizations to perform the ceremony that grants legitimacy to the marriage license. It's a matter of convenience.

Because its as natural and no more of a choice than race is. All people have a basic right to pursue happiness, but the government chooses to stand in the way of one group and not in the way of another. That is a violation of the 14th amendment. Further, gay marriage harms no one and nothing. There is no reason for the government to refuse to recognize them.
A lot of things are natural. Cyanide is a natural compound. Rape is a natural act. Then again, so is water and alturism. However, something's "naturalness" doesn't make it good or bad. Is marriage involved in the tax system in anyway? If so, then someone is harmed by it, as lost taxes need to be remade somewhere.

They are separate. You can get married in a church and never tell the government about it. You can get married ina courthouse and never have the word god mentioned. They are only often combined because people want to and because the government allows religious organizations to perform the ceremony that grants legitimacy to the marriage license. It's a matter of convenience.
But they're the same thing. You can marry anyone in a church. You can marry anyone in a courthouse. However, governmental marriages should be stricter, infertile people shouldn't get married, for example. Let 'em marry in churches.

A lot of things are natural. Cyanide is a natural compound. Rape is a natural act. Then again, so is water and alturism. However, something's "naturalness" doesn't make it good or bad. Is marriage involved in the tax system in anyway? If so, then someone is harmed by it, as lost taxes need to be remade somewhere.

Rape and cyanide cause harm to people. Gay marriage harms no one as I already pointed out. Water and altruism provide good--and I would argue that on a personal level, allowing gay marriage would do good. It would provide equality to a much maligned group at the expense of no one.

And where did we get on the topic of taxes? I don't care if marriage gets you a tax break or not--I'm more concerned about equality and the fairness of the issue.

Tell me this--why shouldn 't the government recognize gay marriage?

It's pretty simple.

Most people are only happy and feel some sort of self-confirmation when they have something to ramble against.


As for marriage itself.

If you get married in Austria for example... well. You can marry in a church, but that marriage has absolutely no legal basis. The only legal marriage is done in a civil registry office. Anything else, forget it. Civli and religious marriage are not interwoven here, since there's a seperation of state and church in Austria, luckily.

Gay marriage isn't legal atm though, since well... *eyes the conservative government and its pseudo-nazi allies*

But they're the same thing. You can marry anyone in a church. You can marry anyone in a courthouse. However, governmental marriages should be stricter, infertile people shouldn't get married, for example. Let 'em marry in churches.


Why shouldn't infertile people be able to get married by the government? If anything, its churches that try to put the stipulation on marriage that its all about producing children. Its the rights afforded by the government (such as next of kin status) that matter to couples regardless of whether or not they are going to have children.

LOOK: Until someone posts HOW they are limited, you've got no legs to stand on with me.

Obviously, presenting the legal facts isn't good enough for some people who admit that they will continue to believe what they want, despite that it isn't so.

Rape and cyanide cause harm to people. Gay marriage harms no one as I already pointed out. Water and altruism provide good--and I would argue that on a personal level, allowing gay marriage would do good. It would provide equality to a much maligned group at the expense of no one.

And where did we get on the topic of taxes? I don't care if marriage gets you a tax break or not--I'm more concerned about equality and the fairness of the issue.

Tell me this--why shouldn 't the government recognize gay marriage?
Cyanide doesn't necessarily harm you, you're probably breathing particles of it right now. Marriage changes your tax structure. Married people pay less tax than unmarried people. Marriage therefore hurts unmarried people. However, if there is some societal good that justifies marriage, it should be allowed. Power of attorney and medical directives don't need a marriage license to be secured, you can write up a contract and do that yourself. The government shouldn't recognize gay marriage for the same reason it shouldn't recognize marriage between infertile couples, for the same reason it shouldn't recognize any childless couple. However, if they want to adopt, then let them get married.

Why shouldn't infertile people be able to get married by the government? If anything, its churches that try to put the stipulation on marriage that its all about producing children. Its the rights afforded by the government (such as next of kin status) that matter to couples regardless of whether or not they are going to have children.
They don't deserve them. People should only get SPECIAL privledges if they do something SPECIAL. The only thing I can think of that is intrinsically and universally good about marriage is that it promotes a healthy environment for children. That's something society should be concerned about, its children. If you want next of kin status, write it into a legal document.

Cyanide doesn't necessarily harm you, you're probably breathing particles of it right now.

So what was the purpose behind your bringing it up? And why aren't you responding to my points about things causing harm not being legal. Or maybe you're just avoiding them like so many before you.


Marriage changes your tax structure. Married people pay less tax than unmarried people. Marriage therefore hurts unmarried people. However, if there is some societal good that justifies marriage, it should be allowed.


Go back and read what I wrote and respond to it. Otherwise, don't talk about tax again as I've already said I could care less about it as long as gays and straights are treated equally.


Power of attorney and medical directives don't need a marriage license to be secured, you can write up a contract and do that yourself.

And you have to carry that contract with you EVERYWHERE YOU GO. If you don't have it, oh well, your partner can't visit you and your parents you haven't seen in twenty years get to decide what to do with you. Sorry!

Plus you would have to draw up quite a large number of contracts to get all those rights when a marriage license by itself would do it.


The government shouldn't recognize gay marriage for the same reason it shouldn't recognize marriage between infertile couples, for the same reason it shouldn't recognize any childless couple.

And that reason would be. . . . . what?

Race and sexual orientation are different things. Why should sexual preference be a protected class?

Well, why should race? Your response should answer your own question.

They don't deserve them. People should only get SPECIAL privledges if they do something SPECIAL. The only thing I can think of that is intrinsically and universally good about marriage is that it promotes a healthy environment for children. That's something society should be concerned about, its children. If you want next of kin status, write it into a legal document.

I think commiting yourself to one person and declaring your love for them and your intent to spend the rest of your life with them is quite special. That is something right there is "intrinsically and universally good about marriage".

And personally, I think society should be concerned about love, and kidness, compassion, and equality. Why is it that you think legal marriage should only be about children?

Well, why should race? Your response should answer your own question.
Someone doesn't choose their race, nor do they choose to act, "white," or "black." People choose to express their sexuality, just as I choose to express my heterosexuality.

Someone doesn't choose their race, nor do they choose to act, "white," or "black." People choose to express their sexuality, just as I choose to express my heterosexuality.

That has got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I did not choose to be gay. Why should I be punished for something that is no more choice than my skin color?

I think commiting yourself to one person and declaring your love for them and your intent to spend the rest of your life with them is quite special. That is something right there is "intrinsically and universally good about marriage".

And personally, I think society should be concerned about love, and kidness, compassion, and equality. Why is it that you think legal marriage should only be about children?
I think society should be concerned with the health of society. Love, kindness, compassion, and all that crap is secondary. All that matters is the health of the society, not of the individuals. A racist society with an oppressed underclass is not healthy, but neither is a society with laws based on fluff and morality. Legal marriage should only be about children because legal marriage should be a contract between two people and the state. Not just between two people, that's what your churches or whatever are for. The state should only be concerned with the health of the state.

That has got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I did not choose to be gay. Why should I be punished for something that is no more choice than my skin color?
You choose to act on it. You may have feelings, which are biological. Your actions are your own. That is the difference between race and sexuality. I'm not saying "gay is bad!" I'm simply asking why people feel the need to beg the question?

Someone doesn't choose their race, nor do they choose to act, "white," or "black." People choose to express their sexuality, just as I choose to express my heterosexuality.

It is your choice to believe that. However, I think the the research of scientists who document homosexuality in animals (which are governed by instinct) and the number of homosexuals who try so hard to change who they are that it drives them to suicide tell otherwise. It's only a matter of time before the genetic link to homosexuality is COMPLETELY proven.

I think society should be concerned with the health of society. Love, kindness, compassion, and all that crap is secondary. All that matters is the health of the society, not of the individuals. A racist society with an oppressed underclass is not healthy, but neither is a society with laws based on fluff and morality. Legal marriage should only be about children because legal marriage should be a contract between two people and the state. Not just between two people, that's what your churches or whatever are for. The state should only be concerned with the health of the state.


You think love, kindness, and compassion aren't important to the health of a society? That's it, you're as bad as Amall madnar. I don't know what kind of Fascist reality you live in, but really you need a reality check. This isn't an attack--this is serious advice.

You choose to act on it. You may have feelings, which are biological. Your actions are your own. That is the difference between race and sexuality. I'm not saying "gay is bad!" I'm simply asking why people feel the need to beg the question?


Because I hav ea need to be happy. To be fulfilled. To find my soulmate. And I have a need for my government to treat me equally under the law--that's part of the reason this nation was founded.

I can't help being gay and I'll be damned if some twit is going to keep me from seeking a life of fulfillment and happiness because he lives in a facist alternate universe.

So what was the purpose behind your bringing it up? And why aren't you responding to my points about things causing harm not being legal. Or maybe you're just avoiding them like so many before you.
My point was that natural is a stupidass reason to justify something. That was the extent of it. You're the one who made more of it than there needed to be.

Go back and read what I wrote and respond to it. Otherwise, don't talk about tax again as I've already said I could care less about it as long as gays and straights are treated equally.
You didn't write anything that deserved a response and didn't receive one. Under my system, gays and straights would be treated the same, just wildly differently than they are now.

And you have to carry that contract with you EVERYWHERE YOU GO. If you don't have it, oh well, your partner can't visit you and your parents you haven't seen in twenty years get to decide what to do with you. Sorry!

Plus you would have to draw up quite a large number of contracts to get all those rights when a marriage license by itself would do it.
The same could be said of your vehicle registration or SS card. And yet I bet you know where that is.

And that reason would be. . . . . what?
That there is no benefit to society. You don't reward things that don't benefit the whole.

You choose to act on it. You may have feelings, which are biological. Your actions are your own. That is the difference between race and sexuality. I'm not saying "gay is bad!" I'm simply asking why people feel the need to beg the question?

Why should you care if he expresses who he is? My religion believes they should basically hide who they are, and persevere...however, in a secular society, one is not obligated to do that, nor should they be. That is the point of a secular society. Denying their plight doesn't help either.

Because I hav ea need to be happy. To be fulfilled. To find my soulmate. And I have a need for my government to treat me equally under the law--that's part of the reason this nation was founded.

I can't help being gay and I'll be damned if some twit is going to keep me from seeking a life of fulfillment and happiness because he lives in a facist alternate universe.
I don't give a rat's ass about your "need to be happy." Do you have the freedom to make your own decisions in life? Are you held back only by your own failings? Then you have all the rights you deserve. You are not entitled to food, you are not entitled to clothing, you are not entitled to happiness. You have to work for those things, the same as everyone else. Again, you refuse to acknowledge that if only a pair of people who had children, regardless of orientation, could be married, that that would not be discriminatory. And as long as you're throwing your hissy fit, care to explain why a piece of paper is needed to make you happy?

Why should you care if he expresses who he is? My religion believes they should basically hide who they are, and persevere...however, in a secular society, one is not obligated to do that, nor should they be. That is the point of a secular society. Denying their plight doesn't help either.
Did I ever say I did? Have you read anything I've written at all? Apparently not, so when you do that, feel free to post again.

snip

Congrats, you've just been placed on my list of people that aren't even worth debating with. You are only person number four to receive this dubious honor. Strangely, you're the second person today to get it.

You think love, kindness, and compassion aren't important to the health of a society? That's it, you're as bad as Amall madnar. I don't know what kind of Fascist reality you live in, but really you need a reality check. This isn't an attack--this is serious advice.
If you think your facile hyperboles are an effective way of communicating your nonexistent point, try again. The GOVERNMENT of a society doesn't need to concern itself with love, kindness, or compassion. The PEOPLE do. But marriage is a contract with the government.

Congrats, you've just been placed on my list of people that aren't even worth debating with. You are only person number four to receive this dubious honor. Strangely, you're the second person today to get it.

Waaah. I'm an uppity loser who feels like I'm entitled to happiness since I'm gay. Anyone who doesn't agree with me isn't worth debating with.

*sniffle
Pracus doesn't love me!

Did I ever say I did? Have you read anything I've written at all? Apparently not, so when you do that, feel free to post again.

Look smartass, by your posts, you said it de facto.

Look smartass, by your posts, you said it de facto.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to ask that you respond to what I write, rather than what you seem to think you can pull directly from my mind with your telepathy.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to ask that you respond to what I write, rather than what you seem to think you can pull directly from my mind with your telepathy.

Ever heard of common sense and context clues? You know, not only you possess them.

Ever heard of common sense and context clues? You know, not only you possess them.
Again, I'm going to have to ask that you respond to what I write, and not to what your uncommon sense leads you to believe that I secretly think but don't type. It makes it hard to debate.

Again, I'm going to have to ask that you respond to what I write, and not to what your uncommon sense leads you to believe that I secretly think but don't type. It makes it hard to debate.

Look, common sense says you obviously care, otherwise you wouldn't debate it. Secondly, you just look vastly more childish by the minute by you complete denial of your own obvious motivations.

Look, common sense says you obviously care, otherwise you wouldn't debate it. Secondly, you just look vastly more childish by the minute by you complete denial of your own obvious motivations.
And what does any of what you said have to do with the point I made, or more importantly with gay marriage at all? You should take a time out, since now you're basically just spamming.

Question for you Americans who believe the federal government should not have any say in marriage, but instead it should be at the discretion of the individual states whose marriages they will recognize: are you saying that a married couple from Maine who drives across the country on a roadtrip vacation could be married, then single, then married, then cohabitating illegally, then single, then married again, as they cross state boundaries? As a Canadian that idea strikes me as absurd at best. What am I missing?

Wow. Imagine if someone told straights they couldn't express their sexuality... Imagine the uproar?

In response to the original question, I think the only reason people can come up with to deny gay marriage rights is that "homosexuality is morally wrong and we can't sanction it by allowing marriage." And the fact that some religions seem to think that they have a monopoly on marriage. Pfft. I'm an atheist, planning to marry another atheist. Screw that.

Wow. Imagine if someone told straights they couldn't express their sexuality... Imagine the uproar?

meh, we've done that before. Even chair legs had to be covered.

meh, we've done that before. Even chair legs had to be covered.
True, and that worked out well didn't it? :p

Question for you Americans who believe the federal government should not have any say in marriage, but instead it should be at the discretion of the individual states whose marriages they will recognize: are you saying that a married couple from Maine who drives across the country on a roadtrip vacation could be married, then single, then married, then cohabitating illegally, then single, then married again, as they cross state boundaries? As a Canadian that idea strikes me as absurd at best. What am I missing?


That each state is supposed to recognize the marriages from other states. Its only since the federal government has gotten involved that that is iffy.

That each state is supposed to recognize the marriages from other states. Its only since the federal government has gotten involved that that is iffy.

Exactly. See U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 1:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

If you think your facile hyperboles are an effective way of communicating your nonexistent point, try again. The GOVERNMENT of a society doesn't need to concern itself with love, kindness, or compassion. The PEOPLE do. But marriage is a contract with the government.

Marriage is no such thing.

It is a fundamental right. See Loving v. Virginia (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html), 388 U.S. 1 (1967):

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Loving was about the attempt to limit marriage based on racial classifications. Both the attempt to limit marriage based on gender or your attempt to limit marriage to those seeking children as ambominable and unjustifiable as Virginia's attempt "'to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens,' and to prevent 'the corruption of blood,' 'a mongrel breed of citizens,' and 'the obliteration of racial pride.'"

Could anyone explain to a stupid little European what the exact arguments against gay marriage are in the States? Many European countries legalised gay marriage in the past two decades, and none of them seem to be having any difficutlies whatsoever with that...

I think society should be concerned with the health of society. Love, kindness, compassion, and all that crap is secondary. All that matters is the health of the society, not of the individuals. A racist society with an oppressed underclass is not healthy, but neither is a society with laws based on fluff and morality. Legal marriage should only be about children because legal marriage should be a contract between two people and the state. Not just between two people, that's what your churches or whatever are for. The state should only be concerned with the health of the state.

Beyond being morally reprehensible and an affront to liberty, your view lacks common sense.

How do you make marriage "about children"?

Do you only let people that already have children marry? Thus encouraging unwed parenting. What if their children die or they give them away?

What if fertile people have no interest in having children, can they get married? Why? If they become infertile do they maintain their marriage?

This nonsense is simply a desperate attempt to put a fig leaf over plain, ugly discrimination.

Originally posted by Pracus
This is very simliar to the CA cases over interracial marriages. It was argued that whites could not marry into other races, so it was not discimination that blacks could not marry into other races. The judges in the case found that a system such as that is inherantly disciminatory.
I think I would tend to agree with the judge on the grounds that (A) they can reproduce with each other if they so desire (though I readily admit that this is not the sole or imperative reason for marriage), and (B) it has been proven that nationality (I hate the word "race." There is only one race.) is a genetic issue, and is unable to be changed. Thus far, there has been no link to homosexuality and genetics, dispite attempts. Also, even if one tries, there is no way to fake being a different color. In a survey (granted, it is five years old) done by a non-religious group, the Bailey/Pillard Study, only 9% of homosexuals believed that they were born that way. Only about half of identical twins were both homosexual (if it was genetic, it seems that both would likely be). In addition, 84% of people practicing homosexuality said that they had switched to heterosexual preference at least once. The Kinsey data, however, was full of scientific discrepencies(which corpses were homosexual).

Further, if gay marriage were recognized, everyone would still have the same rights. A straight man could marry another man. It's the same arguement as a gay man marrying a woman and still having equal rights is it not?
You are correct that legalizing it restricts no rights. I will give you that. Honestly, I don't think I want homosexual unions, but I find no reason (even biblical, as the actual union does nothing to change the homosexuals' lifestyles) that it is constitutionally wrong. Also, I don't think it will change the country that much.

If it is ever made legal, I won't begin screaming that the world is going to end.

I think I would tend to agree with the judge on the grounds that (A) they can reproduce with each other if they so desire (though I readily admit that this is not the sole or imperative reason for marriage), and (B) it has been proven that nationality (I hate the word "race." There is only one race.) is a genetic issue, and is unable to be changed. Thus far, there has been no link to homosexuality and genetics, dispite attempts.

Something does not have to be genetic to be unchangeable. It is the position of the APA, the AMA, and a variety of other professional psychological and medical associations that homosexuality is no more a choice than race or gender.

Further, while I am not able to cite the studies, I do know that there have been shown linkages, though you are correct, nothing is set in stone. Further, since you cannot prove a negative, only time is going to tell more. However, the fact that remains that homosexuality is not a choice and anyone who says it is is simply full of it.


Also, even if one tries, there is no way to fake being a different color. In a survey (granted, it is five years old) done by a non-religious group, the Bailey/Pillar Study, only 9% of homosexuals believed that they were born that way.

You'll have to give me a link on the study because I'd like to take a look at it. I immediately find it very hard to believe as I know a large number of homosexuals and we all pretty much agree that you are born that way or that it is formed shortly after birth. Regardless, I've never met a homosexual that says that it is a choice. I can't deny that they exist--but its certainly not a majority. Whehter sexual orientation is determined before or after birth doesn't matter if its not a choice.


Only about half of identical twins were both homosexual (if it was genetic, it seems that both would likely be).

Actually, no. This is one I can work with. The fact that its such a high percentage suggests that there is a LARGE genetic component. You see twin studies are done on identical twins that are separated at or shortly after birth. If a trait has no genetic component to it, then the twins will exhibit it only at the rate seen in the general population (between 2% and 15% depending on whom you believe). However, if there is a genetic input, you will see higher rates.

It is true that if a trait is purely genetic, you will see nearly 100% expression in identical twins (there are always random changes that cannot be accounted for). However, if--as seems likely--the trait is affected not only by multiple genes but by early life experiences (even within the first few weeks or years, well before sapience is achieved) then you will see something between the two. Therefore, since ~50% of identical twins separated at birth are both gay, it suggests a large genetic component associated with environmental input.

Regardless, it still does not suggest that homosexuality is a choice any more than race is.


In addition, 84% of people practicing homosexuality said that they had switched to heterosexual preference at least once.

I read that one. It said that 84% of people who were homosexual TRIED heterosexual sex. That does not mean that they were changing preference. It means that they tried to fit in. this really isn't a surprise given the stigma society attaches to homosexuality. I would like to see data on how many heterosexuals have tried homosexual behavior. Teenage boys often masturbate together--that is homosexual activity, but it doesn't mean that they are gay.

I'm also going to throw out the question. If you think its possible for gays to switch, do you think you could switch teams? I imagine that (lets assume you are male, I do not know otherwise) you could probably give or a receive a BJ to/from another male. You wouldn't enjoy it, it wouldn't be fulfilling, but you could do it. Does that mean you are gay? No. It would just mean you tried it.

Yet you don't seem to realize that you dont' have to have a religion to be married. You can be married and never have a priest, rabbit, minister, imam, or any other person involved.Yes you do. Please see post #52. :)No you don't. My parents, for example, were married without a religious ceremony of any kind. They simply went to a lawyer, who gave them the certificate of marriage and had them sign it. That's all. And they are legally married. No ceremony, no priest, rabbi, imam, etc. needed.

All I have too say is, um...

Does it affect you that they're gay?
-No.
Does it affect you that they're going to get married?
-No.

Does not the bible say too treat everyone equally? Are we not all made in God's image? Why should people stick their noses into others lives and say that you, a human being, are a moral failure.
1 Thessalonians 5:13b "Live in peace with each other."

How is banning marriage from human beings that happen to like the same gender that they are keeping peace?
It isn't.

Did not Paul, a Disciple of Jesus Chirst, say that you must "Mind your own business".
The sexual life, and marriage of another human being is NOT your business. Who are we too say "You can't get married". It isn't any of our business if Homosexuals get married. No, of course it isn't. Or, as I like to say "It ain't any of your gosh-darn business!"

That's my arguement against Christians saying that Gay marriage is wrong.

And too those that aren't Christian, and oppose Gay Marriage...

Mind you're own gosh-darned bees-wax.

Originally posted by Pracus
Something does not have to be genetic to be unchangeable. It is the position of the APA, the AMA, and a variety of other professional psychological and medical associations that homosexuality is no more a choice than race or gender.
Something does not have to be genetic to be unchangeable? I would simply like an example, aside from homosexuality.

Also, if this is indeed true, then it is true dispite a lack of proof (didn't say evidence).

I can now freely say that someone can know something apart from science.

I am, however, aware of these positions held by the APA and AMA.

Further, while I am not able to cite the studies, I do know that there have been shown linkages, though you are correct, nothing is set in stone.
I am assuming that you are referring to something other than the Kinsey data.

Further, since you cannot prove a negative, only time is going to tell more.
I'll concede this. You are correct.

However, the fact that remains that homosexuality is not a choice and anyone who says it is is simply full of it.
Unsupported. Rush Limbaugh Fallacy.

You'll have to give me a link on the study because I'd like to take a look at it.
Sorry, that wasn't off a website. It was out of a pier-reviewed journal in my college library a few years ago. I still, thankfully, have notes on it. I wrote probably 200 pages on the subject of homosexuality when I was in college, so I have all kinds of fun little tidbits like that.

I immediately find it very hard to believe as I know a large number of homosexuals and we all pretty much agree that you are born that way or that it is formed shortly after birth.
I am not opposed to the idea that it can be through nurture (which doesn't necessarily have to be because of it being encouraged), and that it would seem to be the case as far back as you can remember. Mind you, I am not looking at you like a dirty old man. I don't want you to think that.

Regardless, I've never met a homosexual that says that it is a choice.
I only know of one with which I am aquainted that said it wasn't a choice. Granted, I haven't asked every one of the ones I know, but out of probably 30-35, I know at least 20 admit to choosing to be homosexual.

Also, what about someone who says they are bisexual? Does that mean that they have no preference from birth, or do they choose to try both?

I can't deny that they exist--but its certainly not a majority.
On a scale larger than your circle, it seems that way, though again, this was five years ago.

Whehter sexual orientation is determined before or after birth doesn't matter if its not a choice.
True . . . if it's not choice. The problem with that statement is that it holds the conclusion to be true regardless of potential evidence.

You see twin studies are done on identical twins that are separated at or shortly after birth.
This is one thing that was not mentioned in the data I collected. It actually made brief mention of at least one set of twins living in the same home. I know why it is the usual practice, because the environment can affect both in a similar way. The point of this particular study, however, was that even the environment being similar and the genetics being identical does not cause all of the twins to be homosexual if one is.

Little extra: 22% of fraternal twins both ended up gay if one was.

Unfortunately, the rest of that needs not be responded to, as the twins were not separated for this particular experiment (based on the fact that the hypothesis took that as part of its experiment).

I read that one. It said that 84% of people who were homosexual TRIED heterosexual sex. That does not mean that they were changing preference.
Actually, it says that they claimed to be, and were, heterosexual. You may have seen a warp of this (so have I, even ones supporting my side). The actual data claimed that they admitted to having been heterosexual.

I do recognize, however, that many who have homosexual tendencies do try to "fit in" by having heterosexual sex.

this really isn't a surprise given the stigma society attaches to homosexuality.
It is, however, becoming more widely accepted, though. I assume, by your statement, that the number will decline, then?

I would like to see data on how many heterosexuals have tried homosexual behavior.
Again, it was not participate in that behavior. It was admit to have believed a different orientation. However, the answer a few years ago was 29%.

I'm also going to throw out the question. If you think its possible for gays to switch, do you think you could switch teams? I imagine that (lets assume you are male, I do not know otherwise) you could probably give or a receive a BJ to/from another male. You wouldn't enjoy it, it wouldn't be fulfilling, but you could do it. Does that mean you are gay? No. It would just mean you tried it.
It is physically possible for me to do such things. However, whether I ever did or not, I would never call myself anything other than heterosexual.

However, you bring up an interesting tangent found in Christian circles (I am actually on the more radical side of the argument):

Is the profession and desire of homosexuality wrong or is the action of it wrong?

;)

1. All this stems from one guy saying that there was no other issue, and me being contrarian. Given I'm pro Civil Unions for all, and pro Marriage for all (if the religion in question allows it), I'm staggered by how many posts I've generated.
You must be very proud of yourself. :)

I'm still not really sure why people get to passionate and emotional about his issue.

I have a kind of funny quote regarding the sanctity of marriage. Orthodox Rabbi Shmuely Boteach, a relationship expert (and an opponent of gay marriage) was talking about the staggeringly high divorce rate in America and he said something to the effect of "I don't know why people say that allowing gays to marry will ruin the sanctity of marriage. Heterosexuals are doing a perfectly good job of that as it is."

Ain't THAT the truth.

*sniffle
Pracus doesn't love me!
Amall, you're being a hypocrite. You think that you are entitled to happiness too.

Originally posted by Aleks-vania
I have a kind of funny quote regarding the sanctity of marriage. Orthodox Rabbi Shmuely Boteach, a relationship expert (and an opponent of gay marriage) was talking about the staggeringly high divorce rate in America and he said something to the effect of "I don't know why people say that allowing gays to marry will ruin the sanctity of marriage. Heterosexuals are doing a perfectly good job of that as it is."

Ain't THAT the truth.
A-MEN!

I want to marry my dog!

Same shit, he likes me and I like him. But I doubt they'll let me.

But I don't see the point of marriage ? I mean even between straight people. Most of them get divorced. I think we should ban marriage altogether, it's just a memoir of the old christian times.

I daresay that 8 pages later, that it's not the case this time!
Looks like I did something right!

Yes, no. Marriage should only be granted to people with children. Churches can do whatever they want.
You think that marriage shoudl be denied to people just because they are infertile? What kind of crazy person are you?

I believe adultery should be a crime.
Yeah, because the government fucking around in our personal lives and regulating our moral decisions always works so well. :rolleyes:

Race and sexual orientation are different things. Why should sexual preference be a protected class?
Whether sexual orientation is a choice or not is irrelevant to this argument.

All that matters is the health of the society, not of the individuals.
Not a fan of individual liberty then?

here's an interesting fact...
0% of people have NEVER had a homosexual thought or fantasy. Doesn't make you gay. Hell, it doesn't even make you bisexual. It makes you human.
Freud said that everyone was, by nature, to some extent bisexual. Different people are just more or less bisexual than others. I'm currently in university, and I actually don't know a single college student who hasn't dated someone of the same sex at some point or other. People can choose to supress their feelings and try to live a purely hetrosexual life. That doesn't make them hetrosexual. That makes them deluded liars.
Think about it, homosexuals have to put up with discrimination, taunting, lack of equal rights, lack of equal status in society, verbal abuse, physical abuse... with all that, who WOULDNT want to be gay? Man, don't you think all gay people have at some point wished they could be straight? I know I have from time to time. It would make things so much easier. But then I stop and think... actually, I'd be really depressed if I tried to lie and pretend I didnt have the feelings I have. Fortunately for me, I don't live in a (overly) bigoted, discriminatory society so I have little trouble being the person I want to be and dating who I want.
Sadly, I feel that society has put so many constraints on sexuality that people forget about love. In a perfect world, it wouldnt matter what the sex or race or religion was of whoever you fell in love with, it would simply matter that you love them. Sex and marriage aught to be a celebration of love, not a condemnation of sexuality.


And for all you homophobes out there, consider this:
Could it be that your hetrosexuality actually stems from a neurotic fear of members of the same sex? :eek:

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW11-19-03.gif[/QUOTE]

Tell me this--why shouldn 't the government recognize gay marriage?

Individual states should recongnize marriage anyway they want, Federal government needs to keep out of it and just recongnize whatever the states do as per the constitution.

here's an interesting fact...
0% of people have NEVER had a homosexual thought or fantasy. Doesn't make you gay. Hell, it doesn't even make you bisexual. It makes you human.
Freud said that everyone was, by nature, to some extent bisexual. Different people are just more or less bisexual than others. I'm currently in university, and I actually don't know a single college student who hasn't dated someone of the same sex at some point or other. People can choose to supress their feelings and try to live a purely hetrosexual life. That doesn't make them hetrosexual. That makes them deluded liars.
Think about it, homosexuals have to put up with discrimination, taunting, lack of equal rights, lack of equal status in society, verbal abuse, physical abuse... with all that, who WOULDNT want to be gay? Man, don't you think all gay people have at some point wished they could be straight? I know I have from time to time. It would make things so much easier. But then I stop and think... actually, I'd be really depressed if I tried to lie and pretend I didnt have the feelings I have. Fortunately for me, I don't live in a (overly) bigoted, discriminatory society so I have little trouble being the person I want to be and dating who I want.
Sadly, I feel that society has put so many constraints on sexuality that people forget about love. In a perfect world, it wouldnt matter what the sex or race or religion was of whoever you fell in love with, it would simply matter that you love them. Sex and marriage aught to be a celebration of love, not a condemnation of sexuality.


And for all you homophobes out there, consider this:
Could it be that your hetrosexuality actually stems from a neurotic fear of members of the same sex? :eek:

Complete and utter BS, I have never in my whole life thought about another man in a sexual way. Nor would I want to or try to date another man. I do however believe that there are some that do truly want this and support my friends fully that are gay/lesbian. I have tried to educate others on this issue although I have to say that more than half of my friends can care less about marrying. They do however think it should be allowed for those that wish it to happen. So please do not try to pigeon hole people into some preconcieved notion of what you believe. Just because some quack says it is so and happens to be a "proffessor" doesn't make them knowledgable about every single person in the World. After all those that seek tenur as a proffessor are to scared to face the real world and real opposition to their beliefs.

I am, however, aware of these positions held by the APA and AMA.

I am assuming that you are referring to something other than the Kinsey data.

Sorry, that wasn't off a website. It was out of a pier-reviewed journal in my college library a few years ago. I still, thankfully, have notes on it. I wrote probably 200 pages on the subject of homosexuality when I was in college, so I have all kinds of fun little tidbits like that.

I only know of one with which I am aquainted that said it wasn't a choice. Granted, I haven't asked every one of the ones I know, but out of probably 30-35, I know at least 20 admit to choosing to be homosexual.

Also, what about someone who says they are bisexual? Does that mean that they have no preference from birth, or do they choose to try both?

On a scale larger than your circle, it seems that way, though again, this was five years ago.

This is one thing that was not mentioned in the data I collected. It actually made brief mention of at least one set of twins living in the same home. I know why it is the usual practice, because the environment can affect both in a similar way. The point of this particular study, however, was that even the environment being similar and the genetics being identical does not cause all of the twins to be homosexual if one is.

Little extra: 22% of fraternal twins both ended up gay if one was.

Unfortunately, the rest of that needs not be responded to, as the twins were not separated for this particular experiment (based on the fact that the hypothesis took that as part of its experiment).

Actually, it says that they claimed to be, and were, heterosexual. You may have seen a warp of this (so have I, even ones supporting my side). The actual data claimed that they admitted to having been heterosexual.

Again, it was not participate in that behavior. It was admit to have believed a different orientation. However, the answer a few years ago was 29%.

I'm sorry, but when you spout alleged science contrary to that supported by every major psychiatric, psychological, and medical association, you have to do a bit better than "I wrote a paper about it in college" and "I asked some friends who said."

Peer review studies tend to be available on the internet -- or at least abstracts of them do. Particularly those related to psychology and medicine.

You think that marriage shoudl be denied to people just because they are infertile? What kind of crazy person are you?
I think that the benefits associated with marriage should be denied to infertile couples, the same way welfare is denied to rich people. Why do I care if you decide to marry someone? What good does it do society?

Yeah, because the government fucking around in our personal lives and regulating our moral decisions always works so well. :rolleyes:
So you're arguing for the right to committ adultery then?

Whether sexual orientation is a choice or not is irrelevant to this argument.
It wasn't relevant to your first post, but it was relevant to what someone said after it.

Not a fan of individual liberty then?
Did I say you can't have sex with whoever you want? You have the liberty to do that. You don't have the liberty to have financial incentives for it.

Complete and utter BS, I have never in my whole life thought about another man in a sexual way. Do not try to pigeon hole people into some preconcieved notion of what you believe.


Do you mean to say that NEVER in all your life have you ever even wondered what it would be like? ever thought about kissing another guy or even just being naked with another guy in the room? Ever checked another guy out in the locker room to see what he's packing? don't lie. It's biology to be curious.

Amall, you're being a hypocrite. You think that you are entitled to happiness too.
Where did I say that?

So you're arguing for the right to committ adultery then?


If they won't, I will...

I didn't say that gay couples shouldn't be civil unioned (or married, if a religion out there does so), either. Again, all I did was point out another issue, not take sides.

Pre-emtive: Per se, gay couples can't get married as far as I know. I can't think of a single religion that does it. I have no problems with civil unions done by Judge, County Clerk, Ship's Captain, whatever, just as with hetero couples.

Try looking at reform sects of Judaism aswell as the more liberal churches. Recently, as Eastern Orthodox priest of all people gave a a gay couple a blessing in Moscow in defiance of Russia's laws. Lest we forget that the church once upon a time advocated human slavery with its scriptural justifications no less legitimate than those used to bash gay marriage now.

What the opponents of gay marriage are truely afraid of is that homosexuality will be percieved as an acceptable form of behaviour and no longer a kind of social leprosy. Their ostensible moral grievances are no more than a facade for their latent homophobia.

Beyond being morally reprehensible and an affront to liberty, your view lacks common sense.

How do you make marriage "about children"?

Do you only let people that already have children marry? Thus encouraging unwed parenting. What if their children die or they give them away?

What if fertile people have no interest in having children, can they get married? Why? If they become infertile do they maintain their marriage?

This nonsense is simply a desperate attempt to put a fig leaf over plain, ugly discrimination.
Am I saying that two (or more) people can't live together? Am I saying they can't screw each other to their hearts content? Am I saying gays can't adopt children? No, I am not saying any of that. What I am saying is that the benefits to a civil union should be strictly reserved for two people doing something for society. Just as not everyone gets welfare, not everyone should get tax credits or automatic legal work done.

Only people that have children can marry. If the children die, then they lose the tax writeoffs and such, the legal work that doesn't affect anyone but them two they can keep. You wouldn't be allowed to give children away if you got married, remember, no one is forcing you to.

They can get married in the church, as can anyone. They can't get married in the legal sense. If they're infertile, they can adopt.

Who's being discriminated against?

If they won't, I will...
And why, pray tell, would you do that? And why haven't you left yet?

Am I saying that two (or more) people can't live together? Am I saying they can't screw each other to their hearts content? Am I saying gays can't adopt children? No, I am not saying any of that. What I am saying is that the benefits to a civil union should be strictly reserved for two people doing something for society. Just as not everyone gets welfare, not everyone should get tax credits or automatic legal work done.

Only people that have children can marry. If the children die, then they lose the tax writeoffs and such, the legal work that doesn't affect anyone but them two they can keep. You wouldn't be allowed to give children away if you got married, remember, no one is forcing you to.

They can get married in the church, as can anyone. They can't get married in the legal sense. If they're infertile, they can adopt.

Who's being discriminated against?

So, your proposal is that no one can get married until they already have children.

You realize that marriage has been legal consequences and benefits that have nothing whatsoever to do with having children?

And, depending on the circumstances, marriage may or may not be advantageous for tax purposes?

What you are talking about is not the institution of marriage which is a fundamental right but simply a special set of tax breaks for having children. Whether that is, by itself, a good idea is debatable. But it is hardly relevant.

You are discriminating against anyone that does not wish to have children by denying them the fundamental right of marriage. Your proposal is not necessary to a sufficiently strong state interest nor is it narrowly tailored to further such an interest.

Moreover, it is a facade.

So, your proposal is that no one can get married until they already have children.

You realize that marriage has been legal consequences and benefits that have nothing whatsoever to do with having children?

And, depending on the circumstances, marriage may or may not be advantageous for tax purposes?

What you are talking about is not the institution of marriage which is a fundamental right but simply a special set of tax breaks for having children. Whether that is, by itself, a good idea is debatable. But it is hardly relevant.

You are discriminating against anyone that does not wish to have children by denying them the fundamental right of marriage. Your proposal is not necessary to a sufficiently strong state interest nor is it narrowly tailored to further such an interest.

Moreover, it is a facade.
I realize that people without children can be married in the eyes of the government. This shouldn't be so.

With reform, it would be advantageous under all circumstances.

Let the churches and whoever marry people. The right is preserved. But you are not entitled to the benefits of a state-sanctioned marriage. If you receive benefits, you should be doing something to earn them.

The only interest the state should have in two people marrying as opposed to living seperately is if they raise children. The state shouldn't care if you only plan on having sex with one woman, why does that matter? What they should care about is what you are doing for society if you are together with someone.

I realize that people without children can be married in the eyes of the government. This shouldn't be so.

With reform, it would be advantageous under all circumstances.

Let the churches and whoever marry people. The right is preserved. But you are not entitled to the benefits of a state-sanctioned marriage. If you receive benefits, you should be doing something to earn them.

The only interest the state should have in two people marrying as opposed to living seperately is if they raise children. The state shouldn't care if you only plan on having sex with one woman, why does that matter? What they should care about is what you are doing for society if you are together with someone.

You dodge the primary point.

Marriage is a legal institution with a host of legal rights and consequences.

According to the GAO, at least 1049 federal legal rights or responsibilities (http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf) hinge on marital status.

There are many additional state, local, and private privileges and consequences that hinge on marital status.

Some rights that hinge on marital status include:

Hospital Visitation Rights

Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions.

Health insurance

Many public and private employers provide medical coverage to the legal spouses of their employees.

Spousal Privilege

Spousal privilege, granted to married couples, is the right of a person to refuse to testify against their spouse in the court of law.

Inheritance rights

When a married person's spouse dies, the survivor can automatically inherit a substantial share from the deceased spouse's estate regardless of whether a will exists. Without marriage, there is no automatic right to inherit.

Family leave

Married workers in many workplaces are legally entitled to unpaid leave from their jobs to care for an ill spouse.

Pensions
After the death of a worker, most pension plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant. Otherwise, any pension dies with the worker.

Nursing homes

Married couples have a legal right to live together in nursing homes.

Of course, support obligations, sharing of property, etc., are some of the most important legal consequences of marriage.

A religious ceremony is no substitute for the legal institution of marriage. You are denying a fundamental right arbitrarily.

If you wish there to be no tax breaks for marriage but for married couples with children, that would achieve your ends without discrimination or denial of a fundamental right.

As is I still think you are simply trying to disguise an agressively discriminatory agenda behind a passively discriminatory one. Either way it is illogical and repugnant.

You dodge the primary point.

Marriage is a legal institution with a host of legal rights and consequences.

According to the GAO, at least 1049 federal legal rights or responsibilities (http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf) hinge on marital status.

There are many additional state, local, and private privileges and consequences that hinge on marital status.

Some rights that hinge on marital status include:

Hospital Visitation Rights

Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions.

Health insurance

Many public and private employers provide medical coverage to the legal spouses of their employees.

Spousal Privilege

Spousal privilege, granted to married couples, is the right of a person to refuse to testify against their spouse in the court of law.

Inheritance rights

When a married person's spouse dies, the survivor can automatically inherit a substantial share from the deceased spouse's estate regardless of whether a will exists. Without marriage, there is no automatic right to inherit.

Family leave

Married workers in many workplaces are legally entitled to unpaid leave from their jobs to care for an ill spouse.

Pensions
After the death of a worker, most pension plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant. Otherwise, any pension dies with the worker.

Nursing homes

Married couples have a legal right to live together in nursing homes.

Of course, support obligations, sharing of property, etc., are some of the most important legal consequences of marriage.

A religious ceremony is no substitute for the legal institution of marriage. You are denying a fundamental right arbitrarily.

If you wish there to be no tax breaks for marriage but for married couples with children, that would achieve your ends without discrimination or denial of a fundamental right.

As is I still think you are simply trying to disguise an agressively discriminatory agenda behind a passively discriminatory one. Either way it is illogical and repugnant.
The majority of what you listed, hospital visitation, wills, and insurance can be secured without marriage. And again, you still haven't answered why two people who decide to live together deserve more rights and privledges than two people.

...turn into a debate about the morality of homosexuality? It's not the issue.


Well, it was turned into a moral issue. Some find it morally wrong for two concenting adults to marry.

The majority of what you listed, hospital visitation, wills, and insurance can be secured without marriage. And again, you still haven't answered why two people who decide to live together deserve more rights and privledges than two people.

When you get married you essentially form a legal unit, you practically become one person legally.

The rights and privileges arise from that union. Without that union, some -- but not all -- of the rights and privileges can be formed seperately through a series of legal agreements. Marriage as a legal institution is a shortcut in which two people consent to all of these agreements at once.

I can go into further justifications for the institution of marriage in our society and why it has been historically encouraged and protected for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with child raising.

But the burden is on you to justify destroying a basic human institution and fundamental right. You have yet to explain why marriage -- rather than just tax breaks -- must be denied all but those with children.

Moreover, what is the purpose of reserving marriage for those with children? It seems your system will primarily encourage having children without marriage -- it, in fact, requires it. Even those who have children with the intent to get married, may then not marry. You are intentionally increasing the number of unmarried parents.

And non-gay couples that cannot have children do exist. As do couples that do not wish to have children. If they by the same morality would not be allowed to marry, that would be consistent reasoning.

The non-gay couples who cannot have children are not at fault as they were born the correct sex, just with ... uhm.... malfunctioning equipment? Those who do not wish children CAN concieve if they want or are careless. The gay couple, no matter what, do not have a full set of proper equipment for a child no matter what the case. And as for cloning, havn't you ever seen Multiplicity?

And as for why the religion always pops up, it's human nature to talk about what we feel comfortable with, no matter how off topic. Think about it. When you're winning an argument, how often does your opponent change the subject trying to bring it on his or her turf? Human nature is fickle, unpredictable and very entertaining at times.

Ergo, I don't believe in gay marriage because I believe in the god of Isac and Abraham. Now, I have stated my reason for my oposition to gay marriage and my religion is my basis.

Poster two now sees that I have had the audacity to bring God into the subject so he/she either offers a well constructed counter to my belief or flames the hell outa me.

Poster three only bothers to read poster two's reply and either agrees or disagrees with him/her.

Chain reaction. And like I said, nine time outa ten it is very entertaining but 10 times outa 10 it turns into a rehash of some other gay-marriage post.

And why, pray tell, would you do that?

Because it's natural, normal human behaviour.

And why haven't you left yet?

What, and give you and others like you the impression you're winning?

Heh heh heh heh heh that's funny...

Originally posted by The Cat-Tribe
I'm sorry, but when you spout alleged science contrary to that supported by every major psychiatric, psychological, and medical association
First of all, I did not attack these associations' views. I merely asked for an example, outside of homosexuality, that follows this pattern. In addition, you sould like quite a few people of which you would likely not appreciate the company.

I'm sorry, but when you spout alleged science contrary to that supported by every major theological, doctrinal, and biblical association . . .

They talk about alleged science just as you do. Somehow psychology is a science and is somewhat more concrete?

I did not warrent such a blatant strawman, and I appreciate someone with an intelligent discussion based on their thoughts. However, little tantrums like this are not worthy of my typical opponents.

Also, there was no support given for why these associations hold such truths.

In addition, thank you for putting words in his mouth. I don't recall him saying every associaltion, nor do I recall him stating that their stance had anything to do with homosexuality, but how conditions determine uncontrollable aspects of the human being, in particular. I appreciated his post, as it was genuinely inquisitive and respectful, not brash, crude, or blatantly ignorant and fallatical, as yours is.

you have to do a bit better than "I wrote a paper about it in college"
Strawman #2! I was explaining my reasoning for having this evidence on-hand. That was the only thing necessitating me bringing that up. However, I would venture to say that I have likely done more research in this subject than you, so I welcome these strawmen, as they are easy to point out.

I was pointing out that, while much of your data is likely from biased internet sites, mine is from peer-reviewed articles found in a big building called a library. Any moron can get a website. Try getting published. I have. It's not all that easy.

and "I asked some friends who said."
This was all he gave as his defense. I, therefore, see no reason why I am called to give something better. What works as a reliable source for one against me does not work as a reliable source for me? You should start selling these strawmen as scarecrows. Needless to say, you have enough to spare. It wasn't me asking a random friend. I am actively involved with the homosexual community within my area. It doesn't mean I share their views. It means I spend time with them. I care about them. I open my home to them. These are not random people. These are all people who would disagree with me on the overall subject of homosexuality. However, if these people are not able to speak about their own homosexuality, then neither are those who Pracus knows (No offense, Pracus, as I believe they do have claim and are legitimate.).

Peer review studies tend to be available on the internet
I suppose that doesn't surprise me. Find it, then. I am not going to hold your hand. As it has been years since finding some of these particular pieces of data, it would be just as easy for you, and possibly moreso, as you seem to be so saavy with the internet, than it would be for me to find them.

This alleged science was collected by the same people that would support gay marriages (which I do, as well, though I don't think you would have listened long enough for me to tell you that). Basically, I took the data and looked at the implications. You are relying on someone to spoonfeed you. Don't you dare imply that my resources have been somehow less scientific. Whereas "I wrote a paper about it in college" and "I asked some friends who said," you are just saying, "I don't know, so I'll take someone else's word for it."

*snip*

You appear to either miss the point or simply ignore it.

1. I am aware of at least some of the science on this subject and of the view of the major scientific organizations. Your view is contrary to that view -- as you appeared to acknowledge. This means your view bears a certain presumption against it.

2. If you wish to simply rely on your notes, fine. But do not expect others to be persuaded by something you say you read somewhere but cannot bother to document. If you wish to your point to be respected, document it.

As for your new points:

3. No, a biblical or theological association is not a scientific organization. The APA is. That you would assert otherwise harms your credibility.

4. Pracus did not say every major association. I did. I have my own little brain that I use occasionally.

5. I am quite aware of peer review journals. I have a Medline subscription, for example. I'm pretty sure I encountered a library or two in getting my degrees. I am also aware that internet has both good sources and bad. And I am aware that people often lie and make things up in these thread or rely on biased sources they do not reveal. That is why failure to provide documentation makes one's points less persuasive.

6. I am familiar with how hard it is to get published in a peer review journal. Congratulations. I also know from personal experience that it is frustrating in these forums that you cannot prove a claim like the fact you have been published. First, you would have to reveal who you were in order to show what was published. Second, even then, you couldn't prove you were the author of the article. It is the nature of the beast, however.

7. Given that we cannot know if you have any friends, talk to your dolls, or are actually Dick Cheney, anecdotal reports are unpersuasive. I know that Pracus made such an allegation himself. That was somewhat more persuasive to me as it matched my experience, but also because Pracus is a known quantity to me -- while you are not.

8. As you supply little basis for me to evaluate your resources and your conclusions are contrary to reliable sources, I can only assume that your resources are less scientific. I concede it is very possible you are right and they are wrong, but you haven't proven it here.

I would just also like to point out that even if your sources are from journals, you could still cite them. I have Ovid and Medline as well as access to a vast library with over ten thousand journals dating back over close to a 100 years. Of course, its more than likely that the journal could be found online as well.

Alum, I also think that you have taken The Cat-Tribe way wrong. He knows his shit and is one of the best debates I have seen on here. You on the other hand provide no references when asked for them and no real reason you cannot. Maybe you are right, but it gives one reason to doubt it.

Also, I know I haven't responded to you--and I will be honest. It's because I don't have time to research and pull up the sources right now and probably won't have it for a few weeks. That is why I was ecstatic to see The C-T here because I know that he is more than up to the task of researching and presenting a good case. Hell, he even takes the time to correct me when I'm wrong and usually my arguements support his case, but he believes in the truth above all things.

And I'd also like to say that the reason I used anecdotal evidence was because I was finding it hard to believe the uncited research and giving my reason why. At the end of the day, I have to rely on my own findings. Granted, it would make things easier if I could actually examine the research and assess to my own satisfaction that it was carried about scientifically, reproducibly, and without bias.

After all those that seek tenur as a proffessor are to scared to face the real world and real opposition to their beliefs.
I'm not disagreeing with your post, but you are pretty mistaken if you think that Sigmund Freud never faced real opposition to his beliefs.

Why do I care if you decide to marry someone? What good does it do society?
Yeah, why do you care? It doesn't really matter what good it does to society. It matters to the individuals concerned.

So you're arguing for the right to committ adultery then?

Yes. I don't think that adultery is right, but it's a matter between the people concerned. It's none of the government's business.

Did I say you can't have sex with whoever you want? You have the liberty to do that. You don't have the liberty to have financial incentives for it.
There's more to marriage than being paid for sex. Next of kin rights are a big one. See post #214.

Where did I say that?
I must have missed the part where you stated your opposition to heterosexual marriage. The guy didn't say he was entitled to be given happiness because he was gay, but that he is entitled to pursue it without obstruction.

Originally posted by The Cat-Tribe
You appear to either miss the point or simply ignore it.
I honestly beg your pardon, then. I admit I came across as a bit turse, and if that was because I misunderstood your intent, then I apologize. I had no intention of doing so.

1. I am aware of at least some of the science on this subject and of the view of the major scientific organizations. Your view is contrary to that view -- as you appeared to acknowledge. This means your view bears a certain presumption against it.
This is true. I do not claim to have knowledge that instantly supercedes these associations. I merely asked for why they have claimed to take such positions: a defense for their stance, if you will. I readily admit that I am not the end-all of this discussion, nor do I have the supreme authority in research. I am aware of the positions held by these major organizations, just as I am aware of the opposing position. I am aware of a few of the reasons for their claims, but more of the reasons for the opposing claims. All I asked for was the reasoning. Innocent question. Call my the curious cat, trying to find all the information. Note, the original post did not assert anything about homosexuality, specifically. It claimed that these organizations supported the idea that uncontrollable traits/characteristics can be instilled after birth. I merely wanted an example of this happening outside of homosexuality.

Also, I do think that there are experiences and conditions that occur after birth that make one more succeptible or vulnerable to such pulls. I just sat in on a seminar by an individual who comes from a history of lesbianism. She acted on such feelings for a long time. She readily admitted that she didn't think it was possible to be any different, nor did she really care at the time. She asserted that there are plenty of reasons for one becoming more easily available for such lifestyles. So, I will admit this (and I held this view before, for the record): I do believe that there are social/environmental/experiential reasons for a person to feel the urge to act homosexually.

Reasons for these organizations' views are all for which I was asking. There was not even much of a debate from me in that.

2. If you wish to simply rely on your notes, fine. But do not expect others to be persuaded by something you say you read somewhere but cannot bother to document. If you wish to your point to be respected, document it.
In all honestly, I am not even attempting to convince anyone to change their minds. All I attempted was to provide legitimacy for contrary argument. And I found a few names of polls and associations from where I obtained these tidbits: Paul H. Gebhard (one-time colleague and assistant of Alfred C. Kinsey) reports, A. B. Johnson studies, The Kinsey Data (I felt it important to use sources that did not agree, though I realize that there are more. Though I know there are more, I seemed to have heard this one used the most often when referring to the genetic argument with the enlarged INAH3 in the brains of corpses used in Kinsey's experiments, and decided that if it was good enough for those supporting it, then I will use what they use.), J. Marmor information, and Jeff Meyers statistics. I apologize for my unidentified post.

3. No, a biblical or theological association is not a scientific organization. The APA is. That you would assert otherwise harms your credibility.
Ah, I did not use sources like that. However, you are assuming that science is the only way of knowing anything. That, in itself is a philsophy, and that statement itself cannot be scientifically proven.

However, I do admit that in order to me to be able to discuss with someone, it is ludicrous to come to them on different terms. I did not use any biblical, theological, or doctrinal sources. I was merely comparing the tone of your previous post to the tone taken by other religious posters. Basically, their attitude is, "I don't care what the science you have seen proves, my view is . . ." thus ignoring the actual evidences. I do not believe that you meant this. It was just the way it came across.

4. Pracus did not say every major association. I did. I have my own little brain that I use occasionally.
Believe me, I am not insulting your reasoning skills. Please do not take what I say as that (Mind you, this was unsupported in your post, thus leaving me to take your word for it, as I don't know where you got it, just as you did not know where I got my information.). However, I would question that if "every major psychiatric, psychological, and medical association" holds these views as absolutely true, then why is there still investigation into its legitimacy? I would understand that they may hold this based on what they know, but it is not concrete, as there is evidence contrary to what they hold, as well. At least, there is evidence that what they hold as evidence was not absolutely sound in its science or that it left room for doubt.

I know you have a brain. You seem quite intelligent. I am not asserting that "you are wrong and I am right." I am asserting that there is room for doubt. There are things that I hold to be true, but I don't hold them with as much conviction as I hold my belief in gravity. That's all.

5. I am quite aware of peer review journals. I have a Medline subscription, for example. I'm pretty sure I encountered a library or two in getting my degrees. I am also aware that internet has both good sources and bad. And I am aware that people often lie and make things up in these thread or rely on biased sources they do not reveal. That is why failure to provide documentation makes one's points less persuasive.
Yes, virtually anyone with a degree will know what they are. I also know that there are reliable sources on the internet. I admit, I am not as gifted in handling the internet as others, so I prefer books. If you were to find a legitimate site, however, I would not hold it against your argument.

6. I am familiar with how hard it is to get published in a peer review journal. Congratulations. I also know from personal experience that it is frustrating in these forums that you cannot prove a claim like the fact you have been published. First, you would have to reveal who you were in order to show what was published. Second, even then, you couldn't prove you were the author of the article. It is the nature of the beast, however.
Regrettibly, yes, you are correct. However, I must have come across unclearly (I apologize, again. It was late.). My point was merely that it is easier to make up information on an internet site than it is to make it up and get it by a review board. I wasn't however expecting you to take any publications as proof of authority. I was using publication as reason for my trust for books over web sources.

And no, you can't know my name. ;)

7. Given that we cannot know if you have any friends, talk to your dolls, or are actually Dick Cheney, anecdotal reports are unpersuasive. I know that Pracus made such an allegation himself. That was somewhat more persuasive to me as it matched my experience, but also because Pracus is a known quantity to me -- while you are not.
It is true. In fact, unless you are familiar with someone personally, you really can't know about their lives, so I can but say, "Fair enough." In the exchange between Pracus and I, however, anecdotal references carry just as much weight either way, as I know him no better than he knows me. Essentially, how much weight those references carry is based on the individual.

8. As you supply little basis for me to evaluate your resources and your conclusions are contrary to reliable sources, I can only assume that your resources are less scientific. I concede it is very possible you are right and they are wrong, but you haven't proven it here.
Again, fair enough. I was, in fact, on a time schedule and was not able to give my usual, boring, obscenely long response (Ask Grave_n_idle.). You are correct. I am, actually, reading the APA's statement on homosexuality as I type here and I find that, while it is sound, the soundness is based upon a set of presuppositions that they carry as a whole. I do not condemn this or dismiss it, as every single system of beliefs does the same.

I did not mean to invite animosity into the discussion. I am sorry for sounding brash and generically ignorant. In all honesty, I am very intrigued by the ideas presented in the discussion over homosexuality. It is one thing that seems to be a current issue and, therefore, I am willing to learn what unfolds.

Originally posted by Pracus
I would just also like to point out that even if your sources are from journals, you could still cite them. I have Ovid and Medline as well as access to a vast library with over ten thousand journals dating back over close to a 100 years. Of course, its more than likely that the journal could be found online as well.
Yes, they could be found. I am no longer in a place where access to these sources may be available. In addition, I no longer have the time to search for them, as my responsibilities keep me very busy. However, you are correct.

Alum, I also think that you have taken The Cat-Tribe way wrong.
Very possibly. I sensed a brash, generalizing, somewhat ignorant poster with his first response, but was impressed with his second. In addition, I did not mean to cause any enmity, and I apologize to you as well if you felt that from me.

One can often tell how one comes across when observing the reaction. Seeing as the reaction was a bit aggressive, methinks I may have come across in a similar way, which was unintended. I am sorry, and I ask your forgiveness as well.

He knows his shit and is one of the best debates I have seen on here.
He knows his what? Just kidding. I don't commonly run into profanity when I debate, but I know that it is a growing part of the culture. He did give reference to the sources that you cited, however, I must admit that neither of you really stated the reasons to their position. It almost looked like an appeal to authority.

Person A: I agree with the APA.
Person B: Why?
Person A: Because they say this, and they are an authority.
Person B: Well, what have they found on this subject that makes them such an authority on this topic?
(This is where I am waiting for a response.)

You on the other hand provide no references when asked for them and no real reason you cannot. Maybe you are right, but it gives one reason to doubt it.
True, but as neither of you has yet to explain the reasoning for the position of these various organizations, it has yet to come out, in this arena, why these organizations have reason to hold the views that they do.

Also, I know I haven't responded to you--and I will be honest. It's because I don't have time to research and pull up the sources right now and probably won't have it for a few weeks.
It's no problem. The only reason I pulled up the things that I did was that I had them readily available in my file cabinet (I am one of those who alphabetizes everything.). We all have lives outside of this forum and I would be concerned if you were able to merely drop your life and research this. I appreciate that you have a life outside of this and don't expect you to be able to banter all the time. It happens to me, too.

That is why I was ecstatic to see The C-T here because I know that he is more than up to the task of researching and presenting a good case.
I have no doubt. I would love to hear his case presented. There is nothing so refreshing as a well-thought-out position.

Hell, he even takes the time to correct me when I'm wrong and usually my arguements support his case, but he believes in the truth above all things.
As nobody is above reproach, I commend your willingness to be corrected. Teachability is one thing that is turning into a rarety. Kudos.

As he believes in truth above all things, then we are on the same course. I do not support a position that I always want to support. I support what I believe to be true. What I want to be true and what I believe to be true are often two very different things. This is a prime example. I would rather be fine with agreeing with you two. You seem like agreeable people.

And I'd also like to say that the reason I used anecdotal evidence was because I was finding it hard to believe the uncited research and giving my reason why.
Anecdotal experiences are possible for a way of knowing. The shortcoming of that is that they are limited. However, as the society is post-modern in nature, they are becoming an acceptable path of knowledge (to a degree).

At the end of the day, I have to rely on my own findings.
In truth, I agree. This is why I wanted to know the findings of these organizations. While my experiences affect my knowledge of my surroundings, their position is only as valid as their reasons, just as my stance is only as valid as my reasons and your stance is only as valid as your reasons.

Granted, it would make things easier if I could actually examine the research and assess to my own satisfaction that it was carried about scientifically, reproducibly, and without bias.
This is what I seek. If I find a legitimate source drawing it into question, the least I can do, in good conscience is also draw it into question.

Please understand that I do not hold my disagreements with your positions against you, personally. I hold you in high regard, as I have no reason not to.

*snip*

Thank you for your long and thoughtful response.

I am at least if not more to blame than you for any misunderstanding. I was, in fact, brash. I was aggressive and dismissive. I was not as arrogant a prick as I sometimes am, but I was definitely condescending and hostile.

That was unwarranted and I apologize.

The underlying point I was making about credibility, facts, and sources you have clearly recognized. The nature of your response itself lends credibility to your arguments.

Anyway, I hope we can put this little tiff behind us. You are clearly someone of intellect with a respect for truth and scholarship. I look forward to discussing issues with you in the future. Although the dark side of my personality will likely resurface ;) , I hope to be friends in the future. :D

I'll get back to you with substance later. Although I have to admit I am not particularly concerned with whether sexual orientation is a choice or not -- I think it irrelevant to the question of discrimination and equal rights.

Originally posted by The Cat-Tribe
Thank you for your long and thoughtful response.
I try to do so most of the time. Plus, you deserved it. :D

I am at least if not more to blame than you for any misunderstanding. I was, in fact, brash. I was aggressive and dismissive.
Don't sweat it. I was a little of those in my response to your first response as well.

I was not as arrogant a prick as I sometimes am, but I was definitely condescending and hostile.
I was having a rough day, so I was already feeling short. My response helped nothing, however, and I had no business turning around and being just as condecending.

I would, however, hate to catch you on a bad day, if this wasn't as bad as you sometimes are! ;)

Teasing.

The underlying point I was making about credibility, facts, and sources you have clearly recognized. The nature of your response itself lends credibility to your arguments.
I thank you.

Anyway, I hope we can put this little tiff behind us. You are clearly someone of intellect with a respect for truth and scholarship.
I see no reason to continue any grudgings. I am not one to foster riffs for any length of time, and I would gladly accept your offer.

It is true, I seek truth in its beauty and its ugliness. Also, I find it shameful the way some that even agree with me use (or don't use, I should say) their minds to decipher the issues and get to the facts. Being a Christian, there seems an unusually small proportion of my brethren that share this, though I find more and more that this is universal.

However, as Hutchinson (a Christian author and thinker) put it: "Unthinking faith is a curious offering to be made to the Creator of the human mind."

Meaning, if I am truly a Christian, I can't justify being ignorant by using a generalizing, cop-out, blanket statement like, "I have faith, so I don't need to know." While I have that faith, it is useless if I don't apply it and just let it sit.

I'll get off my soapbox now. :rolleyes:

I look forward to discussing issues with you in the future. Although the dark side of my personality will likely resurface ;) , I hope to be friends in the future. :D
Absolutely. I love to discuss and debate (I did train in philosophy for a year . . . probably why I like to argue :D). I think it keeps me sharp, and plus, I get to hear what others have to say.

Amusingly enough, I don't post where someone is looking for a fight, as there is no point trying in those. That leaves me a select few topics. I am sure I will see you in other topics, though.

I'll get back to you with substance later. Although I have to admit I am not particularly concerned with whether sexual orientation is a choice or not -- I think it irrelevant to the question of discrimination and equal rights.
I agree, honestly. I addressed the subject only in that it pertains to convictions about such. However, I am actually not opposed to the institution of civil unions of homosexuals.

Basically, (and I don't say it this way often, but it is how I feel about the subject from a constitutional perspective): I don't give a rat's ass.

In case that fact that I am a Christian (more specifically, an evangelical protestant of the Grace Brethren fellowship) happens to draw a presupposition about me, I wouldn't, and have never, condemned a person because of his or her homosexual desires. I honestly do not believe the acting upon it to be morally right. That said, I see no reason legalizing gay unions will destroy anything, since any acting upon those desires already occurs in virtually every couple I have met, thus it deters nobody that it is illegal.

I know that we will likely disagree on the morality part of it. However, we agree in the legal spectrum.

Just to put in my two cents, I think the problem is people on one side having the mindset that marriage is a legal institution, and people on the other viewing it as a religious union.

Just because gay marriage becomes legal, it doesn't necessarily follow that church leaders will be forced to marry. A religion is still welcome to deny gays access to their clergy and their churches, because the government cannot force them to alter their beliefs. All it means is that two men or two women can have their union legally recognized; God does not factor into that.

Gay marriage and civil union are pretty much the same thing in many people's eyes. You can be married by a ship's captain, or a justice of the peace, or any other secular person that carries the legal right to marry. All it comes down to are two willing people, a person to perform the ceremony, and a signed legal license...nothing holy or sacred about it.

All legalizing gay marriage will really do in the long run is change the tax status of a lot of gay couples across the country, and give divorce attorneys even more income.