NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, I know, another gay-marriage thread. I just want to get answers to a few questions. First, how can you call yourself American and deny any right to any person that is allowed to others. In this case the right of a gay couple to obtain a licence of marriage that any heterosexual couple may obtain for any reason. Many who argue against gay marriage say they are "defending family;" what are you defending family against? I have seen countless studies from counless "experts" from both sides of the fence, none have led to any conclusive data, simply because of the fact that there are no facts concerning people and groups of people. There can only be generalizations. I want to discuss the sociological and political implications of the legalization of homosexual marraige. I do not want to hear any reference to any religious texts whatsoever. Religion has no place in politics. Period.

Anybody there?

Yes, I know, another gay-marriage thread. I just want to get answers to a few questions. First, how can you call yourself American and deny any right to any person that is allowed to others. In this case the right of a gay couple to obtain a licence of marriage that any heterosexual couple may obtain for any reason. Many who argue against gay marriage say they are "defending family;" what are you defending family against? I have seen countless studies from counless "experts" from both sides of the fence, none have led to any conclusive data, simply because of the fact that there are no facts concerning people and groups of people. There can only be generalizations. I want to discuss the sociological and political implications of the legalization of homosexual marraige. I do not want to hear any reference to any religious texts whatsoever. Religion has no place in politics. Period.



I'm not getting involved in another gay marriage thread because I've stated my position too many times already so......no.

I'm not getting involved in another gay marriage thread because I've stated my position too many times already so......no.


That's fine. I just want answers to my questions if anyone can provide.

I don't really know why people think it's evil, and the sanctity of marriage part doesn't make sense, either. I don't think society would go to cats and dogs if marriage was more open.

Lol, there may be minimal social and economic impacts of gay marriage, but we live in a world where all areas of knowledge interact, so by saying, "don't take religion into this" is destroying a significant chance of discussion. Do you still want to hear an answer that you want to hear or are you willing to accept an answer that you might not agree with?

I'd be fine with hearing any non-flame argument, but I didn't start the thread.

Honestly, I don't get why people think they shouldn't. Honestly, it's part of freedom of speech. I just think that the people against are just paranoid or something... I can never get conservatives.

Disregarding pretense and pseudo-PC attitudes, I think (know) the argument is up because people dislike gays and want to see them demeaned/denied rights. That is exactly why. To make them suffer.

Lol, there may be minimal social and economic impacts of gay marriage, but we live in a world where all areas of knowledge interact, so by saying, "don't take religion into this" is destroying a significant chance of discussion. Do you still want to hear an answer that you want to hear or are you willing to accept an answer that you might not agree with?

Yes, I want to hear an answer to this. I specifically said not to bring religion into it to emphasize the point that there will be little, if any sociological rammifications, excepting religion, should homosexual marraige be legalized.

And please, by all means, state your opinion. Even if I do not agree with you does not mean you should have no right to state it. I really like the quote, "I do not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to ensure that you can say it." Learned that from my crazy old civics teacher. I couldn't agree more with that statement.

Disregarding pretense and pseudo-PC attitudes, I think (know) the argument is up because people dislike gays and want to see them demeaned/denied rights. That is exactly why. To make them suffer.


Yes, that does seem to be the general consensus. But why? That's where I want to go.

Yes, I want to hear an answer to this. I specifically said not to bring religion into it to emphasize the point that there will be little, if any sociological rammifications, excepting religion, should homosexual marraige be legalized.

To be honest, I don't know.

1. Uncomfortable with their own sexuality
2. Displeased with mental image of homosexual intercourse
3. Hold up other people to machismo male ideal and confronted (in their head) by the antithesis of this ideal.

just a few ideas.

I agree with you. I'm as pro-gay marriage as they come. But I do know their arguments.

I just want to get answers to a few questions. First, how can you call yourself American and deny any right to any person that is allowed to others.
Their religious values say it's immoral. They're not denying a right anymore than banning murder is.

My answer: There's a secular justification for banning murder. My religion says that banning gay marriage is a sin. How do we decide which religion is correct.

In this case the right of a gay couple to obtain a licence of marriage that any heterosexual couple may obtain for any reason. Many who argue against gay marriage say they are "defending family;" what are you defending family against? I have seen countless studies from counless "experts" from both sides of the fence, none have led to any conclusive data, simply because of the fact that there are no facts concerning people and groups of people. There can only be generalizations. I want to discuss the sociological and political implications of the legalization of homosexual marraige. I do not want to hear any reference to any religious texts whatsoever. Religion has no place in politics. Period.
Read the defense of family thread. It's entirely about what you're talking about. I'm not going to go into more detail here, as I'd be repeating what other people have to say.

To be honest, I don't know.

Nor I, which is why I posed the question. I have a feeling I will be waiting a while for an answer.

Read the defense of family thread. It's entirely about what you're talking about. I'm not going to go into more detail here, as I'd be repeating what other people have to say.

I read bits of that, but it beats around the bush too much. Which is what prompted me to start this thread.

My religion says that banning gay marriage is a sin. How do we decide which religion is correct.




Which one is craziest (evangelicals{sp}, I think.)
EDIT: Did I kill the thread?

Which one is craziest (evangelicals{sp}, I think.)

Nah... Jehovah's Witnesses take the cake there.
I get more of them at my house than I do credit card bills.




I think we should take this discussion to another thread before we completely kill this one.

The discussion in the OP or the crazy religion discussion?

The discussion in the OP or the crazy religion discussion?
Crazy religions

You want to start it? Or should I?

because in america the government has the power to tell you who you can and can't get married too. This power , the marriage license, was first granted after the civil war to prevent blacks from marrying whites with the last case of this being enforced being ironically enough the case Love Vs Virginia. A marriage is a contract to love honor and cherish. But because people want to push there religion on you, and because marriage rights would be extended to gays, your freedom to marry who you want is limited by what the politcally popular majority decides.

You want to start it? Or should I?
You go ahead, I'm gonna milk this one as much as I can.

because in america the government has the power to tell you who you can and can't get married too. This power , the marriage license, was first granted after the civil war to prevent blacks from marrying whites with the last case of this being enforced being ironically enough the case Love Vs Virginia. A marriage is a contract to love honor and cherish. But because people want to push there religion on you, and because marriage rights would be extended to gays, your freedom to marry who you want is limited by what the politcally popular majority decides.


Ahhh... yes. The will of the majolrity is always what is considered "most right," but I trying to get to the heart of the problem. Why does this majority hold this belief? The most prevalent answers I have found for the opposition to gay marriage are founded in religion, most often Christianity. I am opposed to the idea of a religion deciding our laws. Isaac Asimov one said, "You should never let your sense of morals stop you from doing what is right."

It isn't. So I dunno what to tell ya.

It isn't. In fact, the idea that two adults who love one another and wish to commit to each other legally could ever be "evil" is patently absurd.

You honestly can't be so naive to not know. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why people oppose gay marriage, so why start another thread on this? I don't even care anymore about this issue, it's a useless issue anyway.

The first thing I want to say is I personally believe gay marriage is wrong.

With my personal feeling out of the way, I think the way we as a country look at marriage (straight and gay) needs to be changed. Why? Because I am Catholic, and to me the word "marriage" implies a ceremony in a church/temple/mosque with a priest/minister/rabbi/other clergy member. To me, if you go down to a courthouse and just get a marriage license without a church ceremony, you are not "married" but you are in fact joined legally, and I believe unions and marriage should have exactly the same rights. I just think the government needs to butt out of marriage in general.

So in short, I believe gays should have the same legal rights when it comes to unions, but I would have a serious issue calling it "marriage" because that implies (to me anyway) that it has been blessed by some religious authority.

You honestly can't be so naive to not know. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why people oppose gay marriage, so why start another thread on this? I don't even care anymore about this issue, it's a useless issue anyway.

Then tell us oh great sage!

Then tell us oh great sage!

Obviously it's because the gay guys have bigger dicks.

Ahhh... yes. The will of the majolrity is always what is considered "most right," but I trying to get to the heart of the problem. Why does this majority hold this belief? The most prevalent answers I have found for the opposition to gay marriage are founded in religion, most often Christianity. I am opposed to the idea of a religion deciding our laws. Isaac Asimov one said, "You should never let your sense of morals stop you from doing what is right."

Well, the people that founded the European colonies in North America were, I'd think, rather much more religiously-involved than we tend to be today; it shaped their morals, and these get passed on through the generations. People of that time often wanted religion, at some level, to be involved in their laws. I dunno, I guess it takes a while for these quirky prejudices to get worked out of the system... :p

You honestly can't be so naive to not know. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why people oppose gay marriage, so why start another thread on this? I don't even care anymore about this issue, it's a useless issue anyway.

I know many answers to my questions, but which is right? What is it that causes people to hate that which is different than them. I made this thread primarily to cure my ignorance of several issues, and make the point that I do not believe there are any logical answers in support of the idea that homosexual relations are "evil" and/or "wrong."

I know many answers to my questions, but which is right? What is it that causes people to hate that which is different than them. I made this thread primarily to cure my ignorance of several issues, and make the point that I do not believe there are any logical answers in support of the idea that homosexual relations are "evil" and/or "wrong."

There's no one right answer. People have different opinions, and the most basic ones deal with religion and just being grossed out. That's all there really is to it.

Well said, Cape Faith. Though you and I are on opposite sides of this issue, we can both agree that government has no business deciding what marriage is. And no church in the nation should be forced to marry people they don't believe ought to be married.

Well, the people that founded the European colonies in North America were, I'd think, rather much more religiously-involved than we tend to be today; it shaped their morals, and these get passed on through the generations. People of that time often wanted religion, at some level, to be involved in their laws. I dunno, I guess it takes a while for these quirky prejudices to get worked out of the system... :p

Yes, we are still fighting to obtain that "Separation of Church and State."
It was this separation that was sought by our founding fathers so that no leader may proclaim divine right or intervention in any of their policies or actions. As of late, that separation and reason for that separation seem to have been thrown out the window. I do not believe I need to say any of the names of some politicians that have cited God as the source of their policies.

Well said, Cape Faith. Though you and I are on opposite sides of this issue, we can both agree that government has no business deciding what marriage is. And no church in the nation should be forced to marry people they don't believe ought to be married.


You seem to be touching near the idea of separating the idea of marraige from law; thus making it an entirely religious concept. This would solve many problems. We really should make all people, straight or gay, be in "civil unions" under law; they would have all the rights that any person who is legally married now would have, but the term marriage would only be applied to those unionized under their religion.

i have to agree completely with that last one. The very fact that Marriage in itself is a religious institution and is imbedded in the social fabric of our society to the extent that the government plays on it is wrong in the first place. It is not a secular instrument by which the government should be allowed to control and regulate. In order to abstain from angering the conservative Christians, destinctions should be made in order to segregate the religious from the secular, thereby keeping the traditional Church and State distinction that our country has developed from. That way, everyone could commit to who they want, get that same rights and protections, and chose to have a religious ceremony or not.

But unfortunately, a measure as such would take many generations to sort out. Its unfortunate that the term "marriage" has come to take on both sides of the fence, and as such, it is now posing a threat to religious individuals. I say have them choose to perform their ceremonies as they wish, and let the courts and government offices perform the ceremonies that the church will not allow.

Giving the same rights to gays also will pose a slight financial burden by allocating so many more benefits to partners of gays and lesbians. But if that is the issue, human rights is more important, so take away some of the rights that straight couples have to even out the budget. We can't pick and choose who to deal more funds to, thats just blatant discrimination.

Now there's another issue, polygamy and why it can't be legal, but I guess that should be left for another topic.

I disagree with gay marriage, and in an effort to explain myself and answer teh original poster, here is why:

Either conciously or sub-conciously, the reason why so many people dont agree with gay marriage is because letting them do so would be showing a sign of acceptance. We want them to feel as unwelcome as possible, so they may change their ways or move to europe or something. Why? They infect our culture. There would be much less homosexuals running around out there if it wasn't accepted as much as it is today.

As far as civil rights goes, yeah, they deserve to get married. This is the land of the free, nobody has a right to push their religion on anyone else.

But, for religious and personal reasons (some people favoring one over the other, i completly dislike gay marriage because of personal reasons, i think its wrong, religion aside), many people view it as a horrible act and those who commit it should be punished. You can connect this view with abortion. Sure, the baby isnt even formed yet, and its the woman's body, she may chose to ingest agents that would kill the few cells that make up her future baby, but morally many of us see it as despicable.

And so is homosexuality, its not because people fail to see how things "should" be in a "free" society, but they want to work against an evil that is taking place in the world.

:snip:
Now there's another issue, polygamy and why it can't be legal, but I guess that should be left for another topic.

Now that we have gotten onto the separation of church and state, the idea of polygamy is valid. I have no problems with a polygymus(sp?) union, so long as it is between willing and loving adults.

I suppose I can bring up that some have argued that gay marriage will legalize incestual marriage. This is a sad and pathetic argument, simply for the fact that, in most states, it is already legal. Yup, most states don't jave any laws barring incestual marriages. It is cliche in the South, but that isn't the only place where it occurs, Anywhere there are two relatives who wish to be married they likely to be. You may find this disgusting, but it is true. Incestual marriage is know, scientifically to cause a greater chance of mutations in the DNA structure, meaning an increased chance for autism and physical deformities and disabilities.

On a side note, some even more pathetics argueing against gay marriage have said that it will lead to interspecies marriages. I do not know how that could even be considered a valid arguement. Yes, your dog is going to really be able to sign that marriage license. Get real people.

Ahhh... yes. The will of the majolrity is always what is considered "most right," but I trying to get to the heart of the problem. Why does this majority hold this belief? The most prevalent answers I have found for the opposition to gay marriage are founded in religion, most often Christianity. I am opposed to the idea of a religion deciding our laws. Isaac Asimov one said, "You should never let your sense of morals stop you from doing what is right."

Ah yes Foundation. I agree with you there. I was against gay marraige initially due to my own negative experiences with gays. I approached the whole gay thing fairly openly when I was younger but when I moved to san francisco I encountered all the negative stereotypes I could think of, so then, I wondered if gay marraige would be a good idea, accepting their lifestyle as it were. I,ve played devil's advocate on this forum and could find no real legal or constitutional reason for dening everybody civil unions, with the same rights as "marraige". Nor do I care if everybody had civil unions, but I think that "marraige" should remain a religous institution. And I understand why people of certain religions would be up in arms over the issue of gay people getting married in a sacred place under sacred rights considering the circus like behavour that occurs at pride rallys, gay parties or any primarily gay function.
Besides they could always get eleven people together and start their own church and perform their own cerimonies, or go to one of the few denominations where the majority of the congregation allowsthese cerimonies.
So I guess it boils down to respect for others religous beliefs and not attacking those beliefs. Go for civil unions(with equal privledge) under the government and dont attack someone elses religous institution

I dont really know why, besides that people arent willing to accept anything against their religious scripts (you said not too bring it up, but thats really what it comes down too.) They dont accept it, therefore they dont think they should have the rights, so they might relize how "evil" they are and change their ways. Most people who are against gay marriage also think that being gay is a choice (as far as ive seen, if you would like to prove me wrong, go ahead.)
I personally am not against gay marriage at all (im also bisexual, so thats kinda a given). I am against incestual marriages though, but not due to it being "gross" but because they do cause mutations, retardation, etc. I have friends thats parents where related, and all of them have some sort of problems, to varying degrees, and i think people should care enough about their children to not put that upon them.

Heh, some non-religious reasons to try to stifle homosexuality.

A lot of people "try new things" in college, in order to rebel and also to just experience a new world opening up to themOnce they grow up, they realize what they did was stupid, and try to keep it a secret.

You know it sucks for the guy who "experimented" in college by letting another guy <.......> and has to go for the rest of his life with the idea that yes, he actually did that.

Every straight guy has seen a movie or heard something about when you go to prison big mean guys make you their women and thought "man, i dont want to go to prison and get raped." With an increasing abundance of homosexuality, your anal virginity is on the line.

Same for girls, you already have to watch your back for guys when buying gas late at night or grabbing a drink after work, abundant homosexuality greatly increases the pool of people looking to take advantage of you.

It adds just one more thing that needs to be explained to every single kid who grows up. "Please kid, wait until you graduate highschool before you have homosexual relations, so you know get a better understanding of life."

Yeah, you can say whatever you want about my non-religious reasons to not like homosexuality (religious reasons alone are enough for me and many others, but i know better than to quote scripture here), but what are some reasons to validate the existance of homosexuality?

Same for girls, you already have to watch your back for guys when buying gas late at night or grabbing a drink after work, abundant homosexuality greatly increases the pool of people looking to take advantage of you.
I would've thought the opposite...

1. Uncomfortable with their own sexuality
2. Displeased with mental image of homosexual intercourse
3. Hold up other people to machismo male ideal and confronted (in their head) by the antithesis of this ideal.

just a few ideas.
Yes, those are related reasons.

Some people subconsciously fear homosexuality, and therefore the idea of homosexual marriage. These people are taught that they should conform to society's idea of what a (wo)man is. To these people, homosexuality represents what they've been taught is bad.

Other people are specifically told as they grow up that homosexuality is just wrong, for whatever reason. I hear it from quite a few people that are against gay marriage: "I've been taught that it's wrong."

For some other people, self-hate is thrown into the mix. Some people that are against the idea of homosexuality suspect themselves to be homosexual, the thing that they hate. They think, subconsciously or otherwise, that if they ruin their chances of living a fulfilling homosexual lifestyle, they might magically convert.

That's pretty much all there is to it.

Well said, Cape Faith. Though you and I are on opposite sides of this issue, we can both agree that government has no business deciding what marriage is. And no church in the nation should be forced to marry people they don't believe ought to be married.
There are churches that will perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples.

a spanglish point of view...
Gay people should be allowed to have a civil union. Why the hell not?

In terms of marriage, don't worry about it. Give it 5 or 10 years and gays will be allowed to marry in a church aswell. I mean honestly i have never heard a priest in europe ever give a good excuse for not allowing it, except that the vatican has to give the say-so, and being such a huge bureaucracy that just takes time.

And come on, if you can have gay priests, women priests, etc.. doing religious ceremonies, is it really that wrong to allow to people of the same sex to marry?

I disagree with gay marriage, and in an effort to explain myself and answer teh original poster, here is why:

Either conciously or sub-conciously, the reason why so many people dont agree with gay marriage is because letting them do so would be showing a sign of acceptance. We want them to feel as unwelcome as possible, so they may change their ways or move to europe or something. Why? They infect our culture. There would be much less homosexuals running around out there if it wasn't accepted as much as it is today.

As far as civil rights goes, yeah, they deserve to get married. This is the land of the free, nobody has a right to push their religion on anyone else.

But, for religious and personal reasons (some people favoring one over the other, i completly dislike gay marriage because of personal reasons, i think its wrong, religion aside), many people view it as a horrible act and those who commit it should be punished. You can connect this view with abortion. Sure, the baby isnt even formed yet, and its the woman's body, she may chose to ingest agents that would kill the few cells that make up her future baby, but morally many of us see it as despicable.

And so is homosexuality, its not because people fail to see how things "should" be in a "free" society, but they want to work against an evil that is taking place in the world.

Burlia summed up your entire stance earlier:

Disregarding pretense and pseudo-PC attitudes, I think (know) the argument is up because people dislike gays and want to see them demeaned/denied rights. That is exactly why. To make them suffer.

Yes, your whole argument is circular in that your whole reasoning is "homosexuality is evil, because I find it icky, and I want them to suffer because of how I feel". Well, you know what? We gay people have known about your real motives all along and, well, they're still as laughable today as they have been throughout history.

Yes, I want to hear an answer to this. I specifically said not to bring religion into it to emphasize the point that there will be little, if any sociological rammifications, excepting religion, should homosexual marraige be legalized.

And please, by all means, state your opinion. Even if I do not agree with you does not mean you should have no right to state it. I really like the quote, "I do not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to ensure that you can say it." Learned that from my crazy old civics teacher. I couldn't agree more with that statement.

I think religious has a part in it.... But very little directly.

I for one am Christian.... I consider homosexuality a sin.

That being said, however, as a Christian, I have been given no authority by my God, to mandate or force others to believe as I do, or pass judgement upon their sins.

That being said; as an American I support the right of homosexuals to marry.

As a Christian I recognize Homosexuality is a sin, by not engaging in Homosexual activities.

The first thing I want to say is I personally believe gay marriage is wrong.

With my personal feeling out of the way, I think the way we as a country look at marriage (straight and gay) needs to be changed. Why? Because I am Catholic, and to me the word "marriage" implies a ceremony in a church/temple/mosque with a priest/minister/rabbi/other clergy member. To me, if you go down to a courthouse and just get a marriage license without a church ceremony, you are not "married" but you are in fact joined legally, and I believe unions and marriage should have exactly the same rights. I just think the government needs to butt out of marriage in general.

So in short, I believe gays should have the same legal rights when it comes to unions, but I would have a serious issue calling it "marriage" because that implies (to me anyway) that it has been blessed by some religious authority.


And what exactly give you total pervue over "Marriage".

There are "Religious" Institutions which support gay marriage... And would perform those very same religious ceremonies you're on about.

So your ideas, while particularly Roman Catholic; are also very particularly ignorant of the total relation of the two...

I Agree Marriage should be something the Government does not control.... I also do not think it should be a direct operation of religion; only cursory operation of it; via it being direct operation of the people.

Because GOD said so!

Because GOD said so!

No, she didn't.

You want to have a discussion on gay "marriage", but without any religious arguments...

Let's go evolution then. Creatures pair up in nature to procreate the species. That is it. If they don't, then the species would become extinct. So on evolutionary terms, homosexual erectus would be an off-shoot that would become extinct, a failed mutation of sorts.

Now, that sounds cruel to anyone who happens to be gay, and truly I mean no disrespect, but there are only 2 reasons for not allowing homosexuals rights, the Bible says so, or it's not productive for the species.

I just wanted to throw that out there. A girl in my pshycology class did a full term paper on that subject, which of course got the specifics down better than I did here, but you get the point. She got a B on the paper, if your interested :rolleyes:

You want to have a discussion on gay "marriage", but without any religious arguments...

Let's go evolution then. Creatures pair up in nature to procreate the species. That is it. If they don't, then the species would become extinct. So on evolutionary terms, homosexual erectus would be an off-shoot that would become extinct, a failed mutation of sorts.

Now, that sounds cruel to anyone who happens to be gay, and truly I mean no disrespect, but there are only 2 reasons for not allowing homosexuals rights, the Bible says so, or it's not productive for the species.

I just wanted to throw that out there. A girl in my pshycology class did a full term paper on that subject, which of course got the specifics down better than I did here, but you get the point. She got a B on the paper, if your interested :rolleyes:

And then there is some evidence that having non regularly reproducing healthy adults for child care and food gathering is a massive advantage to the group …

You want to have a discussion on gay "marriage", but without any religious arguments...

Let's go evolution then. Creatures pair up in nature to procreate the species. That is it. If they don't, then the species would become extinct. So on evolutionary terms, homosexual erectus would be an off-shoot that would become extinct, a failed mutation of sorts.

Now, that sounds cruel to anyone who happens to be gay, and truly I mean no disrespect, but there are only 2 reasons for not allowing homosexuals rights, the Bible says so, or it's not productive for the species.

I just wanted to throw that out there. A girl in my pshycology class did a full term paper on that subject, which of course got the specifics down better than I did here, but you get the point. She got a B on the paper, if your interested :rolleyes:

Gay people aren't sterile. All people aren't gay people. People do not "become" gay all of a sudden. Gay marriage has no effect on straight people's ability to procreate.

Just a few points that invalidate your "argument".

The only thing evil about it is the number of [expletive] threads on the subject! URRRRGH! Just legalize it or outlaw it already, so we can stop talking about it! :headbang:

The only thing evil about it is the number of [expletive] threads on the subject! URRRRGH! Just legalize it or outlaw it already, so we can stop talking about it! :headbang:
No one forces you to read the content ... when ya see the topic feel free to ignore it

No one forces you to read the content ... when ya see the topic feel free to ignore it

Kinda hard when the forum looks like this:

"GAY MARRIAGE"
"GAY MARRIAGE"
"GAY MARRIAGE"
"GAY MARRIAGE"
"GAY MARRIAGE"

I mean, no offense, but sheesh, we get at least 20 of the damn threads everyday! :mad:

The only thing evil about it is the number of [expletive] threads on the subject! URRRRGH! Just legalize it or outlaw it already, so we can stop talking about it! :headbang:

Several countries have one or the other thing. Hasn't ended debate.

Or do you assume that what one country (supposedly the USA) does is the "be-all, end-all" of this matter?

Yes, I know, another gay-marriage thread. I just want to get answers to a few questions. First, how can you call yourself American and deny any right to any person that is allowed to others. In this case the right of a gay couple to obtain a licence of marriage that any heterosexual couple may obtain for any reason. Many who argue against gay marriage say they are "defending family;" what are you defending family against? I have seen countless studies from counless "experts" from both sides of the fence, none have led to any conclusive data, simply because of the fact that there are no facts concerning people and groups of people. There can only be generalizations. I want to discuss the sociological and political implications of the legalization of homosexual marraige. I do not want to hear any reference to any religious texts whatsoever. Religion has no place in politics. Period.

I'm not getting involved in another gay marriage thread because I've stated my position too many times already so......no.

No, Neo Rogolia. You won't get involved in this one because the original poster has stated very clearly he wants none of your religious spew! You have NEVER come up with a non-religious reason...you have never come up with a reason that does not reference religious texts...and countless people before the original poster have already told you that RELIGION HAS NO PLACE IN POLITICS!!

You just can't handle the argument, because you have no argument that doesn't reference your little Bible, because it's what you use to justify and excuse your otherwise indefensible stand.

Lol, there may be minimal social and economic impacts of gay marriage, but we live in a world where all areas of knowledge interact, so by saying, "don't take religion into this" is destroying a significant chance of discussion. Do you still want to hear an answer that you want to hear or are you willing to accept an answer that you might not agree with?

We don't want to hear people excusing and justifying their hatred and bigotry by quoting Bible Scripture. We have already said...and the Constitution confirms this: RELIGION HAS NO PLACE IN POLITICS! You have to come up with a non-religious...a logical and secular reason, to oppose gay marriage. The point is, y'all can't, because there AREN'T any rational reasons to prevent it.

Y'all who oppose it are just a bunch of haters, and you refuse to see ytourselves for what you are. Haters.

Google is your friend.

You can find lots of homophobic political and religious groups at a touch of the button. It's probably best to go to the source for this if you want the most accurate answer.

It was a very loaded question to ask really, especially in a forum where homosexuals (I'm a lesbian- yayy) and homosexual sympathisers are, because there can be flames. Try a.) using a search engine and b.) going to a homophobic forum. If you <i>truly</i> don't want drama. But I expect you just wanted to be able to boast a thread with 3983279847328973874responses, even if you havn't got them now.

Let's go evolution then. Creatures pair up in nature to procreate the species. That is it. If they don't, then the species would become extinct. So on evolutionary terms, homosexual erectus would be an off-shoot that would become extinct, a failed mutation of sorts.

You make quite a few assumptions here that are absolutely unfounded.

(a) A single mutation leads to any given sexuality.
(b) Homosexuals never reproduce.
(c) Non-breeding members cannot contribute to the group in social animals.

Also, by this logic, there should be no instances whatsoever of any sexuality but straight heterosexuality in the animal kingdom. This is not the case. Just about every upper level mammal and bird that have been studied in detail have exhibited a range of sexualities.

I just wanted to throw that out there. A girl in my pshycology class did a full term paper on that subject, which of course got the specifics down better than I did here, but you get the point. She got a B on the paper, if your interested :rolleyes:

Sounds to me like the profs wherever you are are just as misinformed as you are. Please let us know where you go to school so we can be sure to avoid it.

Honestly, I don't get why people think they shouldn't. Honestly, it's part of freedom of speech. I just think that the people against are just paranoid or something... I can never get conservatives.

Me, either. the only thing I can figure is conservatives like to make other people miserable. Conservatives are inherenly evil, and they need some sort of Daddy-figure to shake a finger at them and threaten them to "be good..." so they think EVERYONE needs that. They can't accept the fact some people have a conscience of their own. that's the only way I have been able to reconcile conservative ideology and action.

Kinda hard when the forum looks like this:

"GAY MARRIAGE"
"GAY MARRIAGE"
"GAY MARRIAGE"
"GAY MARRIAGE"
"GAY MARRIAGE"

I mean, no offense, but sheesh, we get at least 20 of the damn threads everyday! :mad:
This is the only one that I have found in the first 5 pages ... on page 6 there is one and then none on page 7

So this and one on page 6 are the only ones posted in the page listing ... I think you will survive

Disregarding pretense and pseudo-PC attitudes, I think (know) the argument is up because people dislike gays and want to see them demeaned/denied rights. That is exactly why. To make them suffer.

Precisely! We have a winner!!!

I think that what consenting adults choose to do in the bedroom is no business of mine. Therefore why should I be bothered if they want to be couples? I'm not. Leading to marriage, with all its benefits should be an option for any pair of consenting adults, regardless of gender.

QUOTE=Cape Faith]
So in short, I believe gays should have the same legal rights when it comes to unions, but I would have a serious issue calling it "marriage" because that implies (to me anyway) that it has been blessed by some religious authority.[/QUOTE]

The only problem I have with this is that there are religions that are alloweded to perform marrige ceremonies that also have no problems with Gay marrige.

So my returning question would be, are those religions that allow gay marrige somehow less than yours or a invalid religion because of this?

Me, either. the only thing I can figure is conservatives like to make other people miserable. Conservatives are inherenly evil, and they need some sort of Daddy-figure to shake a finger at them and threaten them to "be good..." so they think EVERYONE needs that. They can't accept the fact some people have a conscience of their own. that's the only way I have been able to reconcile conservative ideology and action.
Hey while I sometimes agree with your viewpoint don’t start stereotyping a whole political party

Not only is the title you pick a economic not a social description for a group of people … not all people of the conservative economic stance are of the faith you are trying to deride and not all of them are trying to make people miserable

That is not the way to argue and you are just going to be lambasted for making such general and seemingly troll bating statements

QUOTE=Cape Faith]
So in short, I believe gays should have the same legal rights when it comes to unions, but I would have a serious issue calling it "marriage" because that implies (to me anyway) that it has been blessed by some religious authority.

The only problem I have with this is that there are religions that are alloweded to perform marrige ceremonies that also have no problems with Gay marrige.

So my returning question would be, are those religions that allow gay marrige somehow less than yours or a invalid religion because of this?[/QUOTE]
Defiantly

Same … and add on top of that the fact that having separate laws and names governing gay marriage is just a setup for “separate but equal” and we all know how good that turned out with segregation

The only thing evil about it is the number of [expletive] threads on the subject! URRRRGH! Just legalize it or outlaw it already, so we can stop talking about it! :headbang:


I presume you're straight. Because for gay, lesbian and bisexual people the issue will never just 'go away'. It isn't just a headline on the news for us. It's our lives. The hurts and injustices go too deep. Then there is transgendered and genderqueer marriage to be 'solved'

Sometimes I wish heterosexuals would just STFU

1. Uncomfortable with their own sexuality
2. Displeased with mental image of homosexual intercourse
3. Hold up other people to machismo male ideal and confronted (in their head) by the antithesis of this ideal.

just a few ideas.

How about the fact that they are a closet case themselves??

I just love guys..."Oh, but they...they...they migfht make a pass at me!!"
Like, as if you couldn't reject such a pass? What's the big friggin' deal?!!?!

It's almost as if these guys are afraid they might like it!

I remember a roomie I had once, who was ultra-paranoid of gays. This was in a boarding house...we all had our own rooms, but we all called each other roomies, there were six of us. Anyway, Monty, the paranoid one, was good friends with another of our roomies, until he came out as gay...whereupon Monty went out of his way to avoid this other roomie (I'll call him Ralph - not his real name) Anyways, once day, Ralph and I were talking, over in my room, just friends, no big deal...and Monty came by my room. Monty froze when he saw Ralph.
Ralph handled it beautifully, though. Ralph said..."hey, Monty...what's your issue, anyway? We used to be friends...I'm still the same person I always was, the only difference is now you know." And Monty started stammering about how he was afraid Ralph might make a pass at him. Ralph laughed. "Monty...since when did you think you were all that and a bag of chips?" asked Ralph. "I don't even find you attractive!"
And the fuinniest thing was, you could see that Monty...ultra-paranoid Monty...had his feelings hurt that Ralph didn't find him attractive!!

God, it was a fucking Kodak moment!

because in america the government has the power to tell you who you can and can't get married too. This power , the marriage license, was first granted after the civil war to prevent blacks from marrying whites with the last case of this being enforced being ironically enough the case Love Vs Virginia. A marriage is a contract to love honor and cherish. But because people want to push there religion on you, and because marriage rights would be extended to gays, your freedom to marry who you want is limited by what the politcally popular majority decides.

Actually, the case law is LOVING vs Virginia. Not Love. Common mistake. But I, too find it ironic, and it happenss to be one of my all-time favorite case-law citings. Law student here, by the way.

Incidentally, some of my other favorites are Lawrence vs Texas...and another one which has since been upheld bby a higher court, and so it is no longer on the books bearing my name...but there was a time when MY name appeared in the law books, because I had set precedent.

I'm not allowed to cite the case law, by the terms of the settlement we eventually came to at a higher court, because I'm not allowed to name the plaintiff. However, there WAS a time, however briefly, where My name was in case law...and my case was cited in the case which later upheld it, in the New Jersey Supreme Court. that case was Enriquez vs Someone (don't remember who) but Enriquez is the case law now, replacing my original case law, which was cited in the Enriquez case.

The first thing I want to say is I personally believe gay marriage is wrong.

With my personal feeling out of the way, I think the way we as a country look at marriage (straight and gay) needs to be changed. Why? Because I am Catholic, and to me the word "marriage" implies a ceremony in a church/temple/mosque with a priest/minister/rabbi/other clergy member. To me, if you go down to a courthouse and just get a marriage license without a church ceremony, you are not "married" but you are in fact joined legally, and I believe unions and marriage should have exactly the same rights. I just think the government needs to butt out of marriage in general.

So in short, I believe gays should have the same legal rights when it comes to unions, but I would have a serious issue calling it "marriage" because that implies (to me anyway) that it has been blessed by some religious authority.


Well, silly...chances are good the gay couples WOULD have their union blessed by some religious authority. Probably just not by one YOU might recognize as a religious authority.
Many churches perform, sanction, and acknowledge gay marriage ceremonies. Among them are my own church, The Unitarian Universalists...as well as Metropolitan Community Church, and I believe the Espiscopal Church does, too.
I'm betting gay couples wouldn't want anything to do with YOIUR church anyway! Why the hell would anyone want to go to a church that kept giving them the message that they were second-class citizens, that they are evil, that they suck, and they deserve hell, fire, brimstone, suffering...fuck that!
You keep YOUR church out of MY government, okay? And I promise to keep my queer ass out of YOUR church.

There's no one right answer. People have different opinions, and the most basic ones deal with religion and just being grossed out. That's all there really is to it.
Well, I'll answer both arguments.

1. Establishment Clause. Religion has no place in politics.

2. Too fucking bad if it DOES "gross you out." There is no constitutional guarantee against being gross4ed out. so why don't you grow up, get over yourself...and quit shitting on a group of people who just happen to be different from you?

All loving and compassionate society comes to the aid of motherless or fatherless families created by fate, there is no “civil right” to intentionally subject children to fatherlessness or motherlessness in order to fulfill adult desire. SSM is not a civil right.

scroll down and look at the pix on the left side, youll understand (http://www.seanbaby.com/stupid/original.htm)

I have a lot to say on this subject, but I will try to keep it simple and maybe take an angle that other people have overlooked.

Historically, marriage has been a reproductive and economic relationship between a man and a woman. In the ideal model, the man would be the breadwinner and take care of farming, business, finance, whatever, while the woman gave birth to and cared for children, mended clothes, and kept house. Of course, the reality was often far more complicated, but most marriages followed this model to one degree or another.

Now, in many industrialized nations, the entire context of marriage has changed. People get married later or don't see the need to get married at all. Being a single parent, while it is still difficult, is not considered unusual or frowned upon as much as it once was. Because of birth control and other considerations, people have more of a choice about when, and if, they want to have children. Also, since gender inequalities have been reduced a great deal compared to, say, fifty years ago (although gender equality is still alive and well, let me tell you), women find it much easier to get an education and have their own careers, instead of being homemakers.

In those ways and more, the social and economic parameters of our society have changed, and therefore marriage generally doesn't - and, in many cases, even CAN'T - work the same way as before. Marriage in many cases is more of a social/romantic relationship than one of economic and reproductive dependence, so it does not necessarily have to follow the traditional male-and-female model.

Yet many people are still attached to that model and consider it the norm. Either their perceptions have not caught up with contemporary reality and the place of marriage in that reality - or their perceptions HAVE caught up and they don't like what they see. So to them gay marriage is an abberance or an indication/product of the "ills of society."

I don't think opposition to gay marriage is rooted in religion as much as it is in fear of change and things that are different. And it's not just fear of gay marriage itself, but of the whole historic, economic, and social situation and process it represents that makes people so violently opposed to it.

Okay, I didn't manage to keep it short, but I didn't even go into the hypocrisy of the "defense of family" line either. I'll let someone else do that.

All loving and compassionate society comes to the aid of motherless or fatherless families created by fate, there is no “civil right” to intentionally subject children to fatherlessness or motherlessness in order to fulfill adult desire. SSM is not a civil right.

Where in the law books does it say "You get married and we give you a child."?

I haven't seen that. Whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt is a completely different subject from whether or not they should get the thousand or so protections given to any heterosexual couple who wants them.

Burlia summed up your entire stance earlier:


Disregarding pretense and pseudo-PC attitudes, I think (know) the argument is up because people dislike gays and want to see them demeaned/denied rights. That is exactly why. To make them suffer.



Yes, your whole argument is circular in that your whole reasoning is "homosexuality is evil, because I find it icky, and I want them to suffer because of how I feel". Well, you know what? We gay people have known about your real motives all along and, well, they're still as laughable today as they have been throughout history.

In defense of Burlia...I think Burlia was stating NOT HIS OWN STANCE here, but rather, what he believed the stance of those opposed to gay marriage was! So, Fass, your response shouldn't really be addressed to Burlia, if you look at the context of what he is saying, he never says he, himself, holds the view he just posted. And yes...we both know that Burlia is dead-on, that those ARE the real motivations, and we have known it for ages...and they are as laughable now as they were then.

But let's try not to alienate those who are not our real enemies, Fass.

All loving and compassionate society comes to the aid of motherless or fatherless families created by fate, there is no “civil right” to intentionally subject children to fatherlessness or motherlessness in order to fulfill adult desire. SSM is not a civil right.
And hetrosexual marrige is?

I presume you're straight. Because for gay, lesbian and bisexual people the issue will never just 'go away'. It isn't just a headline on the news for us. It's our lives. The hurts and injustices go too deep. Then there is transgendered and genderqueer marriage to be 'solved'

Sometimes I wish heterosexuals would just STFU

Yes! And, for the record, for those who didn't know...I happen to be transgender.
I have no dog, really, in the gay marriage fight, because I have no desire to get married to anyone or anything. I am one of the very rare, truly asexual people you will find. I quite literally have ZERO sex drive. The only marriage I would be happy in is a zero-sex marriage.

But, as I consider gay and lesbian people to be my brothers and sisters (and in a way that my own flesh and blood never can be - and a way that straights can NEVER understand) I stand up and fight for the rights of my brothers and sisters. Hopefully, one day, they will stand up for ME...when I need then, thus returning the favor...and becuase it would be the right thing to do.

As we say "I've got your back!"

I just wanted to respond to a number of people who pointed out that there are some churches who allow gay marriage.

My response is: good for them! So if you're gay and want to be married in a church, go and get married. If you don't want to get married in a church, go down to the couthouse and get the paper. No matter if you're gay or straight, if you want to be joined in a union, I think you should be able to do it. This is one of those things that I don't agree with the Church on. Do I think it's wrong? Yes. Do I think America will go to hell in a handbasket if we allow gay people to get married? Not in the least. At least, no more then it is now. The only thing my last post was saying was I think we need to remove the religious term "marriage" for people (gay or straight) who just go down to the couthouse and get the paper. If you get it blessed by a church then call it a marriage.

I just wanted to respond to a number of people who pointed out that there are some churches who allow gay marriage.

My response is: good for them! So if you're gay and want to be married in a church, go and get married. If you don't want to get married in a church, go down to the couthouse and get the paper. No matter if you're gay or straight, if you want to be joined in a union, I think you should be able to do it. This is one of those things that I don't agree with the Church on. Do I think it's wrong? Yes. Do I think America will go to hell in a handbasket if we allow gay people to get married? Not in the least. At least, no more then it is now. The only thing my last post was saying was I think we need to remove the religious term "marriage" for people (gay or straight) who just go down to the couthouse and get the paper. If you get it blessed by a church then call it a marriage.

what if you're blessed by something other than courthouse or church, is it marriage or not?

Where in the law books does it say "You get married and we give you a child."?

I haven't seen that. Whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt is a completely different subject from whether or not they should get the thousand or so protections given to any heterosexual couple who wants them.

How are you going to stop a legally married couple from applying for an adoption? Are you going to define two types of marriages then, some with more rights than the other? If so, exactly how many minutes after SSM becomes legal do you think the movement for equal treatment will be? One minute or two?

How are you going to stop a legally married couple from applying for an adoption? Are you going to define two types of marriages then, some with more rights than the other? If so, exactly how many minutes after SSM becomes legal do you think the movement for equal treatment will be? One minute or two?
Hopefully one or less

I think legalising SSM would make society more accepting and tollerent given time of course

I find it ever so slightly ironic that the title of the topic is "Why is gay marriage evil?" yet the author requests that people not give arguments about why they think it's a sin. But I suppose it's just a rhetorical question.

Anyway, besides what people have already said, the reason that I can think of why some want to prevent gay marriage has to do with religion, but is not in and of itself religious. I think it's a kind of "slippery slope" thing — not so much a fear that allowing gay marriage will lead to allowing bestiality or incest or polygamy, etc., but that it will lead to religious organizations that believe that homosexual relations are sinful eventually being forced or coerced by the government to recognize and perform gay marriages.

For the record: I believe that homosexual sex (though not the attraction itself) is a sin, but not somehow more sinful than sex between an unmarried heterosexual couple. I am attracted to both men and women, but someday hope to have a heterosexual marriage — I intend to remain celibate either until then or for life. This is my choice, and not one that I would force on someone who does not believe as I do (or, for that matter, someone who does believe as I do). I don't see myself as somehow superior to those who choose differently either. I have my own cross to bear.

I do not believe that the government should be able to define marriage at all in our society. I think that people who decide to live with each other and combine their incomes and resources on a long term basis should be able to enter into civil contracts, similar to the legal marriage contract now, that afford them certain tax benefits and the like whether they are homosexual, heterosexual, or even having sex at all. I also think that people should be able to designate whomever they choose for the purposes of inheritance, power of attorney, etc.. I think that whether or not two people are married should be entirely up to them (and their church, if applicable), and not a legal matter at all.

Yes! And, for the record, for those who didn't know...I happen to be transgender.
I have no dog, really, in the gay marriage fight, because I have no desire to get married to anyone or anything. I am one of the very rare, truly asexual people you will find. I quite literally have ZERO sex drive. The only marriage I would be happy in is a zero-sex marriage.

But, as I consider gay and lesbian people to be my brothers and sisters (and in a way that my own flesh and blood never can be - and a way that straights can NEVER understand) I stand up and fight for the rights of my brothers and sisters. Hopefully, one day, they will stand up for ME...when I need then, thus returning the favor...and becuase it would be the right thing to do.

As we say "I've got your back!"
I'm not a very tolerant person. I'm probably not very intelligent either. I'm definitly not well educated. And I'm chuck full of prejudice.

Now that you know where I'm comming from Lyric, let me share my instinctive reaction when I read what I just quoted.

Well shite! That kid got issues.

My next thought was something like this:
If that guy think's he's helping alleviate prejudice, he's dead wrong. He's increasing it

My third one was more or less this:
Who in their right friggin mind goes out and throws their distorted asexuality in other people's faces?!

You prolly remember my stance on the issue of this thread, but I'll sum up: Laws either affects everyone or they discriminate. Marriage is primarily a legal issue. Marriage has no historical connection with religion. Multiple faiths and subsects perform same-sex marriages - what gives one the right to limit the religious freedom of another? Marriage in the USA is a fundamental right, as outlined in your various amendments; it's part of the right to persue happiness.
There is no logical or legal argument against marriage. Opponents are biggots advocating unlawful discrimination. Simply put: You are evil for the sake of being it.

Now Lyric, I think you might have some serious mental health issues of your own, but it's pure speculation, as I know fuck-all about such things.
What I do think I know, is that you will most likely find someone special you wish to enter a marriage with - for the legal benefits if nothing else.
I'm also pretty sure that you alienate the hysteric evil shitheads even further, by describing your - to me at least - very alien lifestyle.

I do hope I'm wrong about your mental health, but really... You freak me out :p
- Yea, you're wellcome to of course.

I just wanted to respond to a number of people who pointed out that there are some churches who allow gay marriage.

My response is: good for them! So if you're gay and want to be married in a church, go and get married. If you don't want to get married in a church, go down to the couthouse and get the paper. No matter if you're gay or straight, if you want to be joined in a union, I think you should be able to do it. This is one of those things that I don't agree with the Church on. Do I think it's wrong? Yes. Do I think America will go to hell in a handbasket if we allow gay people to get married? Not in the least. At least, no more then it is now. The only thing my last post was saying was I think we need to remove the religious term "marriage" for people (gay or straight) who just go down to the couthouse and get the paper. If you get it blessed by a church then call it a marriage.
Agreed!
Like already stated, I'm not exactly tolerant. I would hate if my marriage certificate said "Marriage". I do not with to be assiciated with religion, as I really do not approve of such institutions - but that's a rant for another thread

How are you going to stop a legally married couple from applying for an adoption? Are you going to define two types of marriages then, some with more rights than the other? If so, exactly how many minutes after SSM becomes legal do you think the movement for equal treatment will be? One minute or two?

Marriage does not automatically make you elligible for adoption. Anyone can apply - that is already true. However, only couples/single parents (depending on the agency) deemed to be a good family for the child actually get to adopt (at least through reputable adoption agencies).

Anyway, besides what people have already said, the reason that I can think of why some want to prevent gay marriage has to do with religion, but is not in and of itself religious. I think it's a kind of "slippery slope" thing — not so much a fear that allowing gay marriage will lead to allowing bestiality or incest or polygamy, etc., but that it will lead to religious organizations that believe that homosexual relations are sinful eventually being forced or coerced by the government to recognize and perform gay marriages.

You mean like the government has forced churches to marry those outside their own religion? Oh wait, that hasn't happened.

You mean like the government has forced "white" churches to marry black or interracial couples? Oh wait, that hasn't happened either.

Funny, looks to me like the government has stayed out of the religious institution of marriage.


What I do think I know, is that you will most likely find someone special you wish to enter a marriage with - for the legal benefits if nothing else.

The legal benefits mean nothing unless you are in a relationship that needs them. It isn't as if you get married and you suddenly get land and gold and bread and butter dropped into your lap. At least in the states, getting married is a huge hassle - and most of the benefits are simply there to alleviate the problems that go along with living as a single entity with another person. These benefits (and the often increased income taxes that go along with them) wouldn't be of help to a single person at all.

"People do not "become" gay all of a sudden."

Since they don't "become" gay, exactly what makes them gay? Would that be an extra chromosone that does it? If you have a small portion of a species that has an extra chromosone, slightly different DNA, what do you call it?

BTW, the paper got a B because it was a well written opinion peice, so I imagine the professor did just fine.

I am about sick and tired of the old "we are a free country and people have the 'right' to do what they want". That's a load of bull. It all depends on your tolerance to decide who is free. A small amount of people like having intercourse with animals, do we allow them to be free as long as the animal is not harmed? Now, homosexuals are not the same as these people, but they are both an alternate lifestyle from heterosexuality.

My personnel views: It is hard for alot of people to understand this, so I will say it and hope you get the picture. I can not stand homosexuality. I think it is morally wrong and physically disgusting. However, I do not hate homosexuals nor do I wish any harm to them, I just completely disagree with their lifestyle.

The legal benefits mean nothing unless you are in a relationship that needs them. It isn't as if you get married and you suddenly get land and gold and bread and butter dropped into your lap. At least in the states, getting married is a huge hassle - and most of the benefits are simply there to alleviate the problems that go along with living as a single entity with another person. These benefits (and the often increased income taxes that go along with them) wouldn't be of help to a single person at all.
Which is why I've never been married ;)
However, people don't remain 25 year olds their entire lives. Eventually most people settle down with someone special for life. When you realize you're not imortal, and may need some sort of legal arrangement between you, marriage suddenly looks really interesting. If that wasn't the case, I could tell you with certainty right now, that I'll never marry. Because I do not want to enter into a union so many people associate with religion.
As it is, I assume (and hope - being single at the moment) that I'll eventually feel the need to marry my partner. Also, should I decide to have kids some day, I would need to be married to gain any legal standing, because I'm male ('nother case of clear cut discrimination, but for another thread).

Since they don't "become" gay, exactly what makes them gay? Would that be an extra chromosone that does it? If you have a small portion of a species that has an extra chromosone, slightly different DNA, what do you call it?

Well it couldn't be an extra chromosome, as gay people don't have extra chromosomes.

What it could be is a mixture of many genetic factors, hormones, hormones in the womb during pregnancy, very early childhood experiences, etc.

I'm afraid that grade school biology doesn't cut it when we start looking at more complex traits.

BTW, the paper got a B because it was a well written opinion peice, so I imagine the professor did just fine.

I wasn't aware that biology is an opinion. Here I was thinking you needed an actual understanding of science to discuss science. Go figure. I guess as long as it's your "opinion", you can write a paper about how electrons don't exist and get a B at your school.

A small amount of people like having intercourse with animals, do we allow them to be free as long as the animal is not harmed?

Not harmed, eh? Like the boy who killed the dog recently? It died of internal bleeding.

And how exactly do these animals give consent? Last I checked they didn't have the cognitive or speaking abilities for that.

Now, homosexuals are not the same as these people, but they are both an alternate lifestyle from heterosexuality.

Incorrect. Homosexuality is not an "alternate lifestyle from heterosexuality". To be such, it would have to be impossible to be a homosexual. Everyone would have to be hetereosexual and simply make a choice to be attracted to members of the same sex. When were you given the choice of which sex you would be attracted to?

I can not stand homosexuality. I think it is morally wrong and physically disgusting.

Do you also think that menstruation is morally wrong and physically disgusting?

What about sweating?

Sperm production?

Liking the taste of chocolate?

However, I do not hate homosexuals nor do I wish any harm to them, I just completely disagree with their lifestyle.

I hate to break the news to you, but people don't fit into your nice little boxes. There is no "homosexual lifestyle" any more than there is a "heterosexual lifestyle". People live their lives their own way.

Which is why I've never been married ;)
However, people don't remain 25 year olds their entire lives. Eventually most people settle down with someone special for life. When you realize you're not imortal, and may need some sort of legal arrangement between you, marriage suddenly looks really interesting. If that wasn't the case, I could tell you with certainty right now, that I'll never marry. Because I do not want to enter into a union so many people associate with religion.
As it is, I assume (and hope - being single at the moment) that I'll eventually feel the need to marry my partner. Also, should I decide to have kids some day, I would need to be married to gain any legal standing, because I'm male ('nother case of clear cut discrimination, but for another thread).

Ok, your other post seemed to suggest that one would want the benefits of marriage and find someone for no other reason than to get them.

Yes, I know, another gay-marriage thread. I just want to get answers to a few questions. First, how can you call yourself American and deny any right to any person that is allowed to others. In this case the right of a gay couple to obtain a licence of marriage that any heterosexual couple may obtain for any reason. Many who argue against gay marriage say they are "defending family;" what are you defending family against? I have seen countless studies from counless "experts" from both sides of the fence, none have led to any conclusive data, simply because of the fact that there are no facts concerning people and groups of people. There can only be generalizations. I want to discuss the sociological and political implications of the legalization of homosexual marraige. I do not want to hear any reference to any religious texts whatsoever. Religion has no place in politics. Period.

You asked why it's 'evil' and then asked for no reference to religion? That doesn't make any sense. Perhaps you should have titled the thread why not give them the same rights as everyone else, or something like that.

You asked why it's 'evil' and then asked for no reference to religion? That doesn't make any sense. Perhaps you should have titled the thread why not give them the same rights as everyone else, or something like that.

Good and evil are not completely subject to religious views. The religious view of good and evil certainly are - but it isn't like atheists don't have a concept of good and evil.

"People do not "become" gay all of a sudden."

Since they don't "become" gay, exactly what makes them gay? Would that be an extra chromosone that does it? If you have a small portion of a species that has an extra chromosone, slightly different DNA, what do you call it?

BTW, the paper got a B because it was a well written opinion peice, so I imagine the professor did just fine.

I am about sick and tired of the old "we are a free country and people have the 'right' to do what they want". That's a load of bull. It all depends on your tolerance to decide who is free. A small amount of people like having intercourse with animals, do we allow them to be free as long as the animal is not harmed? Now, homosexuals are not the same as these people, but they are both an alternate lifestyle from heterosexuality.

My personnel views: It is hard for alot of people to understand this, so I will say it and hope you get the picture. I can not stand homosexuality. I think it is morally wrong and physically disgusting. However, I do not hate homosexuals nor do I wish any harm to them, I just completely disagree with their lifestyle.

And how is your opinion on their behavior make their lifestyle invalid?
We are a nation based on freedom ... what consenting adults do with eachother is none of YOUR busness

"People do not "become" gay all of a sudden."

Since they don't "become" gay, exactly what makes them gay? Would that be an extra chromosone that does it? If you have a small portion of a species that has an extra chromosone, slightly different DNA, what do you call it?

What makes people straight? That is a much more interesting question that will have to be answered before anyone can explain what "makes" gay people gay. The "becoming gay" was a remark to state that, no, your points are not correct, because straight people don't suddenly "become" gay, just like gay people don't just suddenly "become" straight. Straight people and gay people are the way they are all the time.

Your "argument" required such a false and ludicrous assumption as that gay marriage would turn straight people gay to make any sense or to be the least bit relevant to the discussion, but that was not all it needed - one needed to be completely ignorant of the other facts I mentioned (gay people not being sterile, all people not being gay et cetera) for your argument to be of value and relevance at all. Your "argument" was ill-conceived and lacked any sort of logical cohesion.

I am about sick and tired of the old "we are a free country and people have the 'right' to do what they want". That's a load of bull. It all depends on your tolerance to decide who is free.

Tyranny of the majority has no place in a constitutional democracy. Also, I do not give a crap about your country - this is an international forum and what your country does and does not do is irrelevant to a debate about this matter.

A small amount of people like having intercourse with animals, do we allow them to be free as long as the animal is not harmed? Now, homosexuals are not the same as these people, but they are both an alternate lifestyle from heterosexuality.

1. Irrelevant, as you partially acknowledge yourself.
2. Where I live, bestiality is not illegal. Cruelty to animals is, and that's what bestiality in the end is. Moral condemnation of the act is not up to the state. This again brings us back to what your country does being completely uninteresting.
3. Animals are not humans. They cannot consent. Gay people are human. We do give consent, and derive a lot of joy, from having sex with people that we want to have sex with. The parallel you are trying to make is non-existent, and indicative of your lack of ability or means to defend your stance.

My personnel views: It is hard for alot of people to understand this, so I will say it and hope you get the picture. I can not stand homosexuality. I think it is morally wrong and physically disgusting. However, I do not hate homosexuals nor do I wish any harm to them, I just completely disagree with their lifestyle.

"Gays are icky" is not an argument. You needn't be understood when you exclaim it, but instead you need be pitied.

Also, as a gay man, I can assure you that there are very few differences between my lifestyle and yours. Or do you somehow mean that whom I fuck, or who fucks me, determines my entire style of living? If that is the case, then you are truly ignorant of how other people lead their lives.

Good and evil are not completely subject to religious views. The religious view of good and evil certainly are - but it isn't like atheists don't have a concept of good and evil.

Sure, people believe in a concept of evil as really, really, bad without it necessarily being religious, but I sincerely doubt you will ever hear anyone say "homosexuality is evil" without some religious backing.

You mean like the government has forced churches to marry those outside their own religion? Oh wait, that hasn't happened.

You mean like the government has forced "white" churches to marry black or interracial couples? Oh wait, that hasn't happened either.

Funny, looks to me like the government has stayed out of the religious institution of marriage.

I'm giving an example, not saying that I agree with it. I didn't say I was afraid of this, just that I think this is the reasoning behind some people's opposition to gay marriage. A lot of people are terrified that the government will eventually start telling churches what they can teach (or what they can't teach), even if it hasn't happened yet and is unlikely to under our current system of government. Maybe they're afraid that since they're trying to enforce their moral standards in other people's lives, other people would try to do the same to them given half a chance.


The legal benefits mean nothing unless you are in a relationship that needs them. It isn't as if you get married and you suddenly get land and gold and bread and butter dropped into your lap. At least in the states, getting married is a huge hassle - and most of the benefits are simply there to alleviate the problems that go along with living as a single entity with another person. These benefits (and the often increased income taxes that go along with them) wouldn't be of help to a single person at all.

Hmm. Well, it's not a fully thought out idea. I'm definitely open to suggestions. But I suppose my main point was that since the term marriage today automatically conjures up images more related to the emotional/sexual/spiritual relationship and less the economic/legal relationship. Maybe it would be simpler to have the legal part just called a civil union whatever the orientation of the people entering into it, and keep marriage as a social but not legal term.

I'm giving an example, not saying that I agree with it. I didn't say I was afraid of this, just that I think this is the reasoning behind some people's opposition to gay marriage. A lot of people are terrified that the government will eventually start telling churches what they can teach (or what they can't teach), even if it hasn't happened yet and is unlikely to under our current system of government. Maybe they're afraid that since they're trying to enforce their moral standards in other people's lives, other people would try to do the same to them given half a chance.



But we are not like them ... if they were the oppress minority and lets say the right to free practice their religion was taken away from them we would be leading the charge for equal rights for them

But thats not the way ... they are the ones pressing their unproven viewpoint on homosexuals and other religions (or lack thereof) so we work in this direction for now

But we are not like them ... if they were the oppress minority and lets say the right to free practice their religion was taken away from them we would be leading the charge for equal rights for them

But thats not the way ... they are the ones pressing their unproven viewpoint on homosexuals and other religions (or lack thereof) so we work in this direction for now

True.

Anyway, I don't think it's particularly healthy for the Church to have too much influence on the State on an institutional level. Of course religion is going to influence politics for the individual, because religion affects morals, which affects ethics, which affects politics. But for the Church (and I mean any church) as an entity to direct the State not only erodes the rights of those who do not belong to the particular Church in question, but also distorts the function and purpose of the Church itself.

True.

Anyway, I don't think it's particularly healthy for the Church to have too much influence on the State on an institutional level. Of course religion is going to influence politics for the individual, because religion affects morals, which affects ethics, which affects politics. But for the Church (and I mean any church) as an entity to direct the State not only erodes the rights of those who do not belong to the particular Church in question, but also distorts the function and purpose of the Church itself.


I said it before and I'll say it again, "You should never let your sense of morals stop you from doing what is right."

/edit: OK, Asimov said it originally, but I believethat is a good quote to live by. Morals are determined by the mores of society, and society is not always right. Morals and policy should be very different things, however, they have been merged by self-rightous politicians who are simply tring to make themselves look good to their constituency.

Marrige is about love, not discrimination, if it makes u uncomfortable, too bad, don't go to one! Watching two rednecks in a movie theater grosses me out, but i ignore them when i see it, which is what homophobic people should do. If two straight people have the right to get married, then equally so gays. besides all that constitution of marrige stuff is a bunch of crap.

Hetersexuality is not THE ONLY MORAL WAY TO LIVE!

This issue is being used by some to try amd put religon in the government, which is wrong cause we aren't a theocracy. If u want to freakin' live in one, fine another damned country. Cause here, we fight and go to war to make sure that people CAN live their lives as they please. Gay marriage is NOT THE SAME AS ANIMAL SEX OR ANYOTHER PERVERTED OR WRONG SEXUAL ENERGIES, ITS ON THE SAME LEVEL AS HETEROSEXUALITY. Gay people are HUMAN BEINGS! So give them the rights they deserve cause unless your gay, its none of your buisness what kind of sex those people have behind closed doors.

Go pick on another percentile of america you freakin homophobics.

True.

Anyway, I don't think it's particularly healthy for the Church to have too much influence on the State on an institutional level. Of course religion is going to influence politics for the individual, because religion affects morals, which affects ethics, which affects politics. But for the Church (and I mean any church) as an entity to direct the State not only erodes the rights of those who do not belong to the particular Church in question, but also distorts the function and purpose of the Church itself.
Agreed … morals do effect voting though I am not sure individuals rights should be up for a popular vote weather they are the majority or minority

Having a popularity contest with peoples rights freedoms and lives does not seem like a good situation to me

Marrige is about love, not discrimination, if it makes u uncomfortable, too bad, don't go to one! Watching two rednecks in a movie theater grosses me out, but i ignore them when i see it, which is what homophobic people should do. If two straight people have the right to get married, then equally so gays. besides all that constitution of marrige stuff is a bunch of crap. This issue is just another way for religon to slip further into the american lawmaking agenda. It's sad that the world is so closed minded these days and that we even have to discuss this.

I have been trying to make that point this entire thread.

I think legalising SSM would make society more accepting and tollerent given time of course

I agree. It will make us all more accepting of sexual promiscuity outside of the framework of marriage , ~ More tolerant of those that change their minds and marry one sex, then divorce and marry the other, then change their minds again and bring back their first spouse and while all the time hauling their children along for the ride.

It will mean more tolerance for those that just decide to just skip the whole thing and have children without spouses at all and/or have lots of children from different or unidentified partners...

Of course, it will make society less accepting and less tolerant for those that say these things, these changes, are wrong for them, wrong for society, and most especially wrong for the children. There will be less tolerance of those people.

If I may, I would like to expand upon my statement of the separation of morals from policies by way of an example. I shall use myself for this, and the thought of abortion. Personally, I am against the act of abortion. I think it is wrong in every sense. However, if you ask me to sign a petition banning abortion I would flat out refuse. I am anti-abortion, but pro-choice. That may sound contradictory to you, but it is as I said before. My moral view is that people should not destroy their children to make their lives more convienient, but I will not partake in the banning of a freedom of a woman to choose what she will do with her body. The foetuses are not legally recognized as alive at the time of allowed abotrions, therefore they cannot be legally charged with murder.

I agree. It will make us all more accepting of sexual promiscuity outside of the framework of marriage , ~ More tolerant of those that change their minds and marry one sex, then divorce and marry the other, then change their minds again and bring back their first spouse and while all the time hauling their children along for the ride.

You'd be amazed how tolerant the law is to sexual promiscuity and adultery.



It will mean more tolerance for those that just decide to just skip the whole thing and have children without spouses at all and/or have lots of children from different or unidentified partners...

Celebrities are notorious for leaving children whereever they go. There is no law that bars people from having as many children with as many partners as they wish. Of course the partner left behind has full legal right to make the other pormiscuous one pay alimony.


Of course, it will make society less accepting and less tolerant for those that say these things, these changes, are wrong for them, wrong for society, and most especially wrong for the children. There will be less tolerance of those people.

The one thing I do not tolerate is intolerance. Intolerance is the great slime that infects our society. Intolerance is primarily very unfounded and pathetic, to say the very least.

I agree. It will make us all more accepting of sexual promiscuity outside of the framework of marriage , ~ More tolerant of those that change their minds and marry one sex, then divorce and marry the other, then change their minds again and bring back their first spouse and while all the time hauling their children along for the ride.

It will mean more tolerance for those that just decide to just skip the whole thing and have children without spouses at all and/or have lots of children from different or unidentified partners...

Of course, it will make society less accepting and less tolerant for those that say these things, these changes, are wrong for them, wrong for society, and most especially wrong for the children. There will be less tolerance of those people.

I'm sorry but this is just the problems of current marriages across the US and the UK. Whats the divorce rate these days over there?

What I'm amazed at is how you can say that SSM will cause more children to be born out of wedlock.

As far as I understand from people I know who are gay they "Your either gay or your not". So how we get to your stange situation I cannot fathom

Religion has no place in politics. Period.

In that case, marriage has no place in politics or law as it is, historically, a religious institution.

I agree. It will make us all more accepting of sexual promiscuity outside of the framework of marriage

How is making marriage available to those who have no other choice than to have sex outside of marriage going to promote sex outside of marriage? Is sexual promiscuity OK when it is in the framework of marriage? Really, your comment there is just nonsensical.

More tolerant of those that change their minds and marry one sex, then divorce and marry the other, then change their minds again and bring back their first spouse and while all the time hauling their children along for the ride.

Straight people do that all the time - marry and remarry. That they do it with the same sex is no different.

It will mean more tolerance for those that just decide to just skip the whole thing and have children without spouses at all and/or have lots of children from different or unidentified partners...

Something which happens all the time today and has as little bearing on straight marriages as it does on gay marriages. Not that you even attempt to explain the undoubtedly very tortuous logic behind a connection between gay marriage and the things you mention. How do you explain what you claim has not happened in countries that already have gay marriages?

Of course, it will make society less accepting and less tolerant for those that say these things, these changes, are wrong for them, wrong for society, and most especially wrong for the children. There will be less tolerance of those people.

"Less tolerance of intolerance." You say that like it's a bad thing.

In that case, marriage has no place in politics or law as it is, historically, a religious institution.

Yes, yes, yes, yes!
I want to keep the thought alive of separating the institution of marriage as a legal entity from the marriage that it is religious. It has been stated before that governments should stop granting marrriages. The government should only recognize civil unions as what we would now know as marriage. "Marriage" should be retained as only a religious union. No place in law. The "civil unions" will be granted all the rights of a couple who are currently recognized as married. There is no need to keep marriage as a legal intstitution. Marriage is just a word; it has no more meaning than that which we give it.

In that case, marriage has no place in politics or law as it is, historically, a religious institution.

That depends on what history you are looking at and where.

Of course, one could just ask you a very simple question: You are aware, I would assume, that words often have multiple meanings?

Meanwhile, if marriage is a religious institution, I'm afraid you'll still have to deal with homosexuals getting married, as religious institutions already perform such unions.

There is also this question: If my religion asked me to buy property, and I did so because of my religion, does that mean that regulation of property is not in the realm of politics or law and the government can't make laws pertaining to property?

In that case, marriage has no place in politics or law as it is, historically, a religious institution.

Marriage is not historically a religious institution.

In that case, marriage has no place in politics or law as it is, historically, a religious institution.
Its historicaly a secular one as well
Prove that the religous aspect supercedes the secular or governmental aspect

I agree. It will make us all more accepting of sexual promiscuity outside of the framework of marriage , ~ More tolerant of those that change their minds and marry one sex, then divorce and marry the other, then change their minds again and bring back their first spouse and while all the time hauling their children along for the ride.

It will mean more tolerance for those that just decide to just skip the whole thing and have children without spouses at all and/or have lots of children from different or unidentified partners...

Of course, it will make society less accepting and less tolerant for those that say these things, these changes, are wrong for them, wrong for society, and most especially wrong for the children. There will be less tolerance of those people.
If the equivalent of this didn't happen with heterosexual marriage, you would have a point. It does and you don't.

*snipt*

The remark was made about society's acceptance and tolerance, nothing about what is legal or not.

I agree. It will make us all more accepting of sexual promiscuity outside of the framework of marriage , ~ More tolerant of those that change their minds and marry one sex, then divorce and marry the other, then change their minds again and bring back their first spouse and while all the time hauling their children along for the ride.

It will mean more tolerance for those that just decide to just skip the whole thing and have children without spouses at all and/or have lots of children from different or unidentified partners...

Of course, it will make society less accepting and less tolerant for those that say these things, these changes, are wrong for them, wrong for society, and most especially wrong for the children. There will be less tolerance of those people.


Just out of curiosity, what are your sources for your rather outlandish claims?

I'm sorry but this is just the problems of current marriages across the US and the UK. Whats the divorce rate these days over there?

What I'm amazed at is how you can say that SSM will cause more children to be born out of wedlock.

As far as I understand from people I know who are gay they "Your either gay or your not". So how we get to your stange situation I cannot fathom


You are kidding right? I can't fathom how a gay person can have a child and then marry the other parent in a SS marriage...

The remark was made about society's acceptance and tolerance, nothing about what is legal or not.

Ahhh... but the whole argument of gay-marriage is one of tolerance and law. It is those who are intolerant trying to make their intolerance law. That is where legality comes in.

I'm not a very tolerant person. I'm probably not very intelligent either. I'm definitly not well educated. And I'm chuck full of prejudice.

Now that you know where I'm comming from Lyric, let me share my instinctive reaction when I read what I just quoted.

Well shite! That kid got issues.

My next thought was something like this:
If that guy think's he's helping alleviate prejudice, he's dead wrong. He's increasing it

My third one was more or less this:
Who in their right friggin mind goes out and throws their distorted asexuality in other people's faces?!

You prolly remember my stance on the issue of this thread, but I'll sum up: Laws either affects everyone or they discriminate. Marriage is primarily a legal issue. Marriage has no historical connection with religion. Multiple faiths and subsects perform same-sex marriages - what gives one the right to limit the religious freedom of another? Marriage in the USA is a fundamental right, as outlined in your various amendments; it's part of the right to persue happiness.
There is no logical or legal argument against marriage. Opponents are biggots advocating unlawful discrimination. Simply put: You are evil for the sake of being it.

Now Lyric, I think you might have some serious mental health issues of your own, but it's pure speculation, as I know fuck-all about such things.
What I do think I know, is that you will most likely find someone special you wish to enter a marriage with - for the legal benefits if nothing else.
I'm also pretty sure that you alienate the hysteric evil shitheads even further, by describing your - to me at least - very alien lifestyle.

I do hope I'm wrong about your mental health, but really... You freak me out :p
- Yea, you're wellcome to of course.


Well, at least you own up to your shortcomings. That's a start. But I'd like to address a few of the things you said in your comments.

First...well, as to my issues...they are mine and none of your damn business, really...but, yeah...I have issues. And ones that, thank God, very few of us ever have to face. How would YOU like to feel like an alien in your own body? that your body wasn't RIGHT, somehow?
This is a condition known as gender dysphoria, and it happens in roughly 1 in 30,000 adults. For those who have been through it, they can tell you it is a living hell! It is literally being imprisoned in a body that feels alien to you.
I can't explain it any better than that. You can choose to sympathize, or you can point and snicker. I, personally don't give a shit.
I refuse to be ashamed or embarrassed or apologetic of what...and who...I am. I refuse to do other than hold my head up high and proud and demand my place, rightfully, and my treatment, rightfully, under the law.
If you have a problem with me...then guess which one of us has the problem?
And I DAMN SURE am not going to let you make it MY problem.

I'm not going to let your little hang-ups be turned into MY problems.

There are other issues in my life, which, as I have said, are none of your fucking business, but, suffice to say that it is understandable that a victim of sexual abuse could well wind up hating sex in all forms...and could well wind up hating the parts of their body associated with sex. You draw your own conclusions. Maybe you could show a little compassion for the victim, and instead of pointing and snickering...you could hold your disgust and revilement for the fucking perpetrator of these acts against me.

They occurred between the ages of 9 and 14...just when I was at my most impressionable and formative years, so it is understandable that they could have a lifelong impact upon me, such as they have.

Second...how am I increasing prejudice? By refusing to accept blame for the actions of the one who abused me? By refusing to be ashamed, embarrassed, or apologetic about what I have done in my life, with my body? No, you are letting YOUR preconceptions increase YOUR prejudice. Again, I will not allow you to turn your hangups into MY problems.

Third..."my distorted asexuality?" What the hell is wrong with being asexual? some people do not like or desire sex, period. I'm one of them. Given my childhood history, perhaps you might understand why that might be so. If ANYTHING is distorted, it is the fucking abuse I suffered at the hands of one I should have been able to trust and look up to. Instead that trust...and my innocence and childhood, were shattered, blasted, laid to waste...because of a sick motherfucker who now, being a born-again Christian, claims he is forgiven what he did to me, and that no further restitution need be made...and who now points a finger at me and tells me I'm the one who is going to go to hell! Bull-SHIT!! If that's the way it works, I don't want anything to do with your God!! I only have to wake up in the morning, and look at my face in the mirror every day...and see a rape victim looking back at me, and decide what to make of myself...while the perpetrator of it gets off scott-free. I'm the one who has the scars, and has to live with what was done to me.

Lastly, before you diagnose ME with sever mental issues...as you have done, before backpedalling and admitting you "know fuck-all about it" I want to see ytour fucking Ph.D. This is flamebait, pure and simple, and a personal attack, and, as such, I will not tolerate it. Any further comminucation from you had best as hell be respectful and not a personal attack or I will take further action.

Oh...and in what way do I "freak you out" considering I have already stated for the record I have no desire for sexual relations with absolutely anybody...or anything...thus, I am ABSOLUTELY NO THREAT TO YOU WHATSOEVER.

I think you'd do a lot better to find a REAL Grendel to be afraid of, rather than be afraid of me. I, who have been ill-handled by another, am the least likely to hand that down onto someone else, because I know what it feels like.

You are about as warm and compassionate as the iceberg that sunk the fucking Titanic.

In that case, marriage has no place in politics or law as it is, historically, a religious institution.

I don't know the whole histroy of marrige here but do you think everyone gets marriged for the simple religous purposes? NO, they don't. They usually want to get married cause they're in love (yes I realize people get married for money and other civil rights too but lets stay on topic here).

It may have been that way back when religon ruled everyone's system of moral decisions but we don't live that way now!!! Nowadays we can tell the difference between what's moral and what's not, we don't even need to use the pharse 'because god said.." or even "the bible says". if you want to live you life like that that's fine and dandy! BUT DON'T IMPOSE THE RULES OR RELIGON ON OTHERS!

Don't tell me, I can't marry someone because thinking about what we do behind closed doors make you uncomfortable or is defined as sinful in your place of worship!!!

I am not a christain or anyother religon of that sort. MY God wouldn't give me these feelings towards another human being if he didn't want me to love them. SO GET YOUR NOSES OUT OF WHAT I DO BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

Ahhh... but the whole argument of gay-marriage is one of tolerance and law. It is those who are intolerant trying to make their intolerance law. That is where legality comes in.


THANK YOU! EXACTLY!

Just out of curiosity, what are your sources for your rather outlandish claims?


The average male homosexual 'relationship' lasts how many years?

A recent survey of gay couples in civil unions by University of Vermont psychologists Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon reports that married/union gay male couples will be far less likely than married heterosexual couples to identify marriage with monogamy.

Rothblum and Solomon contacted all 2,300 couples who entered civil unions in Vermont between June 1, 2000, and June 30, 2001. More than 300 civil union couples residing in and out of the state responded. Rothblum and Solomon then compared the gay couples in civil unions with heterosexual couples and gay couples outside of civil unions. Among married heterosexual men, 79 percent felt that marriage demanded monogamy, 50 percent of men in gay civil unions insisted on monogamy, while only 34 percent of gay men outside of civil unions affirmed monogamy.

"People do not "become" gay all of a sudden."

Since they don't "become" gay, exactly what makes them gay? Would that be an extra chromosone that does it? If you have a small portion of a species that has an extra chromosone, slightly different DNA, what do you call it?

BTW, the paper got a B because it was a well written opinion peice, so I imagine the professor did just fine.

I am about sick and tired of the old "we are a free country and people have the 'right' to do what they want". That's a load of bull. It all depends on your tolerance to decide who is free. A small amount of people like having intercourse with animals, do we allow them to be free as long as the animal is not harmed? Now, homosexuals are not the same as these people, but they are both an alternate lifestyle from heterosexuality.

My personnel views: It is hard for alot of people to understand this, so I will say it and hope you get the picture. I can not stand homosexuality. I think it is morally wrong and physically disgusting. However, I do not hate homosexuals nor do I wish any harm to them, I just completely disagree with their lifestyle.

Good. So don't practice it. And for the love of God quit comparing homosexuality to bestiality...they do NOT go hand in hand.

Last of all, I wish to make a comment about lifestyle...and about what America is supposed to be about.

I know that I...and many others, lead what could be called "an alternative lifestyle" that is to say, one which is outside of the "norm." So be it. The "norm" isn't supposed to encompass everyone. The presence of the "norm" indicates there must also be the existence of that which is outside the "norm."

We understand that we are outside the "norm." We understand that it is not most people's "cup of tea." Well, that is what makes America great. Because YOU can have some coffee, now, can't you?? Have some coffee, and don't drink our tea. Don't force your coffee on us, and leave us to drink our tea in peace. and don't withhold rights and privileges from us just because we do not desire to drink your coffee...or because you do not desire to drink our tea!
What the fuck is so hard about that?

The average male homosexual 'relationship' lasts how many years?

Considering the heterosexual one-night stands, how long does the average heterosexual "relationship" last?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenlander
The average male homosexual 'relationship' lasts how many years?


Considering the heterosexual one-night stands, how long does the average heterosexual "relationship" last?

Yes! For exactly fifty fucking hours.

Brittney Spears and Jason Alexander, anyone?

Considering the heterosexual one-night stands, how long does the average heterosexual "relationship" last?

Even with America's high divorce rate, the average marriage is over 10 years (not long enough in my book) ~ the average SS male relationship is 1.5 years.


Married gay couples will begin to redefine the meaning of marriage for the culture as a whole, in part by removing monogamy as an essential component of marriage. The process will move along much like the acceptance of SSM and gay-couples has been pushed along ~ by movies and TV shows that tout the new world-view, in this case, the "open" marriages being pioneered by gay spouses.

In fact, Richard Mohr, author and gay marriage advocate has published and expressed the hope and expectation that legal gay marriage will intentionally succeed in redefining society's ideas by taking monogamy out of marriage.

Considering the heterosexual one-night stands, how long does the average heterosexual "relationship" last?

Its based on 3 things

1) How much they drink

2) How long they sleep for

3)How long it takes for one of them get their stuff together and leave the house

Yes, I know, another gay-marriage thread. I just want to get answers to a few questions. First, how can you call yourself American and deny any right to any person that is allowed to others.

Religion has no place in politics. Period.
For most people who oppose gay marriage believe either that marriage is the exclusive domain of religion, or that being gay is a choice. Or both.

I'm not getting involved in another gay marriage thread because I've stated my position too many times already so......no.
Don't worry, I'll answer for you.

Neo Rogolia is against gay marriage because:

1. Marriage is the exclusive domain of Christianity.
2. Sinning should be illegal.

At least I think that those are her reasons. Every thread that she is involved in turns into a theological discussion about obscure Biblical passages.

Disregarding pretense and pseudo-PC attitudes, I think (know) the argument is up because people dislike gays and want to see them demeaned/denied rights. That is exactly why. To make them suffer.
It's wrong to generalise but there is a significant portion of gay marriage/union opponents that wants to make life hell for gays. It usually goes with the bizarre logic that treating them like this will convince them to be straight.

Which one is craziest (evangelicals{sp}, I think.)
EDIT: Did I kill the thread?
Fundamentalist Muslims! But they think that gays shouldn't be allowed to live, so that's not OK.

Even with America's high divorce rate, the average marriage is over 10 years (not long enough in my book) ~ the average SS male relationship is 1.5 years.
If you actually meant 'marriage', then you are comparing ALL homosexual relationships with only heterosexual marriages. That stacks the deck against homosexuals rather badly.

Even with America's high divorce rate, the average marriage is over 10 years (not long enough in my book) ~ the average SS male relationship is 1.5 years.


Married gay couples will begin to redefine the meaning of marriage for the culture as a whole, in part by removing monogamy as an essential component of marriage. The process will move along much like the acceptance of SSM and gay-couples has been pushed along ~ by movies and TV shows that tout the new world-view, in this case, the "open" marriages being pioneered by gay spouses.

In fact, Richard Mohr, author and gay marriage advocate has published and expressed the hope and expectation that legal gay marriage will intentionally succeed in redefining society's ideas by taking monogamy out of marriage.

Any citations for these statistics you posted?

Not to mention you are compiling only marriage against the whole of all heterosexual relationships (supposedly … yet to see a source for this)

Even with America's high divorce rate, the average marriage is over 10 years (not long enough in my book) ~ the average SS male relationship is 1.5 years.

I didn't ask you about the average marriage, now did I?

I asked you about the average length of relationships. In other words, you have to count every single one-night stand a heterosexual has. You have to count the people who date for a week, a month, or four years and never get married.

Then, and only then, can you compare it to the "average SS male relationship."

In truth, you would have to remove heterosexual marriage to really make that comparison, but we could even leave that out.

The process will move along much like the acceptance of SSM and gay-couples has been pushed along ~ by movies and TV shows that tout the new world-view, in this case, the "open" marriages being pioneered by gay spouses.

LOL! Open marriage pioneered by homosexuals!?!?! That's a laugh. Heterosexual couples have been doing it for quite some time, my dear.

I believe in increasing social tolerance for homosexuality, acceptance is generally a good thing. But the real problem here is not homosexuality itself; it is marriage.

Marriage is a critical social institution. Stable families depend on it. Society depends on stable families. Up to now, with all the changes in marriage, the one thing we've been sure of is that marriage is supposed to mean monogamy.

Gay marriage will crack that association. What lies beyond gay marriage is no marriage at all.

I believe in increasing social tolerance for homosexuality, acceptance is generally a good thing. But the real problem here is not homosexuality itself; it is marriage.

Marriage is a critical social institution. Stable families depend on it. Society depends on stable families. Up to now, with all the changes in marriage, the one thing we've been sure of is that marriage is supposed to mean monogamy.

Gay marriage will crack that association. What lies beyond gay marriage is no marriage at all.
So you are claiming that gay marriage will some how weaken strait marriage?

So you are claiming that gay marriage will some how weaken strait marriage?
I have a feeling Greenlander thinks it'll lead to legal polygamy etc.

I believe in increasing social tolerance for homosexuality, acceptance is generally a good thing. But the real problem here is not homosexuality itself; it is marriage.

Marriage is a critical social institution. Stable families depend on it. Society depends on stable families. Up to now, with all the changes in marriage, the one thing we've been sure of is that marriage is supposed to mean monogamy.

Gay marriage will crack that association. What lies beyond gay marriage is no marriage at all.

This is silly. All homosexuals do not want open relationships. And all heterosexuals do not practice monogamous marriage.

If your problem is with the idea that monogamy is not necessary - then attack that idea, not the process of providing equal protection to homosexuals.

Either conciously or sub-conciously, the reason why so many people dont agree with gay marriage is because letting them do so would be showing a sign of acceptance. We want them to feel as unwelcome as possible, so they may change their ways or move to europe or something.
I find this incredibly disgusting, but thanks for your honesty. Why are gays any less American than straights? In fact, why is homosexuality evil? It doesn't trample on anyone's rights. To ban gay marriage is to trample on their rights.

Please don't let Greenlander take over this thread and turn it into another defending marriage one, he already has his own.

In other news...

I think one of the big issues is stereotyping. Heterosexuals are generally blissfully ignorant of what gay people are like outside of our stereotypes, so they think we're all limp-wristed, promiscuous, effeminate, drug-using, HIV-carrying, shallow selfish arseholes.

The big question is, are they more afraid that they might be right, or that they might be wrong?

Edit: I don't meet that description, btw

And all heterosexuals do not practice monogamous marriage.
I used to have a page with some statistics on heterosexual marriage, but I can no longer seem to find anything that is backed by reputable studies. Grr.

Aha, this possibly?:
"While percentages of extramarital sex (EMS) vary from study to study, it can be estimated that 50-60% of married men and 45-55% of married women engage in extramarital sex at some time or another during their marriage and almost half come to therapy because of it. EMS appears in several different forms, only some of which are sexual in nature." (Atwood & Schwartz, 2002 - Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy)

So it all depends on what one defines as an extramarital relationship, I suppose.
*sigh*
That site didn't help much...

Yeah, you can say whatever you want about my non-religious reasons to not like homosexuality (religious reasons alone are enough for me and many others, but i know better than to quote scripture here), but what are some reasons to validate the existance of homosexuality?
I don't think that same-sex marriage will lead to an abundance of homosexuality. Was everyone asexual before straight marriage was invented?

Homosexuality doesn't need to be validated because it's not an invention of law. Homosexuals have always existed and always will exist. They will not disappear.

You say that religious reasons are enough for you. There's nothing Christian about making outcasts and sinners feel as unwelcome as possible.

I don't think that same-sex marriage will lead to an abundance of homosexuality. Was everyone asexual before straight marriage was invented?

Of course they were, that's why the human race is extinct and none of us are really here.

Please don't let Greenlander take over this thread and turn it into another defending marriage one, he already has his own.

In other news...

I think one of the big issues is stereotyping. Heterosexuals are generally blissfully ignorant of what gay people are like outside of our stereotypes, so they think we're all limp-wristed, promiscuous, effeminate, drug-using, HIV-carrying, shallow selfish arseholes.

The big question is, are they more afraid that they might be right, or that they might be wrong?

Edit: I don't meet that description, btw
Hmm... Perhaps it's time to kill some misconceptions then?

Btw, believing people will somehow suddenly all become homosexuals because same-sex marriages is legalized is... Well shit! I haven't got the words!

Some people... :rolleyes:

The only thing evil about it is the number of [expletive] threads on the subject! URRRRGH! Just legalize it or outlaw it already, so we can stop talking about it! :headbang:
Roach-Busters?

Well, at least you own up to your shortcomings. That's a start. But I'd like to address a few of the things you said in your comments.
<Snippy snip>


I strongly advise everyone to ignore what I think of their sexuality or lack of it. As long as you're not hurting anyone, my opinion is totally irrelevant.
That said, the only 'feeling' I have towards you is bewilderment. I think you're weird, and I can't relate. That's it. Nothing inherently negative or positive, just lack of comprehension. Altho, I can imagine it must be a bitch having the wrong equipment. I'm sorry you had such a shitty start in life. If I could do anything, I would. I am not trying to point fingers at you at all.
Also, I wish everyone had your confidence.


Second...how am I increasing prejudice? By refusing to accept blame for the actions of the one who abused me? By refusing to be ashamed, embarrassed, or apologetic about what I have done in my life, with my body? No, you are letting YOUR preconceptions increase YOUR prejudice. Again, I will not allow you to turn your hangups into MY problems.

Know what? I'm gonna back-pedal like hell now. Because while I'm pretty sure you just confirmed some biggoted misconception of homo's & bi's, it shouldn't matter. Blaming you for other people's ignorance and unfounded hate has to be the lowest, most fucked up thing I've done all year.
My intelligence is on par with GWB's. I stooped to their level. I catered to their sick hatred. I should have my arse kicked.


Third..."my distorted asexuality?" What the hell is wrong with being asexual? some people do not like or desire sex, period. I'm one of them. <Snip>

It wasn't meant as a personal attack. I didn't mean to offend you. You read way too much into it, but given the first shite I wrote, I can see why you would.
It was the no partner thing that freaked me out.


I think you'd do a lot better to find a REAL Grendel to be afraid of, rather than be afraid of me. I, who have been ill-handled by another, am the least likely to hand that down onto someone else, because I know what it feels like.

You are about as warm and compassionate as the iceberg that sunk the fucking Titanic.

I can't make up for being such an arse. I can own up to it, and grant you the right to call me all the shit you want for as long as you wish, but that's about it. I'm sorry. I fully appreciate why you think I'm an idiot, and I agree. I hope you'll forgive me some day - and I hope all the shit you describe works out for you.

I'd let you take a swing at me and buy you a pint, but we're a bit far away from eachother.

Hmm... Perhaps it's time to kill some misconceptions then?

Misconception Killer? That's a good game. I wonder when it will be out on X-Box.

Seriously though, I have met a small but worrying number of people who have been suprised by the fact that I don't go out every night (or even every week), that my partner's a car nut, or that my hobbies include hiking and hockey instead of shopping and manicures.

The average male homosexual 'relationship' lasts how many years?

A recent survey of gay couples in civil unions by University of Vermont psychologists Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon reports that married/union gay male couples will be far less likely than married heterosexual couples to identify marriage with monogamy.

Rothblum and Solomon contacted all 2,300 couples who entered civil unions in Vermont between June 1, 2000, and June 30, 2001. More than 300 civil union couples residing in and out of the state responded. Rothblum and Solomon then compared the gay couples in civil unions with heterosexual couples and gay couples outside of civil unions. Among married heterosexual men, 79 percent felt that marriage demanded monogamy, 50 percent of men in gay civil unions insisted on monogamy, while only 34 percent of gay men outside of civil unions affirmed monogamy.

First, if you're just going to cut and paste from an article, how about citing the article, plagerizer?

Second, they interviewed 313 couples. Care to cite how many of those couples were male/male couples? Hint: it's not over 300. See that's why you show the sources. Because you're articles are misleading at best. Also do you know what they say about a study that has a rate of response of just a bit over ten percent? That it's not very useful. See study's are supposed to random. All they proved by what they reported is generalizations you can make about those that replied. Even double that response rate would generally be considered unacceptable.

Even with America's high divorce rate, the average marriage is over 10 years (not long enough in my book) ~ the average SS male relationship is 1.5 years.
So you think it's a fair comparison to compare marriages among heterosexuals to all SS male relationships? Do you not see the flaw in that logic. What's the average length of all heterosexual relationships? What would that average be if heterosexual marriage was outlawed?
Married gay couples will begin to redefine the meaning of marriage for the culture as a whole, in part by removing monogamy as an essential component of marriage. The process will move along much like the acceptance of SSM and gay-couples has been pushed along ~ by movies and TV shows that tout the new world-view, in this case, the "open" marriages being pioneered by gay spouses.

In fact, Richard Mohr, author and gay marriage advocate has published and expressed the hope and expectation that legal gay marriage will intentionally succeed in redefining society's ideas by taking monogamy out of marriage.
Again, you've failed to support this assertion with serious, peer-reviewed studies.

I strongly advise everyone to ignore what I think of their sexuality or lack of it. As long as you're not hurting anyone, my opinion is totally irrelevant.
That said, the only 'feeling' I have towards you is bewilderment. I think you're weird, and I can't relate. That's it. Nothing inherently negative or positive, just lack of comprehension. Altho, I can imagine it must be a bitch having the wrong equipment. I'm sorry you had such a shitty start in life. If I could do anything, I would. I am not trying to point fingers at you at all.
Also, I wish everyone had your confidence.



Know what? I'm gonna back-pedal like hell now. Because while I'm pretty sure you just confirmed some biggoted misconception of homo's & bi's, it shouldn't matter. Blaming you for other people's ignorance and unfounded hate has to be the lowest, most fucked up thing I've done all year.
My intelligence is on par with GWB's. I stooped to their level. I catered to their sick hatred. I should have my arse kicked.




It wasn't meant as a personal attack. I didn't mean to offend you. You read way too much into it, but given the first shite I wrote, I can see why you would.
It was the no partner thing that freaked me out.



I can't make up for being such an arse. I can own up to it, and grant you the right to call me all the shit you want for as long as you wish, but that's about it. I'm sorry. I fully appreciate why you think I'm an idiot, and I agree. I hope you'll forgive me some day - and I hope all the shit you describe works out for you.

I'd let you take a swing at me and buy you a pint, but we're a bit far away from eachother.


Apology conditionally accepted.

Conditionally, because I reserve the right to retract my acceptance of your apology if you go off acting like an ass again. Once...well, that is one thing. And though my comeback was rather harsh, and in-your-face, that is the way I have trained myself to react to percieved attacks like I percieved your comments.

The fact that you have owned up to your ignorance and apologized for them is good enough for me for now. But I reserve the right to retract my acceptance if I've reason, later, to believe your apology was in any way insincere. Which I will judge by your words through the rest of this...and other...threads.

ON EDIT: Incidentally, you never heard me say I want no partner. Just that I want NO SEXUAL PARTNER. There are plenty of other asexuals out there, like me...who desire companionship without sex of any kind. Google it sometime, you'll be surprised how many hits you will find.
I'm just having a hard time finding someone with whom I can connect on other levels.
what I truly want is a zero-sex relationship with someone whom I can connect with in all other ways that are REALLY important. Sex just isn't.
Looks aren't. All the shallow shit that most of us hold as important in a relationship don't stand for shit...and that is why most relationships...straight or gay...don't last. Because the people in those relationships are not "simpatico."

So, what's important to me?

Commonality of interests, hobbies, leisure activities. Liking to do the same things I like to do. Some measure of financial security is nice, rich is NOT necessary, and, in fact, is undesireable in my book. Good sense of humor is incredibly important. Kindness, compassion, and genuine caring is important.
Having the same or nearly same political opinions I do is VASTLY important...I do not want World War 3 under my roof! Religion is somewhat important. I would not be happy with a fundamentalist zealot, for example.

There are MANY things that make up a relationship. For me, sex is way down the list, in fact, is a real non-issue. At best, my attitude towards it would be like..."ok, well, if I HAVE to...if it makes you happy...I'll do it..." But don't look for me to get any pleasure out of it because I won't. I would truly be most happy in a zero-sex relationship.

I don't think that same-sex marriage will lead to an abundance of homosexuality. Was everyone asexual before straight marriage was invented?

Homosexuality doesn't need to be validated because it's not an invention of law. Homosexuals have always existed and always will exist. They will not disappear.

You say that religious reasons are enough for you. There's nothing Christian about making outcasts and sinners feel as unwelcome as possible.



Nor is there anything Christian about accepting and/or tolerating sin.

alright. homosexuality is WRONG because of several reasons.
1. it cannot result in pregnancy. therefore,it is not a natural sexual behavior.
2. My religion, one of the oldest and largest, says it is wrong. and i stand behind my religion. so you can kiss my butt. unless of course you would like that, in which case , let the hate crimes commence.
3. it is a liberal idea that it can be accepted, so i instantly hate it with a passion, just as i hate liberal idiots.
4. GO BACK TO CALIFORNIA!!!!!!!!!!

Apology conditionally accepted.

Conditionally, because I reserve the right to retract my acceptance of your apology if you go off acting like an ass again. Once...well, that is one thing. And though my comeback was rather harsh, and in-your-face, that is the way I have trained myself to react to percieved attacks like I percieved your comments.

The fact that you have owned up to your ignorance and apologized for them is good enough for me for now. But I reserve the right to retract my acceptance if I've reason, later, to believe your apology was in any way insincere. Which I will judge by your words through the rest of this...and other...threads.
You're a better man than I. I would hate my guts if I were you.

That said, I'm not asking you to like me. You're you. I'm me. We're not friends. We'll disagree in the future.
I expect people to hold me to the things I say, but I can admit when I'm acting like a peice of shit. I don't expect forgiveness, though I do appreciate it. I don't think you were or are out of line. My own response would've been a lot more harsh I think.
Thank you for your forgiveness, and do continue to judge me by what I write. Otherwise I might as well shut the fuck up and go away.

ALRIGHT, we get it youre sorry. we know. now lets move on.

alright. homosexuality is WRONG because of several reasons.
1. it cannot result in pregnancy. therefore,it is not a natural sexual behavior.
2. My religion, one of the oldest and largest, says it is wrong. and i stand behind my religion. so you can kiss my butt. unless of course you would like that, in which case , let the hate crimes commence.
3. it is a liberal idea that it can be accepted, so i instantly hate it with a passion, just as i hate liberal idiots.
4. GO BACK TO CALIFORNIA!!!!!!!!!!
flawless logic! That is why you should hate gays. I won't even bring up the "gay behaviour in animals" because It's already been done many times in this thread or other gay threads. lol :D

Those damn liberals out to destroy the world again :rolleyes:

animals have gay behaviour because they are small-brained ANIMALS! that is why they are killed for food. that is why they cannot rise up and fight us. they have small brains with no reasoning skills. also because they have no souls, so they dont have to suffer in hell for all eternity due to their sodomy.

alright. homosexuality is WRONG because of several reasons.
1. it cannot result in pregnancy. therefore,it is not a natural sexual behavior.
2. My religion, one of the oldest and largest, says it is wrong. and i stand behind my religion. so you can kiss my butt. unless of course you would like that, in which case , let the hate crimes commence.

1- How can sexual behaviour that takes place in nature not be natural? And if it's not natural, what is it? Artificial?
2- An old, large religion used to think that it was a good idea to let rich people buy salvation so Pope Leo could pay off his debts. That was a bad idea, and the church changed its position on the matter. There's a precedent: it means religions have admitted they aren't infallible so you need a better reason than being a sheep to agree with your church.

animals have gay behaviour because they are small-brained ANIMALS! that is why they are killed for food. that is why they cannot rise up and fight us. they have small brains with no reasoning skills. also because they have no souls, so they dont have to suffer in hell for all eternity due to their sodomy.
lol! that's why people die from shark attacks and bear attacks or corcodile attacks etc? Because we're smarter than them? Or are we stupid enough to get killed by them. hahah. thank you. your posts make me laugh :D lol

animals have gay behaviour because they are small-brained ANIMALS!
And by extension, gays are too?

you know what? there have been corrupt popes, just like there have been corrupt everything else in the world, so dont use that as an excuse.

And by extension, gays are too?

no, they just have something wrong with their sexual appetites.

1- How can sexual behaviour that takes place in nature not be natural? And if it's not natural, what is it? Artificial?

Every couple, at their child's birth, has an option to feed their kid the blue pill (straight pill) or the purple pill (the gay pill). If they want them to suffer the rest of their life and piss off Christians, they give them the gay pill. That's how there are gay people.

There's nothing Christian about making outcasts and sinners feel as unwelcome as possible.
Nor is there anything Christian about accepting and/or tolerating sin.
So how do you reconcile the two principles?

Carbon Nation was suggesting that not only should the sin not be accepted, but that even the sinners should neither be accepted nor tolerated. That runs directly contrary to one or two New Testament stories I've read.

animals have gay behaviour because they are small-brained ANIMALS! that is why they are killed for food. that is why they cannot rise up and fight us. they have small brains with no reasoning skills. also because they have no souls, so they dont have to suffer in hell for all eternity due to their sodomy.
lol, dude you're hilarious. Keep up the good work!

lol! that's why people die from shark attacks and bear attacks or corcodile attacks etc? Because we're smarter than them? Or are we stupid enough to get killed by them. hahah. thank you. your posts make me laugh :D lol

people die from shark and crocodile attacks because of several varying circumstances, mostly the animal has a more agressive killer instinct, and the people tend to be slower than them. so the fat slow people get eaten.

You're a better man than I. I would hate my guts if I were you.

That said, I'm not asking you to like me. You're you. I'm me. We're not friends. We'll disagree in the future.
I expect people to hold me to the things I say, but I can admit when I'm acting like a peice of shit. I don't expect forgiveness, though I do appreciate it. I don't think you were or are out of line. My own response would've been a lot more harsh I think.
Thank you for your forgiveness, and do continue to judge me by what I write. Otherwise I might as well shut the fuck up and go away.



Lyric is a she....a very annoying she who will flame you senseless if you even so much as think about disagreeing with gay marriage :rolleyes:

So how do you reconcile the two principles?

Carbon Nation was suggesting that not only should the sin not be accepted, but that even the sinners should neither be accepted nor tolerated. That runs directly contrary to one or two New Testament stories I've read.

no, because in those stories, the sinner repents.

1- How can sexual behaviour that takes place in nature not be natural? And if it's not natural, what is it? Artificial?
2- An old, large religion used to think that it was a good idea to let rich people buy salvation so Pope Leo could pay off his debts. That was a bad idea, and the church changed its position on the matter. There's a precedent: it means religions have admitted they aren't infallible so you need a better reason than being a sheep to agree with your church.



Not all of us are catholic ;)

this is what i think this is NOt a flame why does it matter anyway for gays to want to get married do u really need a paper telling u you are married.No you do not frankly i dont see why marrage needs to be controlled by the government anyway.I say this if u wanna be married just go live with bthem beyond that what else do u really need and who really cares. If anyone really wants a peice of paper and or a judge to tell you your married you dont really want to be married your just trying to get benefits of being married legally
and those benefits of being married in a legal sense arent that good anyway.
So in closing if u wanna be married and your gay ok your married lets move on.

i realize that. i have no real problem with homosexuality in general, just gay marriage. and thank god i am a part of the roman catholic church because they are among the largest opponents to homosexual marriage.

my church teaches that homosexuals are to be accepted,treated with kindness and decency, but also that they are call to a life of chastity, as sodomy is a sin,and homosexual sex is sodomy.

lol, dude you're hilarious. Keep up the good work!
he is indeed, but I think he's being sincere too...It's hard to tell through text though.

yeah its hard to be both sincere and entertaining at the same time

There are a number of arguments I have for opposing gay marriage, and they are divided into 3 major groups. The term "evil" is a subjective one, and delves into moralistic arguments which ultimately cannot be proven.

Legal:
I see no discrepency between the rights of gays and straights. Nobody, gay or straight, has the right to marry someone of the same gender. Anybody, gay or straight, can marry someone of the opposite gender. There is no equal protection issue. Further, there is no right to marriage in any form. Marriage is a religious institution that was/is endorsed (and subsequently recognized officially) by the state because it is a stabalizing factor for society. As such, it can be regulated by the legislature. It is a legislative issue that can and should be resolved democratically. The problem is that judges, at least in America, have taken it upon themselves to act unilaterally and dictatorially by declaring bans on gay marriage unconstitutional. This should be an outrage to any true democrat (not referring to the party). A majority of Americans oppose recognizing gay marriage, so consequently it should not be recognized.

Moral:
As a Catholic, my religious beliefs teach me that the act of homosexuality is an abomination (Lev 18:22). Because I have faith in these teachings, I accept this as true and subsequently oppose gay marriage (who am I to tell my God that He is wrong?) However, I tend to rely on this form of argument the least, as it is purely subjective.

Natural:
Homosexuality is a negative trait evolutionarily speaking. A species' evolutionary strength is defined by its ability to reproduce offspring that carry on heritable traits. Homosexuals cannot naturally produce offspring. The gene pool is decreased in size, and the population as a whole suffers. Consequently, society has an obligation not to endorse activity that is detrimental to itself.

So how do you reconcile the two principles?

Carbon Nation was suggesting that not only should the sin not be accepted, but that even the sinners should neither be accepted nor tolerated. That runs directly contrary to one or two New Testament stories I've read.


lol, dude you're hilarious. Keep up the good work!



But you're attempting to categorize the issue as limited to two extremes: total acceptance of sin or excecuting/banishing those who do sin. The ideas of loving someone and admonishing them for the sake of their soul are not mutually exclusive. I'm certainly not for lopping the head off a liar, so why would I advocate persecution of homosexuals? The chastisement of sinners does not necessitate their elimination, or else you would be hearing of waaaaaaay more acts of terrorism than you do. Therefore, Matthew 7:1-2 and the epistles to Timothy and Titus are not contradictory.

yeah its hard to be both sincere and entertaining at the same time
you're doing a good job with it! Keep it up! :)

There are a number of arguments I have for opposing gay marriage, and they are divided into 3 major groups. The term "evil" is a subjective one, and delves into moralistic arguments which ultimately cannot be proven.

Legal:
I see no discrepency between the rights of gays and straights. Nobody, gay or straight, has the right to marry someone of the same gender. Anybody, gay or straight, can marry someone of the opposite gender. There is no equal protection issue. Further, there is no right to marriage in any form. Marriage is a religious institution that was/is endorsed (and subsequently recognized officially) by the state because it is a stabalizing factor for society. As such, it can be regulated by the legislature. It is a legislative issue that can and should be resolved democratically. The problem is that judges, at least in America, have taken it upon themselves to act unilaterally and dictatorially by declaring bans on gay marriage unconstitutional. This should be an outrage to any true democrat (not referring to the party). A majority of Americans oppose recognizing gay marriage, so consequently it should not be recognized.

Moral:
As a Catholic, my religious beliefs teach me that the act of homosexuality is an abomination (Lev 18:22). Because I have faith in these teachings, I accept this as true and subsequently oppose gay marriage (who am I to tell my God that He is wrong?) However, I tend to rely on this form of argument the least, as it is purely subjective.

Natural:
Homosexuality is a negative trait evolutionarily speaking. A species' evolutionary strength is defined by its ability to reproduce offspring that carry on heritable traits. Homosexuals cannot naturally produce offspring. The gene pool is decreased in size, and the population as a whole suffers. Consequently, society has an obligation not to endorse activity that is detrimental to itself.

well said, sir.

Lyric is a she....a very annoying she who will flame you senseless if you even so much as think about disagreeing with gay marriage
This is true, unfortunately. Remember to be polite, Lyric!

he is indeed, but I think he's being sincere too...It's hard to tell through text though.
It's very obvious to me that he's a liberal parody of a conservative Christian. He's just a few steps away from Jesussaves!

There are a number of arguments I have for opposing gay marriage, and they are divided into 3 major groups. The term "evil" is a subjective one, and delves into moralistic arguments which ultimately cannot be proven.

Legal:
I see no discrepency between the rights of gays and straights. Nobody, gay or straight, has the right to marry someone of the same gender. Anybody, gay or straight, can marry someone of the opposite gender. There is no equal protection issue. Further, there is no right to marriage in any form. Marriage is a religious institution that was/is endorsed (and subsequently recognized officially) by the state because it is a stabalizing factor for society. As such, it can be regulated by the legislature. It is a legislative issue that can and should be resolved democratically. The problem is that judges, at least in America, have taken it upon themselves to act unilaterally and dictatorially by declaring bans on gay marriage unconstitutional. This should be an outrage to any true democrat (not referring to the party). A majority of Americans oppose recognizing gay marriage, so consequently it should not be recognized.

Moral:
As a Catholic, my religious beliefs teach me that the act of homosexuality is an abomination (Lev 18:22). Because I have faith in these teachings, I accept this as true and subsequently oppose gay marriage (who am I to tell my God that He is wrong?) However, I tend to rely on this form of argument the least, as it is purely subjective.

Natural:
Homosexuality is a negative trait evolutionarily speaking. A species' evolutionary strength is defined by its ability to reproduce offspring that carry on heritable traits. Homosexuals cannot naturally produce offspring. The gene pool is decreased in size, and the population as a whole suffers. Consequently, society has an obligation not to endorse activity that is detrimental to itself.
Legal:
A man can't marry a man, but a woman can do that.
A woman can't marry a woman, but a man can.

There's your discrimination.

Religious:
Separation of Church and State.

Natural:
Homosexuality has been observed in many animals, and has apparently not been killed off by evolution.

Natural:
Homosexuality is a negative trait evolutionarily speaking. A species' evolutionary strength is defined by its ability to reproduce offspring that carry on heritable traits. Homosexuals cannot naturally produce offspring. The gene pool is decreased in size, and the population as a whole suffers. Consequently, society has an obligation not to endorse activity that is detrimental to itself.



Perhaps it could be an innate form of population control reducing the breeders? Or perhaps just a genetic mutation? There are many theories to its origin, and I'd love to hear more :)

Legal:
A man can't marry a man, but a woman can do that.
A woman can't marry a woman, but a man can.

There's your discrimination.

Religious:
Separation of Church and State.

Natural:
Homosexuality has been observed in many animals, and has apparently not been killed off by evolution.



1. That's a rather extreme definition of discrimination if I might say so....

2. Means that the government cannot adopt an official state religion, but the citizens of the nation can attempt to implement their moral system without it being an establishment of state-endorsed religion.

3. I have no bone to pick with that :D

i am so sick of this "separation of church and state" crap.

why is no one ever yelling about the supreme court using its power of "judicial review"? thats not even MENTIONED in the constitution, yet they just keep doing it! they have been for a hundred years. it has ALWAYS BEEN ILLEGAL, yet no one stops them. where's the outrage? where's the parades?
where's the media coverage? :mp5:

But you're attempting to categorize the issue as limited to two extremes: total acceptance of sin or excecuting/banishing those who do sin. The ideas of loving someone and admonishing them for the sake of their soul are not mutually exclusive. I'm certainly not for lopping the head off a liar, so why would I advocate persecution of homosexuals? The chastisement of sinners does not necessitate their elimination, or else you would be hearing of waaaaaaay more acts of terrorism than you do. Therefore, Matthew 7:1-2 and the epistles to Timothy and Titus are not contradictory.
Interesting, but...

The idea of loving someone and making them feel as unwelcome as possible sound pretty contradictory to me.

Perhaps it could be an innate form of population control reducing the breeders? Or perhaps just a genetic mutation? There are many theories to its origin, and I'd love to hear more :)
I myself suspect the former.

1. That's a rather extreme definition of discrimination if I might say so....

2. Means that the government cannot adopt an official state religion, but the citizens of the nation can attempt to implement their moral system without it being an establishment of state-endorsed religion.

3. I have no bone to pick with that :D
1. But a valid one. I think.

2. I wasn't referring to the US Constitution. I'm not American and I would rather not argue about it. No, I mean that I] think church and state should be separate. I don't expect you to share that opinion.

[QUOTE=Swimmingpool]
It's very obvious to me that he's a liberal parody of a conservative Christian. He's just a few steps away from Jesussaves![QUOTE]

oh, hell no. i am really a conservitive christian.. i own guns, go to church every sunday,etc. just because i happen to be funny does NOT make me a liberal parody. so shut up. :sniper:

My thought on this topic, when people are saying they are against gay "marriage" they use a lot of "marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman" that's fine. I have no issue with that. We can call that a religeous issue. Then what is the problem with allowing a civil union. That takes the religeous aspect out of it. This is supposed to be the "land of the free" so why do we not allow two people to join together? Personally I am for gay marriage. Call it whatever you want, I know quite a few gay couples that have managed to stay together longer than most of the marriages that I know. This is the land that everyone should be treated equally. Then why are we taking away the right of a gay individual to marry? Is it hurting anyone? I think not. It is not taking from anyone. It is celebrating a union of two. Did we not learn this already? I would have thought that the civil war would have taught us a thing or two. Hopefully someday it will be allowed, until then this country is going to be divided and that is never a good thing. Thank you for allowing me to vent...lol

Interesting, but...

The idea of loving someone and making them feel as unwelcome as possible sound pretty contradictory to me.


I myself suspect the former.



We all sin, and we are all to forgive others for their iniquities, just as Christ forgave those who sinned. However, it is the insistance of living in sin perpetually and not relinquishing one's desires and repenting, despite the teachings of Christ and the apostles, that is at issue here. Homosexuality, like adulterous marriage, is a sin of continuity. It is not making one feel unwelcome, it is rebuking them and calling for their return to God that Christians employ.

oh, hell no. i am really a conservitive christian.. i own guns, go to church every sunday,etc. just because i happen to be funny does NOT make me a liberal parody. so shut up. :sniper:

go crawl back under your bridge. :rolleyes:

1. That's a rather extreme definition of discrimination if I might say so....

How so? If a man wants to marry a woman, he can. But if he wants to marry another man, he can't. Yet a woman can? Either it's gender discrimination or it's discriminating homosexuals. Either way, it's discrimination.

2. Means that the government cannot adopt an official state religion, but the citizens of the nation can attempt to implement their moral system without it being an establishment of state-endorsed religion.

Wrong. Your faith's morals would have you limit other religions their practices and equal standing under the law. That's unconstitutional.
Further, you're discriminating against unbelievers.

go crawl back under your bridge. :rolleyes:
DID YOU JUST CALL ME A TROLL??????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :gundge:

oh, hell no. i am really a conservitive christian.. i own guns, go to church every sunday,etc. just because i happen to be funny does NOT make me a liberal parody. so shut up. :sniper:
lol, keep it up! NS General just got less boring by .1%! :)

cool. and its all my fault. :D

How so? If a man wants to marry a woman, he can. But if he wants to marry another man, he can't. Yet a woman can? Either it's gender discrimination or it's discriminating homosexuals. Either way, it's discrimination.



Wrong. Your faith's morals would have you limit other religions their practices and equal standing under the law. That's unconstitutional.
Further, you're discriminating against unbelievers.



Satanic cults that practice the sacrifice of infants to Lucifer are also being limited by the government. In any government that adopts of a policy of religious plurality, there is going to be SOME repression of religion.

Legal:
I see no discrepency between the rights of gays and straights. Nobody, gay or straight, has the right to marry someone of the same gender. Anybody, gay or straight, can marry someone of the opposite gender. There is no equal protection issue. Further, there is no right to marriage in any form. Marriage is a religious institution that was/is endorsed (and subsequently recognized officially) by the state because it is a stabalizing factor for society. As such, it can be regulated by the legislature. It is a legislative issue that can and should be resolved democratically. The problem is that judges, at least in America, have taken it upon themselves to act unilaterally and dictatorially by declaring bans on gay marriage unconstitutional. This should be an outrage to any true democrat (not referring to the party). A majority of Americans oppose recognizing gay marriage, so consequently it should not be recognized.

There was a time when nobody white or black had the right to marry someone of another race. That was found to be unconstitutional. So is this. Also, the right to marry is a recognized right by the SCOTUS and the UN. Also, at least the US is NOT a democracy. It's a republic and it is such specifically to prevent tyranny of the majority. What would happen if atheists became the majority and decided religious freedom is unnecessary? Mostly there is nothing in your post that is actually correct in an objective sense. Stike one!

Moral:
As a Catholic, my religious beliefs teach me that the act of homosexuality is an abomination (Lev 18:22). Because I have faith in these teachings, I accept this as true and subsequently oppose gay marriage (who am I to tell my God that He is wrong?) However, I tend to rely on this form of argument the least, as it is purely subjective.

Leviticus gave us the laws of Moses. Jesus threw them out. Leviticus said homosexuality was punishable by death. So was collecting sticks on the Sabbath day punishable by death. Hopefully you don't observe either of these.

http://www.bbie.org/english/Study09TheWorkofJesus/0905JesusAndLawOfMoses.html

Strike two!
Natural:
Homosexuality is a negative trait evolutionarily speaking. A species' evolutionary strength is defined by its ability to reproduce offspring that carry on heritable traits. Homosexuals cannot naturally produce offspring. The gene pool is decreased in size, and the population as a whole suffers. Consequently, society has an obligation not to endorse activity that is detrimental to itself.
Read the bold part again. The purpose of evolution is to promote the species, not the individual. It is quite possible that the same genes that make a man homosexual when found in a woman make them more likely to have viable children (ones that live to reproduce) and vice versa. Also humans are social so it's quite likely that having a person in the family that does not reproduce but still helps to provide for the children of his/her siblings results in an increased gene pool and the betterment of the species. Strike three! You're out!

We all sin, and we are all to forgive others for their iniquities, just as Christ forgave those who sinned. However, it is the insistance of living in sin perpetually and not relinquishing one's desires and repenting, despite the teachings of Christ and the apostles, that is at issue here. Homosexuality, like adulterous marriage, is a sin of continuity. It is not making one feel unwelcome, it is rebuking them and calling for their return to God that Christians employ.
You can't possibly imagine how offensive you are...
Should I ever watch US churches bombed to dust by terrorists, you are the sole reason I'll throw a party.

There are a number of arguments I have for opposing gay marriage, and they are divided into 3 major groups. The term "evil" is a subjective one, and delves into moralistic arguments which ultimately cannot be proven.

Legal:
I see no discrepency between the rights of gays and straights. Nobody, gay or straight, has the right to marry someone of the same gender. Anybody, gay or straight, can marry someone of the opposite gender. There is no equal protection issue. Further, there is no right to marriage in any form. Marriage is a religious institution that was/is endorsed (and subsequently recognized officially) by the state because it is a stabalizing factor for society. As such, it can be regulated by the legislature. It is a legislative issue that can and should be resolved democratically. The problem is that judges, at least in America, have taken it upon themselves to act unilaterally and dictatorially by declaring bans on gay marriage unconstitutional. This should be an outrage to any true democrat (not referring to the party). A majority of Americans oppose recognizing gay marriage, so consequently it should not be recognized.

Why do gay people going about their own religion have to be controled by the government.

Moral:
As a Catholic, my religious beliefs teach me that the act of homosexuality is an abomination (Lev 18:22). Because I have faith in these teachings, I accept this as true and subsequently oppose gay marriage (who am I to tell my God that He is wrong?) However, I tend to rely on this form of argument the least, as it is purely subjective.

if you wanna make religion into law i say we scrap this whole system we got and ask the taliban for a few pointers

Natural:
Homosexuality is a negative trait evolutionarily speaking. A species' evolutionary strength is defined by its ability to reproduce offspring that carry on heritable traits. Homosexuals cannot naturally produce offspring. The gene pool is decreased in size, and the population as a whole suffers. Consequently, society has an obligation not to endorse activity that is detrimental to itself.

OMG you hit the nail on the head and i have a great idea that will help the economy we can gather up all the genetically unsuperior gays put them in large prison camps where they can work in factories to support the war against terrorism then we wont feed them and when they die, isn't like they were gonna have kids anyway, we'll just throw them in ovens and thats problem solved

Ah yes Foundation.

That would be Hober Marlow?

Heh, some non-religious reasons to try to stifle homosexuality.

A lot of people "try new things" in college, in order to rebel and also to just experience a new world opening up to themOnce they grow up, they realize what they did was stupid, and try to keep it a secret.

You know it sucks for the guy who "experimented" in college by letting another guy <.......> and has to go for the rest of his life with the idea that yes, he actually did that.

Every straight guy has seen a movie or heard something about when you go to prison big mean guys make you their women and thought "man, i dont want to go to prison and get raped." With an increasing abundance of homosexuality, your anal virginity is on the line.

Same for girls, you already have to watch your back for guys when buying gas late at night or grabbing a drink after work, abundant homosexuality greatly increases the pool of people looking to take advantage of you.

It adds just one more thing that needs to be explained to every single kid who grows up. "Please kid, wait until you graduate highschool before you have homosexual relations, so you know get a better understanding of life."

Yeah, you can say whatever you want about my non-religious reasons to not like homosexuality (religious reasons alone are enough for me and many others, but i know better than to quote scripture here), but what are some reasons to validate the existance of homosexuality?

Next time do try to come up with less idiotic "arguments". I'm sure rapes of blacks to whites and viceversa had a boom right after interracial marriage was legalized. :rolleyes:

Apology conditionally accepted.

Conditionally, because I reserve the right to retract my acceptance of your apology if you go off acting like an ass again. Once...well, that is one thing. And though my comeback was rather harsh, and in-your-face, that is the way I have trained myself to react to percieved attacks like I percieved your comments.

The fact that you have owned up to your ignorance and apologized for them is good enough for me for now. But I reserve the right to retract my acceptance if I've reason, later, to believe your apology was in any way insincere. Which I will judge by your words through the rest of this...and other...threads.


The guy does the big thing by saying he's sorry and you have to get on your high horse about it?

That just shows you. Most people just say "no problem" and move on but you have to turn it into a drama? Do people do this for kicks? Embarassing other people further?

We all sin, and we are all to forgive others for their iniquities, just as Christ forgave those who sinned. However, it is the insistance of living in sin perpetually and not relinquishing one's desires and repenting, despite the teachings of Christ and the apostles, that is at issue here. Homosexuality, like adulterous marriage, is a sin of continuity. It is not making one feel unwelcome, it is rebuking them and calling for their return to God that Christians employ.

But if someone does not believe in your religion why should they live by its laws?

There was a time when nobody white or black had the right to marry someone of another race. That was found to be unconstitutional. So is this. Also, the right to marry is a recognized right by the SCOTUS and the UN. Also, at least the US is NOT a democracy. It's a republic and it is such specifically to prevent tyranny of the majority. What would happen if atheists became the majority and decided religious freedom is unnecessary? Mostly there is nothing in your post that is actually correct in an objective sense. Stike one!



Leviticus gave us the laws of Moses. Jesus threw them out. Leviticus said homosexuality was punishable by death. So was collecting sticks on the Sabbath day punishable by death. Hopefully you don't observe either of these.

http://www.bbie.org/english/Study09TheWorkofJesus/0905JesusAndLawOfMoses.html

Strike two!

Read the bold part again. The purpose of evolution is to promote the species, not the individual. It is quite possible that the same genes that make a man homosexual when found in a woman make them more likely to have viable children (ones that live to reproduce) and vice versa. Also humans are social so it's quite likely that having a person in the family that does not reproduce but still helps to provide for the children of his/her siblings results in an increased gene pool and the betterment of the species. Strike three! You're out!


I'm going to butt in your conversation for a minute for elaboration on the relation between Levitical law and Christian law: It is true that the law of Moses was revoked, however we can use the precedent set by it to reinforce the notion of God's view towards homosexuality in the new law. Some claim that Romans 1 Corinthians are vague on their condemnation of homosexual activity, however Leviticus 18:22 can be used to support the argument that the homosexual act is indeed being portrayed, as opposed to temple prostitution.

But if someone does not believe in your religion why should they live by its laws?
Because Jesus saved everyone, so therefore by the transitive property, we are all Christian and believe in a Christian God.

But if someone does not believe in your religion why should they live by its laws?



Acts 10:35

as long as they accept salvation, of course. right?

Acts 10:35
I'd ask what that is, but I'm afraid of encouraging your fanaticism

Because Jesus saved everyone, so therefore by the transitive property, we are all Christian and believe in a Christian God.

...the hell? Do you even know what a Christian is?

Christian - a believer in Jesus as the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, or in the religion based on the teachings of Jesus.

Heck, you didn't even make sense with "transitive property", but at least I understand that you meant by "extrapolation", which still is ridiculous in this case.

is anybody still here? im still looking for anargument

Legal:
I see no discrepency between the rights of gays and straights. Nobody, gay or straight, has the right to marry someone of the same gender. Anybody, gay or straight, can marry someone of the opposite gender. There is no equal protection issue. Further, there is no right to marriage in any form. Marriage is a religious institution that was/is endorsed (and subsequently recognized officially) by the state because it is a stabalizing factor for society. As such, it can be regulated by the legislature. It is a legislative issue that can and should be resolved democratically. The problem is that judges, at least in America, have taken it upon themselves to act unilaterally and dictatorially by declaring bans on gay marriage unconstitutional. This should be an outrage to any true democrat (not referring to the party). A majority of Americans oppose recognizing gay marriage, so consequently it should not be recognized.
I don't believe in an "equal rights" argument (although there is a valid one: you look only at formal equality rather than substantive equality even if I care about neither), but to explain my position in detail would take a bit too long. Your position regarding democracy is valid, but only if we accept that the best way to make legal decisions is by a vote. I don't believe that either, but once again, an argument for another time..

Moral:
As a Catholic, my religious beliefs teach me that the act of homosexuality is an abomination (Lev 18:22). Because I have faith in these teachings, I accept this as true and subsequently oppose gay marriage (who am I to tell my God that He is wrong?) However, I tend to rely on this form of argument the least, as it is purely subjective.
Leviticus 11:9-12 (King James Version)
9These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

I assume that, on a moral basis, you also want to ban Red Lobster? We can’t have restaurants encouraging “abominations”, now can we?



Natural:
Homosexuality is a negative trait evolutionarily speaking. A species' evolutionary strength is defined by its ability to reproduce offspring that carry on heritable traits. Homosexuals cannot naturally produce offspring. The gene pool is decreased in size, and the population as a whole suffers. Consequently, society has an obligation not to endorse activity that is detrimental to itself.
Never mind that homosexuals CAN reproduce if they want to. Never mind that evidence points to the fact that homosexuality is biological, ergo “endorsing” it doesn’t accomplish a damn thing anymore than endorsing people to be tall will make them grow taller. No, never mind those points. Just ask yourself.. is humanity's population so small that losing (in out most generous estimates) 10% or so of the population (already overpopulated in many parts of the world) will hurt our ability to reproduce so dramatically that there is cause for alarm? Do you really think that letting gay people get married is going to increase the population of gays (or that making it illegal would convince gays to start being straight) and decrease genetic diversity to the point where it’s actually harmful to future generations? That’s just ridiculous, and even if it was so dangerous, we could start asking gays to have children for “the good of society”, or legislating it if it comes to that.

In my opinion it would be difficult to stop gay marrage and equally as difficult to abstaine it.

there are an even amout of people for and against, the people for say is expression, in this game it depends on what type of people you want your country to be. the North American attitude is we must give minorities all they want because the majority of people already have all they need, in this case the homosexuals are the minorities the people against are the majority.

for the government to make a decision i dont think it is their place because they would be choosing sides.

all-in-all it depends on who you ask..my belief is that people should have the freedom to do or believe what they want but if I were to ask my father or grandfather there opinions would strongly be NO! simply because they were born under the idea that gays are evil or shuld be outcast like the lepors
but if you look back even ferther in history in ancient rome older men and younger boys would have sex for the pleasure. of corse that was wen women were thought of just beeing used for breading we have come alot ferther now but now we speak of marrage

in my opinion i dont have one other than it shuld be up to indivitual churches not the government


your comrade in arms The Iron Curten

I'd ask what that is, but I'm afraid of encouraging your fanaticism


I'd tell you, but I'm afraid of encouraging your secularism.

What is it that causes people to hate that which is different than them.

All animals are like that, it's called the pecking order. For example: A bunch of baby chickens are born, and one of them has a deformity. The other chicks peck at it and hurt it because it is different from them, right? Humans are no different from animals. We see something that is different from us, not a "social norm", we tend to treat it as a "lesser being". That's how I see it anyways.

...the hell? Do you even know what a Christian is?

Christian - a believer in Jesus as the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, or in the religion based on the teachings of Jesus.

Heck, you didn't even make sense with "transitive property", but at least I understand that you meant by "extrapolation", which still is ridiculous in this case.
lol, calm down there! I was just being retarded. Sheesh! :p

Acts 10:35
I dont have faith that your book is the truth ... (hence my not sharing your belief)

Tell me again why should I follow your rules?

I don't believe in an "equal rights" argument (although there is a valid one: you look only at formal equality rather than substantive equality even if I care about neither), but to explain my position in detail would take a bit too long. Your position regarding democracy is valid, but only if we accept that the best way to make legal decisions is by a vote. I don't believe that either, but once again, an argument for another time..


Leviticus 11:9-12 (King James Version)
9These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

I assume that, on a moral basis, you also want to ban Red Lobster? We can’t have restaurants encouraging “abominations”, now can we?



Never mind that homosexuals CAN reproduce if they want to. Never mind that evidence points to the fact that homosexuality is biological, ergo “endorsing” it doesn’t accomplish a damn thing anymore than endorsing people to be tall will make them grow taller. No, never mind those points. Just ask yourself.. is humanity's population so small that losing (in out most generous estimates) 10% or so of the population (already overpopulated in many parts of the world) will hurt our ability to reproduce so dramatically that there is cause for alarm? Do you really think that letting gay people get married is going to increase the population of gays (or that making it illegal would convince gays to start being straight) and decrease genetic diversity to the point where it’s actually harmful to future generations? That’s just ridiculous, and even if it was so dangerous, we could start asking gays to have children for “the good of society”, or legislating it if it comes to that.




If I have to explain the difference between the old law and the new law one more time, I'm going to scream!!!! :mad:

I'd tell you, but I'm afraid of encouraging your secularism.

Hmm fanaticism and secularism. One of these is good and the other is bad. Can you tell which? :rolleyes:

I dont have faith that your book is the truth ... (hence my not sharing your belief)

Tell me again why should I follow your rules?



And why should I follow your rules and stand by while sin is permitted?

Satanic cults that practice the sacrifice of infants to Lucifer are also being limited by the government. In any government that adopts of a policy of religious plurality, there is going to be SOME repression of religion.
Yes. Satanic cults sacrificing infants are harming others.

Gays, however, do not harm you in any way.

Further, marriage is deemed part of the right to persue happiness in America.

Do the math. Your religious cult should be outlawed:
1. You harm gays
2. You limit other people's right to freedom of religion, as religions other than your own sect, embrace same-sex marriages.

Hmm fanaticism and secularism. One of these is good and the other is bad. Can you tell which? :rolleyes:



Whichever doesn't involve the rejection of God ;)

Never mind that homosexuals CAN reproduce if they want to. Never mind that evidence points to the fact that homosexuality is biological, ergo “endorsing” it doesn’t accomplish a damn thing anymore than endorsing people to be tall will make them grow taller. No, never mind those points. Just ask yourself.. is humanity's population so small that losing (in out most generous estimates) 10% or so of the population (already overpopulated in many parts of the world) will hurt our ability to reproduce so dramatically that there is cause for alarm? Do you really think that letting gay people get married is going to increase the population of gays (or that making it illegal would convince gays to start being straight) and decrease genetic diversity to the point where it’s actually harmful to future generations? That’s just ridiculous, and even if it was so dangerous, we could start asking gays to have children for “the good of society”, or legislating it if it comes to that.


alright, explain to me how homosexuals can have a child in a homosexual manner, because a woman AND a man must both be involved, removing the homosexual aspect from pregnancy.

Yes. Satanic cults sacrificing infants are harming others.

Gays, however, do not harm you in any way.

Further, marriage is deemed part of the right to persue happiness in America.

Do the math. Your religious cult should be outlawed:
1. You harm gays
2. You limit other people's right to freedom of religion, as religions other than your own sect, embrace same-sex marriages.



1. Wrong
2. As do secular policies. Who are you to say your viewpoint should take precedence over mine?


Edit: Oh, Christianity does not fall under the category of cult. I have a feeling you're just trying to vilify me so I'll disregard that :rolleyes:

Whichever doesn't involve the rejection of God ;)

Depending on your definition neither of them reject god persay. Secularism is the seperation of god from state.

In government, a policy of avoiding entanglement between government and religion (ranging from reducing ties to a state church to promoting secularism in society), of non-discrimination among religions (providing they don't deny primacy of civil laws), and of guaranteeing human rights of all citizens, regardless of the creed (and, if conflicting with certain religious rules, by imposing priority of the universal human rights).-Wikipedia

The only problem I have with it is the marriage part... I have no problems letting them have the same benefits and such but would prefer to have marriage left and call it union. Marriage= Union between man and women.

And why should I follow your rules and stand by while sin is permitted?
Because you live in a country where that's the rules. You can always leave if the constitution isn't to your liking. Otherwise, it takes precedent over your bible

Also, if you lived in a place where you could get your will, chances are people would rise against you, and most likely kill you as the hated oppressor you would be.

And why should I follow your rules and stand by while sin is permitted?
Because freedom and equality are what our country are based on

If I have to explain the difference between the old law and the new law one more time, I'm going to scream!!!! :mad:
Chill out. It took a while to get the post together and you hadn't posted before I started. Besides, he/she references Leviticus (ONLY Leviticus, mind you) so I do the same: nothing inappropriate there.

see, liberals are the reason i will rejoice the day california falls off into the ocean. now, all that is left will be the north half of new england. especially rhode island. stupid tiny state. voted 98 % kerry. idiot liberals with less square milage than the city of houston. HA!

It is not politics, but the upbringing of people in their respective religion, for example my Christian upbringing has brought me to see homosexuality as a sin. However who am I to tell the what they do is wrong? They are free to do as they please, but leave me out of it.

Because you live in a country where that's the rules. You can always leave if the constitution isn't to your liking. Otherwise, it takes precedent over your bible

Also, if you lived in a place where you could get your will, chances are people would rise against you, and most likely kill you as the hated oppressor you would be.



"Hated oppressor"? :rolleyes:


Look, citizens have the right to instill their beliefs into law, if not then why would we have a legislative system? We can always change the current "rules" through our vote, can we not? Or are you saying we should have just "accepted" the oppressive policies of yore?

alright, explain to me how homosexuals can have a child in a homosexual manner, because a woman AND a man must both be involved, removing the homosexual aspect from pregnancy.
The complaint was that homosexuals can't have children and that shrinks the gene pool. A homosexual man can produce semen, a homosexual woman can bear children. If it is absolutely necessary for everyone to have children to protect the world from the horrors of shrinking gene pools, homosexual men can have sex with women or donate semen to reproduce. There's nothing homosexual about this behaviour, but I fail to see what that has to do with anything.

see, liberals are the reason i will rejoice the day california falls off into the ocean. now, all that is left will be the north half of new england. especially rhode island. stupid tiny state. voted 98 % kerry. idiot liberals with less square milage than the city of houston. HA!
Any point to that rant besides showing your intollerance?

alright, explain to me how homosexuals can have a child in a homosexual manner, because a woman AND a man must both be involved, removing the homosexual aspect from pregnancy.

A lesbian couple can. You see, "homosexuals" aren't only males, it also involves females. Have you heard of artificial insemination?

But wait a minute... males have the semen necessary for artificial insemination to be possible, so a homosexual man can actually donate his semen for the oh so desperately needed reproduction of the species so we can keep overpopulating and ravaging the planet! :D

because that is not homosexual reproduction.

look, i made an oxymoron! :D

Because freedom and equality are what our country are based on



And homosexuality is not an issue of freedom or equality. Nobody has the "right" to sodomize. Where in our constitution is the amendment stating "The right of citizens to copulate shall not be infringed"?

Do the math. Your religious cult should be outlawed:
1. You harm gays
2. You limit other people's right to freedom of religion, as religions other than your own sect, embrace same-sex marriages.
1. Wrong
2. As do secular policies. Who are you to say your viewpoint should take precedence over mine?

Edit: Oh, Christianity does not fall under the category of cult. I have a feeling you're just trying to vilify me so I'll disregard that :rolleyes:

1. You're denying homosexuals their right to persue happiness. That is oppression. And it's what I meant by 'Harm'. Deny all you want, it won't make it any less true.
2. How so? Secular policies guarantees your sect can go on hating gays and refuse to marry them. They also guarantee other branches of christianity (and other religions in general) can perform marriages for whoever they want.
Quote unlike you, who wish to prevent others from practicing their religion.

Regarding your edit: I know a few christians, and I see many here who disagrees with you. Thus, I do not consider you christian per se, but regard you as a cultist. But I have no idea which particular brand of christianity you follow.

The first thing I want to say is I personally believe gay marriage is wrong.

With my personal feeling out of the way, I think the way we as a country look at marriage (straight and gay) needs to be changed. Why? Because I am Catholic, and to me the word "marriage" implies a ceremony in a church/temple/mosque with a priest/minister/rabbi/other clergy member. To me, if you go down to a courthouse and just get a marriage license without a church ceremony, you are not "married" but you are in fact joined legally, and I believe unions and marriage should have exactly the same rights. I just think the government needs to butt out of marriage in general.

So in short, I believe gays should have the same legal rights when it comes to unions, but I would have a serious issue calling it "marriage" because that implies (to me anyway) that it has been blessed by some religious authority.

Thats a good idea, instead of confronting the issue we should decided to abolish marriage within the state entirely to get rid of the problem, good thinking there, chief!


You want to have a discussion on gay "marriage", but without any religious arguments...

Let's go evolution then. Creatures pair up in nature to procreate the species. That is it. If they don't, then the species would become extinct. So on evolutionary terms, homosexual erectus would be an off-shoot that would become extinct, a failed mutation of sorts.

Now, that sounds cruel to anyone who happens to be gay, and truly I mean no disrespect, but there are only 2 reasons for not allowing homosexuals rights, the Bible says so, or it's not productive for the species.

I just wanted to throw that out there. A girl in my pshycology class did a full term paper on that subject, which of course got the specifics down better than I did here, but you get the point. She got a B on the paper, if your interested :rolleyes:

Hey guess, what homosexuality has actually been looked at as a trait of Darwinism. You know, that theory of evolution that Catholicism and other religions alike fear for it's logical outlook on the development of different species. As a species overpopulates homosexuality is developed in order to slow population growth, therefore making it something that isn't so bad, since it means there is more food for me and you to eat without all the extra people we'd have around if everybody was straight. Since you seem to be selfish, I'd think you'd appreciate the idea that others aren't procreating, and are unknowingly assisting in your survival.

Any point to that rant besides showing your intollerance?

no,not really. because i live in texas, where i have millions of people who support that view. so there. and i am not intolerant, i just have religious conviction.

and i hate california and rhode island for no apparent reason.

"Hated oppressor"? :rolleyes:


Look, citizens have the right to instill their beliefs into law, if not then why would we have a legislative system? We can always change the current "rules" through our vote, can we not? Or are you saying we should have just "accepted" the oppressive policies of yore?

secular governments can not instill religious laws as government laws.

guaranteeing human rights of all citizens, regardless of the creed (and, if conflicting with certain religious rules, by imposing priority of the universal human rights).-Wikipedia

What a totally gay thread.

And homosexuality is not an issue of freedom or equality. Nobody has the "right" to sodomize. Where in our constitution is the amendment stating "The right of citizens to copulate shall not be infringed"?
Well if your a female and your talking to men isnt' that a sin we should make laws about that and call ourselves new taliban

because that is not homosexual reproduction.

look, i made an oxymoron! :D
Nope homosexual != infertile

no,not really. because i live in texas, where i have millions of people who support that view. so there. and i am not intolerant, i just have religious conviction.

and i hate california and rhode island for no apparent reason.
You seem to have plenty of intolerance
And popular != right necessarily

"new taliban"?

what the crap are you ta;lking about? that doesnt even make sense, and verbal communication is not "copulating"

And homosexuality is not an issue of freedom or equality. Nobody has the "right" to sodomize. Where in our constitution is the amendment stating "The right of citizens to copulate shall not be infringed"?
Under right to pursuit of happiness

As long as you don't infringe on the same rights of others you are well within your rights to sodomize

no, i just hate liberals because they embody everything they stand against, including the MURDER of unborn children, gay marriage, not defending our country from terrorism, and paris hilton.

Under right to pursuit of happiness

As long as you don't infringe on the same rights of others you are well within your rights to sodomize


you know what i agree i'm gonna go sodomize my girlfriend right now because it makes me happy and you know what people that are the most against gays are usually have homosexual tendencies

1. You're denying homosexuals their right to persue happiness. That is oppression. And it's what I meant by 'Harm'. Deny all you want, it won't make it any less true.
2. How so? Secular policies guarantees your sect can go on hating gays and refuse to marry them. They also guarantee other branches of christianity (and other religions in general) can perform marriages for whoever they want.
Quote unlike you, who wish to prevent others from practicing their religion.

Regarding your edit: I know a few christians, and I see many here who disagrees with you. Thus, I do not consider you christian per se, but regard you as a cultist. But I have no idea which particular brand of christianity you follow.


1. Plenty of laws restrict your supposed "right to pursue happiness". The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are fundamentally different, as one is merely a letter expressing dissent and another is the law of the land. If the pursuit of happiness were recognized by law, any behavior that brings happiness to someone would be acceptable. Fortunately for us, it isn't.

2. How many times have I stated that I hate no one? Really, you are deserving of the title "King of Strawmen Manufacturers". As I stated earlier, your stance is hypocritical as you deny the right of Satanists to sacrifice infants. Certain freedoms WILL involve the restriction of others.

A cult is a group following a man and his supposed "divine revelation". As Christ was not a man but God, we cannot be classified as cultists.

Under right to pursuit of happiness

As long as you don't infringe on the same rights of others you are well within your rights to sodomize



Well, having to deal with the issue of gay marriage is an infringement upon my right to the pursuit of happiness :p

no, i just hate liberals because they embody everything they stand against, including the MURDER of unborn children, gay marriage, not defending our country from terrorism, and paris hilton.
You may capitalize it but that still does not make it murder (look up the definition if you need help with why it is not)

And you symbolize what they dislike as well ... hatred intolerance ... so be it I am sure there are plenty of them that wish Texas would be given back to Mexico

You seem to have plenty of intolerance
And popular != right necessarily



To your second point, I do agree wholeheartedly. Opposing homosexuality on this forum is not popular but it is the right thing to do :)

1. Plenty of laws restrict your supposed "right to pursue happiness". If the pursuit of happiness were recognized by law, any behavior that brings happiness to someone would be acceptable. Fortunately for us, it isn't.
I believe the general thing about laws that restrict the right to puersuit of happiness is that if it harms other people. Homosexuality harms no one so it is covered under the right of pursuit of happiness.

2.As I stated earlier, your stance is hypocritical as you deny the right of Satanists to sacrifice infants. Certain freedoms WILL involve the restriction of others.
Of course people will restrict the ability of Satanists to sacrifice infants because it harms others. Homosexuality does not and can not be restricted.

exactly. you see, what if i started a cult where the entire objective was to drive my car as fast as possible, steal all my gas, and run over anyone in my way? now wouldnt the government put a stop to that? except then all you fools would start crying about religious freedom. but what if you were one of the people i had run over, eh? you would be telling the law to execute id bet.

To your second point, I do agree wholeheartedly. Opposing homosexuality on this forum is not popular but it is the right thing to do :)
Being un popular != right either sorry

To your second point, I do agree wholeheartedly. Opposing homosexuality on this forum is not popular but it is the right thing to do :)

In your opinion

exactly. you see, what if i started a cult where the entire objective was to drive my car as fast as possible, steal all my gas, and run over anyone in my way? now wouldnt the government put a stop to that? except then all you fools would start crying about religious freedom. but what if you were one of the people i had run over, eh? you would be telling the law to execute id bet.
Fundamental difference ... you are harming someone else thus infringing on their rights

That can be objectively proved

What two consenting adults willingly choose to do does not harm anyone else and does not infringe on others rights

Sorry flawed arguement