NationStates Jolt Archive

No shit they didn't, they went and murdered helots... but how about the Athenians? The artists, the great cuture, the philosophy... the same thing happened in Athens!

How 'bout justifying your beliefs, huh?

Lol. I'm not putting down the Spartans, I just find it amusing. I'm not against homosexuality or anything. Messing with children is pretty much always messed up. Of course, in that culture things are a wee bit different.

Then you are a hypocrite. People have the right to believe in what they wish, no matter how insane you think it is. I am against gay marriage, but that doesn't make me a Nazi, it means I just don't think its right. I don't think homosexuality is natural.
You should brush up on your science then.

Lol. I'm not putting down the Spartans, I just find it amusing. I'm not against homosexuality or anything. Messing with children is pretty much always messed up. Of course, in that culture things are a wee bit different.
Yeah... for a start 12 year olds weren't really thought of as children...

HP, if you want to discriminate then who exactly are you to tell us not to, hm?

I don't think homosexuality is natural.

Define "natural" for me please. But before you do so, explain gay animals.

Then you are a hypocrite. People have the right to believe in what they wish, no matter how insane you think it is. I am against gay marriage, but that doesn't make me a Nazi, it means I just don't think its right. I don't think homosexuality is natural.

The thing is about people saying homosexuality is not "natural". Take a look at nature. Bonobo chimpanzees screw, suck, and lick each other in every kind of way, as a social relaxant. Rabbits, when they start getting over populated, start screwing each other, the females absorb the babies back into their bodies.

Homosexuality, really, is the perfect contraceptive, and will probably increase the closer humans are packed on this planet.

i believe that only natural things should occur, animals and humans do things because they allow thier race to survive, an example, eating if a group of people stopped eating they would soon die out and you would think that that would be insane and yet we have a group of people having sex with no chance of reproduction and as far as i can tell thats a bad idea.

no i meant unity meaning them becoming one, and if you have to rely on insulting me to get your point across then it must be a really bad one.

You advocated hanging me. Who began the mud throwing sweet cakes?

Secondly if you read my earlier posts you'll find i've argued my point using "logic" and "evidence" neither of which you've provided.

Snap.

Your move sweet cakes.

i believe that only natural things should occur, animals and humans do things because they allow thier race to survive, an example, eating if a group of people stopped eating they would soon die out and you would think that that would be insane and yet we have a group of people having sex with no chance of reproduction and as far as i can tell thats a bad idea.

EXPLAIN GAY ANIMALS PLEASE.

Also, only about 10% of the population is gay. Im sure the other 90% can handle procreation.

Yeah... for a start 12 year olds weren't really thought of as children...

HP, if you want to discriminate then who exactly are you to tell us not to, hm?

When were you considered an adult again?

I think we should just round them all up and put them on a deserted island somewhere. That way, they can do whatever they want and not bother us normal people.

i believe that only natural things should occur, animals and humans do things because they allow thier race to survive, an example, eating if a group of people stopped eating they would soon die out and you would think that that would be insane and yet we have a group of people having sex with no chance of reproduction and as far as i can tell thats a bad idea.

dude, theres 6 BILLION freaking people on this planet. We made enough babies already, damn.

I think we should just round them all up and put them on a deserted island somewhere. That way, they can do whatever they want and not bother us normal people.

How about we put all the heteros on an island so they dont bother the gay people? It seems the straights are bothering the gays much more.

When were you considered an adult again?
In those societies? 12, for some things... 20, 30 for others... really it was kind of staggered...

SRI, we ****ing well are normal! Unless you want tyranny of the majority of course!

I think we should just round them all up and put them on a deserted island somewhere. That way, they can do whatever they want and not bother us normal people.


define "normal"

Sounds like another Nazi to me...

there you go again, you believe that just because im against your beliefs im simple minded, *snip*

Actually you showed us yourself.

"whereas i just think they should be publicy hung"

I think we should just round them all up and put them on a deserted island somewhere. That way, they can do whatever they want and not bother us normal people.

If they'd done that to Da Vinci we wouldn't have the helicopter (he wrote the original designs) or any of the myriad of other inventions he created, the Mona Lisa or (heaven forbid) The Da Vinci code.

If they'd done that to Da Vinci we wouldn't have the helicopter (he wrote the original designs) or any of the myriad of other inventions he created, the Mona Lisa or (heaven forbid) The Da Vinci code.

On an odd note, they tried building his helicopter, which uses the same principles as a modern one...

It didn't work.

XD

If they'd done that to Da Vinci we wouldn't have the helicopter (he wrote the original designs) or any of the myriad of other inventions he created, the Mona Lisa or (heaven forbid) The Da Vinci code.
You know, given that last one, I feel so torn between the benefits and downsides :P
Actually, look at others... we wouldn't exist. Or not in the state we are now, as Athens wouldn't have invented democracy, all being on some island somewhere...

On the helicopter point, your right, but the design principles of modern choppers are the same.

Besides he wrote the plans centuries ago, not bad for a dude who ran around in pink and purple tights and was arrested for sodomy at 24 hey New Ruhn?

If you're homophobic thats your own personal problem, but trying to restrict another person's rights because of your own ignorance is your own fault.
Eric

None of the "its not natural" or "our species will die out" people still havent explained gay animals and why their species havent died out.

On the helicopter point, your right, but the design principles of modern choppers are the same.

Besides he wrote the plans centuries ago, not bad for a dude who ran around in pink and purple tights and was arrested for sodomy at 24 hey New Ruhn?


I just thought it was funny. Pink and purple tights? Hmm, maybe i should look up this Da Vinci guy, sounds like he gots some style XD

If you're homophobic thats your own personal problem, but trying to restrict another person's rights because of your own ignorance is your own fault.
Eric

EXXXXXXXACTLY.

None of the "its not natural" or "our species will die out" people still havent explained gay animals and why their species havent died out.

they usually end up being gay when a population is producing too many kids, go figure....sound familiar?

No, its unnatural.

He's right. Monogamy is unnatural for humans, whehter it's a gay or straight couple.

they usually end up being gay when a population is producing too many kids, go figure....sound familiar?

Well thats just correlation. Bigger population usually means more chance of being gay. But shh...I want to hear their explanations ;)

He's right. Monogamy is unnatural for humans, whehter it's a gay or straight couple.

This is also true.

You should brush up on your science then.
If animals are gay, then doesn't that make us more human by not practicing homosexuality. I'm not calling homosexuals non-humans, I just think homosexuality tends to be more animalistic.

He's right. Monogamy is unnatural for humans, whehter it's a gay or straight couple.

that is VERY true, men are essentially designed to spread their seed....which is why they cheat so much. Hm. The only reason women cheat is cause they are either not satisfied with the current man, or they are frustrated with men cheating on them so much that they just feel like returning the favor.

Always turns out bad for the woman tho.

If animals are gay, then doesn't that make us more human by not practicing homosexuality. I'm not calling homosexuals non-humans, I just think homosexuality tends to be more animalistic.

Keywords being: "I THINK"

If animals are gay, then doesn't that make us more human by not practicing homosexuality. I'm not calling homosexuals non-humans, I just think homosexuality tends to be more animalistic.
Bullshit it does, its just as animalistic as any other form of sexuality, it has just as much split between love and lust. And anyway, are huamns not ourselves animals? (if you answer no prepare for a scientific shitstorm headed your way)

Well thats just correlation. Bigger population usually means more chance of being gay. But shh...I want to hear their explanations ;)



This is also true.

It also has causation though, if you can't feed the kids you have, and every time you screw your wife she pops out a kid, how are you going to cure that horniness?

I know many good people who are gay. That doesn't mean I hate them if I think gay marriage should be banned, it means I think marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman.

I know many good people who are gay. That doesn't mean I hate them if I think gay marriage should be banned, it means I think marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman.
So explain state marriage, divorce, loveless marriages, trophy wives, etc.

I know many good people who are gay. That doesn't mean I hate them if I think gay marriage should be banned, it means I think marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman.


Really, all gays want is a civil union. So that can at *least* have the financial benefits.

How many gays would actually push to get married in a church I ask you?

If animals are gay, then doesn't that make us more human by not practicing homosexuality. I'm not calling homosexuals non-humans, I just think homosexuality tends to be more animalistic.

Heterosexual couples engage in animalistic sexual behavior all the time. Ever tried it doggy-style?

Bullshit it does, its just as animalistic as any other form of sexuality, it has just as much split between love and lust. And anyway, are huamns not ourselves animals? (if you answer no prepare for a scientific shitstorm headed your way)

I know humans are animals, however, we are much more advanced than animals. Also, when it comes to sexuality, homo sapiens is the only species that can actually resist their sexual urges until a custom says its allowed(marriage). Sex is not meant to be enjoyed, it is meant for reproduction. Homosexuality does not create life.

I know humans are animals, however, we are much more advanced than animals. Also, when it comes to sexuality, homo sapiens is the only species that can actually resist their sexual urges until a custom says its allowed(marriage). Sex is not meant to be enjoyed, it is meant for reproduction. Homosexuality does not create life.
Ooookay. So infertile or post-menopausal, couples should not have sex, contraceptives should be illegal, and so on? Interesting. Because that's exactly what you are saying. (And is its not meant to be fun... why is it?)

woow, carm down a bit you asked for peoples opinons and then object when I give mine. :mad:
Whould you have prefered me to just have lied and said yes? If your going to be like that then there was no point in the poll I could tell you the result!
i voted yes on gay marriage but u raise a good point

So explain state marriage, divorce, loveless marriages, trophy wives, etc.
I don't consider those to be marriages in the truest sense. Here is my definition of marriage: A man and a woman who love each other deeply and are united by religious means to create more life and grow old together.

I know humans are animals, however, we are much more advanced than animals. Also, when it comes to sexuality, homo sapiens is the only species that can actually resist their sexual urges until a custom says its allowed(marriage). Sex is not meant to be enjoyed, it is meant for reproduction. Homosexuality does not create life.

last time i checked...isn't sex supposed to be a "gift from God", and that is why you are supposed to wait until marriage? You can't say sex isn't fun, it kind makes sense that God would make it fun, since He obviously wants usto procreate till we fill every little niche on this planet.

I don't consider those to be marriages in the truest sense. Here is my definition of marriage: A man and a woman who love each other deeply and are united by religious means to create more life and grow old together.
So as soon as the woman hits menopause it stops being a marriage?

Sex is not meant to be enjoyed, it is meant for reproduction. Homosexuality does not create life.

Uhh...if it wasnt enjoyable, nothing, noone would procreate. You think a dog says to himself "man, I should really procreate?" Fuck no, hes just looking to tap a piece of ass, unaware of the consequences.

Ooookay. So infertile or post-menopausal, couples should not have sex, contraceptives should be illegal, and so on? Interesting. Because that's exactly what you are saying. (And is its not meant to be fun... why is it?)
If they are joined in marriage and have had kids, I think its fine for them to have sex, because it creates intimacy between them. Contraceptives should be illegal as a matter of fact.

Why is sex so fun? I don't know, I haven't done it yet and I plan to stay a virgin until marriage.

I know humans are animals, however, we are much more advanced than animals.

Really? What other animals screw their own for a percentage?


Also, when it comes to sexuality, homo sapiens is the only species that can actually resist their sexual urges until a custom says its allowed(marriage).


No they can't. People have been screwing on the side since time began.


Sex is not meant to be enjoyed, it is meant for reproduction.

You do know the Bonobo has sex for pleasure right?

Homosexuality does not create life.

And that means absolutely nothing.

Two people that carry specific genes can have a child that will die......

I don't consider those to be marriages in the truest sense. Here is my definition of marriage: A man and a woman who love each other deeply and are united by religious means to create more life and grow old together.


If fertile woman on this planet popped out 15 in her lifetime, how long do you think we would be able to feed them?

Really? What other animals screw their own for a percentage?



No they can't. People have been screwing on the side since time began.



You do know the Bonobo has sex for pleasure right?



And that means absolutely nothing.

Two people that carry specific genes can have a child that will die......


haha i just mentioned the bonobo too....they make humans look chaste

If fertile woman on this planet popped out 15 in her lifetime, how long do you think we would be able to feed them?
People do not need to have sex all the time after marriage.

If they are joined in marriage and have had kids, I think its fine for them to have sex, because it creates intimacy between them. Contraceptives should be illegal as a matter of fact.
So... wait. Sex is only good for creating kids.... but its also good to create intimacy?
Why is sex so fun? I don't know, I haven't done it yet and I plan to stay a virgin until marriage.
That really is irrelevant as an answer, given that you don't need to experience something to know about it, it seems!

If they are joined in marriage and have had kids, I think its fine for them to have sex, because it creates intimacy between them.

And whats stopping sex from creating the intimacy between a homosexual couple?

Holy annoying contradictions Batman!

Why is sex so fun? I don't know, I haven't done it yet and I plan to stay a virgin until marriage.

You wont know until you do it.

Look, everyone, my opinion is just as reasonable as yours. I can be against gay marriage, and you can be for it. Neither idea makes us bad, it actually what makes the world a better place. I'd rather everyone on Earth had different opinions than if everyone agreed with me.

People do not need to have sex all the time after marriage.

they don't need to. But if the majority of men get their way, they're gonna run out of juice before they're 35.

Everyone should have the right to get married regardless of who or what they are. dagnabbit! Don't discriminate!

Look, everyone, my opinion is just as reasonable as yours. I can be against gay marriage, and you can be for it. Neither idea makes us bad, it actually what makes the world a better place. I'd rather everyone on Earth had different opinions than if everyone agreed with me.


true that

And whats stopping sex from creating the intimacy between a homosexual couple?

Holy annoying contradictions Batman!



You wont know until you do it.

I said if they had kids also it would be fine. But, homosexuals cannot create life.

no i meant unity meaning them becoming one, and if you have to rely on insulting me to get your point across then it must be a really bad one.
That or so obvious that it should not have to be stated (though from your statements so far you are probably just a troll so wont waste too much effort on you)

Look, everyone, my opinion is just as reasonable as yours. I can be against gay marriage, and you can be for it. Neither idea makes us bad, it actually what makes the world a better place. I'd rather everyone on Earth had different opinions than if everyone agreed with me.

But everyone is showing that your basis for being against it is unfounded and ignorant. I mean if you had a legitimate reason, have all the opinions you want.

Look, everyone, my opinion is just as reasonable as yours. I can be against gay marriage, and you can be for it. Neither idea makes us bad, it actually what makes the world a better place. I'd rather everyone on Earth had different opinions than if everyone agreed with me.
Agreed... except when an idea or opinion is forced in law that actuallt discriminates against people. You are entitled to your opinion but your opinion is being forced on me (actually not so much... I'm a Brit, we get civil unions)

Ok since enough people have tried to defend the anti-homosexual view, please explain the benefits of homosexuality?
i like a balanced arguement

I said if they had kids also it would be fine. But, homosexuals cannot create life.
Sure they can … they are not sterile are they?

I said if they had kids also it would be fine. But, homosexuals cannot create life.

Wow! That would be news to the lesbian couple I know were one was impregnated by a gay man.

they don't need to. But if the majority of men get their way, they're gonna run out of juice before they're 35.
As a guy, I can totally agree with that.

Everyone should have the right to get married regardless of who or what they are. dagnabbit! Don't discriminate!


discrimation is what makes this country interesting ;)

think if men and woman had exactly the same rights....things would go down the toilet, very fast, simply because of the system in place

everybody is different, therefore, people need to be treated accordingly

this is a fact, it's how we discrimate, that's the issue

Ok since enough people have tried to defend the anti-homosexual view, please explain the benefits of homosexuality?
i like a balanced arguement
Ah! But in what sense? Do you want its morality defending? its naturalness?

yes any1 should be aloud 2 get mariied anjd a relationship with however they like man or wonan alike!!! the desrve to be happy it is perfectly normal. can any1 tell me what is wrong with a gay or lesbein ( BAD SPELLING I KNOW) relationship???

Ok since enough people have tried to defend the anti-homosexual view, please explain the benefits of homosexuality?
i like a balanced arguement
Why must something have to have a clear “benefit” to exist?

Ok since enough people have tried to defend the anti-homosexual view, please explain the benefits of homosexuality?
i like a balanced arguement

Why do we need to present benefits? Im not saying there arent any, but if theres no drawbacks then who cares?

Then we are wasting our time.

ya know what I'm tired of arguing with Crazy, Conversative, Christians, that are worse than hitler! Just...:upyours: theres no use in talking to people like this, they are already braindwashed with all their bible thumping and over zeaulous misguided, religion. Normal Christians are good, over zealous crazy, people that use religion are not. Also let me add Jehova's witness they say gay men and woman are also a sin and disease that must be cured.

But everyone is showing that your basis for being against it is unfounded and ignorant. I mean if you had a legitimate reason, have all the opinions you want.
I could say your opinions are unfounded and ignorant to. I know the facts. I have decided that I just think gay marriage is wrong. The only reason they want to get married is so they get a bunch of financial benefits, which totally defeats the purpose of marriage.

As a guy, I can totally agree with that.

ahaha...seriously. I'm waiting until marriage...but once I do...Muhaha.

i simply wish to know the benfits of homosexuality, i mean most of you would be against the people who believe its due to sexual abuse, so my question is why do you do it?

I could say your opinions are unfounded and ignorant to. I know the facts. I have decided that I just think gay marriage is wrong. The only reason they want to get married is so they get a bunch of financial benefits, which totally defeats the purpose of marriage.

then don't call it marriage, just a civil union, has nothing to do with the church, which is really the only reason there is an issue in the first place

because one group of people wants to impress their ideas on another

I could say your opinions are unfounded and ignorant to. I know the facts. I have decided that I just think gay marriage is wrong. The only reason they want to get married is so they get a bunch of financial benefits, which totally defeats the purpose of marriage.

You thinking it doesnt make it fact.

And you should probably complain about EVERY SINGLE HETEROSEXUAL couple who gets married, because marriage has become a legal bond.

I could say your opinions are unfounded and ignorant to. I know the facts. I have decided that I just think gay marriage is wrong. The only reason they want to get married is so they get a bunch of financial benefits, which totally defeats the purpose of marriage.
Bollocks. Marriage is also the ultimate demonstration of commitment to each other, and there are legal benefits with relation to children too... and of course, maybe straight people only want to get married for the finacial benefit?

snipThe only reason they want to get married is so they get a bunch of financial benefits, which totally defeats the purpose of marriage.
Not any more then heterosexuals do …

ya know what I'm tired of arguing with Crazy, Conversative, Christians, that are worse than hitler! Just...:upyours: theres no use in talking to people like this, they are already braindwashed with all their bible thumping and over zeaulous misguided, religion. Normal Christians are good, over zealous crazy, people that use religion are not. Also let me add Jehova's witness they say gay men and woman are also a sin and disease that must be cured.
I am not promoting physical violence against gays, I just think homosexuality is wrong. I'm not crazy, I have a different opinion than you. Remember, Hitler didn't want people to have opinions different than his and he hated organized religion.

i simply wish to know the benfits of homosexuality, i mean most of you would be against the people who believe its due to sexual abuse, so my question is why do you do it?

why do heterosexuals have sex? because it's FUN

why do heterosexuals get married, have relationships, because they *love* each other

i do believe LOVE is a human emotion, correct? even though most people do not know what it really is...

and gays are HUMAN last time I checked, correct?

Ok since enough people have tried to defend the anti-homosexual view, please explain the benefits of homosexuality?
i like a balanced arguement

Explain the benefits of cancer, cystic fibrosis, downs syndrome.....

They exist and thats all there is to say.

i simply wish to know the benfits of homosexuality, i mean most of you would be against the people who believe its due to sexual abuse, so my question is why do you do it?
Because we enjoy it and don't think its immoral? Hell, that's why I do it, also because I've found a guy who as far as I can tell I'm in love with...

the problem being that there are drawbacks including the tax increase as we have to pay for treatment for sexually transmitted drugs because of homosexuals. im not saying that all this is becuase of homosexuals but in some countries it costs us a pretty penny

i simply wish to know the benfits of homosexuality, i mean most of you would be against the people who believe its due to sexual abuse, so my question is why do you do it?

What's the benefit of different races or religions? Explain that.

Bollocks. Marriage is also the ultimate demonstration of commitment to each other, and there are legal benefits with relation to children too... and of course, maybe straight people only want to get married for the finacial benefit?
I think that heterosexuals marrying only for financial benefit are wrong, too.

the problem being that there are drawbacks including the tax increase as we have to pay for treatment for sexually transmitted drugs because of homosexuals. im not saying that all this is becuase of homosexuals but in some countries it costs us a pretty penny
Okay. So you are telling me that only homosexuals get STIs? Bollocks. You are telling me that in fact the majority of STIs infect only homosexuals? See above.

HP, so why do yuo think all homosexuals are marrying only for the cash?

the problem being that there are drawbacks including the tax increase as we have to pay for treatment for sexually transmitted drugs because of homosexuals. im not saying that all this is becuase of homosexuals but in some countries it costs us a pretty penny
Bullshit show that healthcare is higher for homosexuals vs hetrosexuals.

What is a sexually transmitted drug anyways?

the problem being that there are drawbacks including the tax increase as we have to pay for treatment for sexually transmitted drugs because of homosexuals. im not saying that all this is becuase of homosexuals but in some countries it costs us a pretty penny

OH SURE BECAUSE NO STRAIGHT PERSON HAS EVER HAD AN STD.

God some people are just.....theres no word.

ok the only benefit youve come up with so far is that its fun,
right, a criminal rapes and kills 10 women, why because he thought it was fun, just because you think its fun doesnt make it right.

the problem being that there are drawbacks including the tax increase as we have to pay for treatment for sexually transmitted drugs because of homosexuals. im not saying that all this is becuase of homosexuals but in some countries it costs us a pretty penny

Wow you don't know how HIV started.

Wow you don't know that hetros have for more STDs then homos.......

I think that heterosexuals marrying only for financial benefit are wrong, too.
Well then your problem is financial benefits


Why do heterosexuals need Marriage just to show that they love one and other? They cant be committed without it?

the problem being that there are drawbacks including the tax increase as we have to pay for treatment for sexually transmitted drugs because of homosexuals. im not saying that all this is becuase of homosexuals but in some countries it costs us a pretty penny


dude, gays, according to an earlier post, only make up %10

stds have propagated mostly because of the pill. not because of homosexuals

haven't been a hinderance, but when you get a population this huge, shit happens

How on earth will it affect you?
Gay people mind their own business, bear up under discrimination, and all they want is the same rights as is granted to heterosexuals.
Denying them a basic civil right is pretty much the same as saying ethnic minorities cannot marry, you're just preventing a group doing what they like because they're different.

People go on about the 'sanctity of marriage'.. Please, get real folks, like has been said before, what about divorce? What about the manic adultery rate? I fail to see how this ir religiously un-agreeable, since the main church organisation in the US has finally endorsed it.

If you honstly believe that blacks/gays/hispanics shouldn't marry, then go can go to prison, 'cos it's all the same, discrimination is discrimination. No two ways about it.

Because we enjoy it and don't think its immoral? Hell, that's why I do it, also because I've found a guy who as far as I can tell I'm in love with...
That's fine, but you don't need to get married, right? Is it necessary to get married before you have sex? I personally think marriage before sex is the right way to go, but if you want to do it, marriage is a must, right?

ok the only benefit youve come up with so far is that its fun,
right, a criminal rapes and kills 10 women, why because he thought it was fun, just because you think its fun doesnt make it right.
If it is not harming anyone else what makes it automaticaly wrong?

Are you purposly trying to miss the point?

Bullshit show that healthcare is higher for homosexuals vs homosexuals.


There are more then one kind of homosexuals? :confused:

:p

That's fine, but you don't need to get married, right? Is it necessary to get married before you have sex? I personally think marriage before sex is the right way to go, but if you want to do it, marriage is a must, right?
No, it isn't, but if I want to show commitment to my partner in the greatest and strongest way possible then yes, marriage is a must!

That's fine, but you don't need to get married, right? Is it necessary to get married before you have sex? I personally think marriage before sex is the right way to go, but if you want to do it, marriage is a must, right?


just don't call it marriage

would you object to a civil union before a judge?

ok the only benefit youve come up with so far is that its fun,
right, a criminal rapes and kills 10 women, why because he thought it was fun, just because you think its fun doesnt make it right.

1. Can you explain the benefit of allowing different races and religions to exist?

2. Ok well if your argument is that gays cost straights money why should homosexuals have to subsidise say birth control, abortions OR the tax benefits that married couples presently get. I'd say it's because each of these things has beneficial outcomes.

3. The fact that the only example you have thus far come up with involves rape really shows that you're a dumb ass.

Ciao sweet cakes

There are more then one kind of homosexuals? :confused:

:p
Fixed :-P

If someone thought jumping of a cliff with no parachute was fun, would it still be a good idea to do it?

That's fine, but you don't need to get married, right? Is it necessary to get married before you have sex? I personally think marriage before sex is the right way to go, but if you want to do it, marriage is a must, right?
A marrage is not a must for hetrosexuals either ... yet they have the option

just don't call it marriage

would you object to a civil union before a judge?

I wouldn't recognize it as anything.

If someone thought jumping of a cliff with no parachute was fun, would it still be a good idea to do it?
Who said anything about a good idea?
Anyway... I didn't only say it was fun. It feels natural, and it is wuth someone I love. So if they jump off a cliff with someone they love... :P

If someone thought jumping of a cliff with no parachute was fun, would it still be a good idea to do it?
We already discussed the harm portion.

And if they thought it was fun I would absolutely support their right to do it as long as it is only their rights that are in jeopardy.

of course yes

people will say it's unnatural but even members of the animal kingdom have gay relationships, and why should we discriminate people just because they choose a different lifestyle from the majority

No, it isn't, but if I want to show commitment to my partner in the greatest and strongest way possible then yes, marriage is a must!
Then go to somewhere in Canada and get married. Not every country has to allow it. Its called soverignty.

(Quietly walks into the forum, looks around at the people, clears throat)

Ahem.

Gay marriage should be legal and so should civil unions. But before you all get whipped up into a frenzy....oh, never mind you are in a frenzy, too late. Let me explain.

Not all churches disapprove of gay marriage, they should have the freedom to perform marriage ceremonies if they so choose. Churches whose doctrine disallows gay marriage should be free NOT to perform such ceremonies. In other words, let the churches choose their position.

Churches that disallow gay marriage might have gay parishioners, it might be in their best interest to choose another organized religion. Conversely, they might wish to stay in that religion to provide a different point of view. But if it is the doctrinal mandate of a religion to not allow same sex marriage they (the church) should not be forced to do it.

On the matter of civil unions, no state should be able to refuse a civil union to a gay or lesbian couple. States should have no choice in the matter. To make this matter simple for the yahoos that don't understand contractual obligations (which a state oversees), two individuals enter into a contractual agreement called a "civil union," and they have conferred upon them certain rights and responsibilities. There is nothing religious about this type of agreement, and it allows the couple to be legally bound to each other for the co-mingling of finances and all of the other benefits of a contractual partnership (which interestingly enough, is precisely what "marriage" is in the eyes of the state).

I don't want a free ride. With rights come responsibilities, exactly the same one married heterosexual couples have. I embrace that idea.

I was a child in the civil rights era, and I grew up in the rural US south. I remember seperate bathrooms, seperate water fountains, and the whole "back of the bus" thing as a child. I remember asking my grandmother about it. She said something to me that I will never forget. "Oh son, those things are there so adults can be mean to other people without being punished."

That is what you folks who favor this constitutional amendment want deep down inside. You want your anti-social, anti-gay behavior nice and legal so when your ignorant homophobic friends want to beat me and my lover up, you can say it's the law of the land.

I wouldn't recognize it as anything.

exactly, but that is EXACTLY what people are banning! The government is denying people the right to the simple benefits of a marriage...

Liberties are simply being trampled on.

I wouldn't recognize it as anything.
You wouldn’t have to … all that matters is what it is viewed as under the eyes of the law and the couple.

If someone thought jumping of a cliff with no parachute was fun, would it still be a good idea to do it?

If someone posted nonsensical analogies, would it still be a good idea to do it?

of course yes

people will say it's unnatural but even members of the animal kingdom have gay relationships, and why should we discriminate people just because they choose a different lifestyle from the majority
Well what if I loved an animal? Should I be allowed to marry an animal?

(Quietly walks into the forum, looks around at the people, clears throat)

Ahem.

Gay marriage should be legal and so should civil unions. But before you all get whipped up into a frenzy....oh, never mind you are in a frenzy, too late. Let me explain.

Not all churches disapprove of gay marriage, they should have the freedom to perform marriage ceremonies if they so choose. Churches whose doctrine disallows gay marriage should be free NOT to perform such ceremonies. In other words, let the churches choose their position.

Churches that disallow gay marriage might have gay parishioners, it might be in their best interest to choose another organized religion. Conversely, they might wish to stay in that religion to provide a different point of view. But if it is the doctrinal mandate of a religion to not allow same sex marriage they (the church) should not be forced to do it.

On the matter of civil unions, no state should be able to refuse a civil union to a gay or lesbian couple. States should have no choice in the matter. To make this matter simple for the yahoos that don't understand contractual obligations (which a state oversees), two individuals enter into a contractual agreement called a "civil union," and they have conferred upon them certain rights and responsibilities. There is nothing religious about this type of agreement, and it allows the couple to be legally bound to each other for the co-mingling of finances and all of the other benefits of a contractual partnership (which interestingly enough, is precisely what "marriage" is in the eyes of the state).

I don't want a free ride. With rights come responsibilities, exactly the same one married heterosexual couples have. I embrace that idea.

I was a child in the civil rights era, and I grew up in the rural US south. I remember seperate bathrooms, seperate water fountains, and the whole "back of the bus" thing as a child. I remember asking my grandmother about it. She said something to me that I will never forget. "Oh son, those things are there so adults can be mean to other people without being punished."

That is what you folks who favor this constitutional amendment want deep down inside. You want your anti-social, anti-gay behavior nice and legal so when your ignorant homophobic friends want to beat me and my lover up, you can say it's the law of the land.

'nuf said

I wouldn't recognize it as anything.

God Bless James Madison and Thomas Jefferson for the great gift of the establishment clause!

Well what if I loved an animal? Should I be allowed to marry an animal?

Didnt a woman marry a dolphin?

EDIT: yes: http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/woman-marries-dolphin/2006/01/01/1136050339590.html

Ok since none of us are welcoming a change in idea (including me) we should accept that this debate will never be resolved, each of us lives our life sticking to our beliefs until they are proven otherwise, and ok i can understand that homosexuals have sexual relationships as do straight people to enjoy themselves, however i also ackowledge the moral issues raised by these contexts and also the questions they raise.
insult me if u wish but ive made my point.

I am not promoting physical violence against gays, I just think homosexuality is wrong. I'm not crazy, I have a different opinion than you. Remember, Hitler didn't want people to have opinions different than his and he hated organized religion.

Who are you to say what they do in their own bedrooms is wrong?, Do I go about telling you I believe heterosexuality is wrong? Fine you got your opinion and I got mines, but when people like you, that get elected to be a president and propose a outrageus law like this to ammend the constitution, to included discrimination, that I cannot understand or accept. :mad:

Well what if I loved an animal? Should I be allowed to marry an animal?
Only if the animal can give full consent. (why do the homophobes always relate these things back to either rape or bestiality)

Then go to somewhere in Canada and get married. Not every country has to allow it. Its called soverignty.
So because you dislike gay marriage I have to make my marriage to my partner a sham, a marriage in name only and unrecognised? It means he doesn't count as next of kin (or any kin!) in terms of hospital visiting rights, just as an example...

Well what if I loved an animal? Should I be allowed to marry an animal?

Now SOME things can be agreed upon by most everyone. Rape, murder, sex with animals. All are universally immoral. Don't use these as excuses or examples of descrimination.

Saying I should be able to forcefully screw any woman I want?

Then go to somewhere in Canada and get married. Not every country has to allow it. Its called soverignty.

Hey asshole, America is the land of the free, not the land of "go to canada to get something we dont provide because we hate you."

Ok since none of us are welcoming a change in idea (including me) we should accept that this debate will never be resolved, each of us lives our life sticking to our beliefs until they are proven otherwise, and ok i can understand that homosexuals have sexual relationships as do straight people to enjoy themselves, however i also ackowledge the moral issues raised by these contexts and also the questions they raise.
insult me if u wish but ive made my point.


aren't you the one saying they should all be hanged?

you can't just let an issue slide when one group is aggressively assaulting the rights of another group

(Quietly walks into the forum, looks around at the people, clears throat)

Ahem.

Gay marriage should be legal and so should civil unions. But before you all get whipped up into a frenzy....oh, never mind you are in a frenzy, too late. Let me explain.

Not all churches disapprove of gay marriage, they should have the freedom to perform marriage ceremonies if they so choose. Churches whose doctrine disallows gay marriage should be free NOT to perform such ceremonies. In other words, let the churches choose their position.

Churches that disallow gay marriage might have gay parishioners, it might be in their best interest to choose another organized religion. Conversely, they might wish to stay in that religion to provide a different point of view. But if it is the doctrinal mandate of a religion to not allow same sex marriage they (the church) should not be forced to do it.

On the matter of civil unions, no state should be able to refuse a civil union to a gay or lesbian couple. States should have no choice in the matter. To make this matter simple for the yahoos that don't understand contractual obligations (which a state oversees), two individuals enter into a contractual agreement called a "civil union," and they have conferred upon them certain rights and responsibilities. There is nothing religious about this type of agreement, and it allows the couple to be legally bound to each other for the co-mingling of finances and all of the other benefits of a contractual partnership (which interestingly enough, is precisely what "marriage" is in the eyes of the state).

I don't want a free ride. With rights come responsibilities, exactly the same one married heterosexual couples have. I embrace that idea.

I was a child in the civil rights era, and I grew up in the rural US south. I remember seperate bathrooms, seperate water fountains, and the whole "back of the bus" thing as a child. I remember asking my grandmother about it. She said something to me that I will never forget. "Oh son, those things are there so adults can be mean to other people without being punished."

That is what you folks who favor this constitutional amendment want deep down inside. You want your anti-social, anti-gay behavior nice and legal so when your ignorant homophobic friends want to beat me and my lover up, you can say it's the law of the land.
If anyone would beat you up for being gay, I would want them thrown in jail. I am not preaching hatred. You can love each other, I don't care about that, but if you want to get married, then go to Canada or the Netherlands. We don't have to bend over backwards(No pun intended) to please you.

If anyone would beat you up for being gay, I would want them thrown in jail. I am not preaching hatred. You can love each other, I don't care about that, but if you want to get married, then go to Canada or the Netherlands. We don't have to bend over backwards(No pun intended) to please you.
\

how freaking hard is it to allow people to pay for their OWN marriage aka CIVIL UNION???

you don't have to do anything other than keeping the KKK from the reception

Then go to somewhere in Canada and get married. Not every country has to allow it. Its called soverignty.
Its kind of depressing that we tout ourselves as the land of the free and try to show our tolerance. But as soon as someone wants to marry the love of their life we tell them to go to Canada.

Maybe Canada should take over the “land of the free” name … they have been doing way better then us in everything from freedom to human rights for years.

If anyone would beat you up for being gay, I would want them thrown in jail. I am not preaching hatred. You can love each other, I don't care about that, but if you want to get married, then go to Canada or the Netherlands. We don't have to bend over backwards(No pun intended) to please you.
Same applies... maybe we shouldn't let you believe because we don't like what you believe? Its exactly the same idea.

Same applies... maybe we shouldn't let you believe because we don't like what you believe? Its exactly the same idea.

seriously...why don't we round up the muslims and put them in internment camps while we are at it?

If anyone would beat you up for being gay, I would want them thrown in jail. I am not preaching hatred. You can love each other, I don't care about that, but if you want to get married, then go to Canada or the Netherlands. We don't have to bend over backwards(No pun intended) to please you.
How would you be “Bending over backwards” for this … All we want from you is the same freedom you give everyone else.

Nothing special all we require is for the American people to stop being asshats

Fine with me, so long as none of them mess with me.

seriously...why don't we round up the muslims and put them in internment camps while we are at it?
I was going to say the Jews... mainly because I'm half semitic, though, and because of the historical power (and equivalence). So yeah.

Hey asshole, America is the land of the free, not the land of "go to canada to get something we dont provide because we hate you."
Hey, I'm not an asshole for believing what I believe in. I am tired of people calling me a bigot and a racist and a homophobe just because I think something is wrong. Damnit, it pisses me off. I don't hate gays, I just don't think they should be allowed to get married. I don't care if you think that sounds discriminatory, because calling me a homophobe and a bigot is the same as the pot calling the kettle black. I've respected everyone else's opinions, I haven't called anyone names just because I disagree with them.

How would you be “Bending over backwards” for this … All we want from you is the same freedom you give everyone else.

Nothing special all we require is for the American people to stop being asshats

and by "American people", we mean super-conservatives, in other words, people who *still* support Bush XD

and by "American people", we mean super-conservatives, in other words, people who *still* support Bush XD

So you're saying it's not possible to support Bush on some issues, and oppose him on the gay marriage issue?

Hey, I'm not an asshole for believing what I believe in. I am tired of people calling me a bigot and a racist and a homophobe just because I think something is wrong. Damnit, it pisses me off. I don't hate gays, I just don't think they should be allowed to get married. I don't care if you think that sounds discriminatory, because calling me a homophobe and a bigot is the same as the pot calling the kettle black. I've respected everyone else's opinions, I haven't called anyone names just because I disagree with them.
You think they shouldn't get married on religious grounds, right? But what about the "wall of separation between church and state", to quote Jefferson?

Hey, I'm not an asshole for believing what I believe in. I am tired of people calling me a bigot and a racist and a homophobe just because I think something is wrong. Damnit, it pisses me off. I don't hate gays, I just don't think they should be allowed to get married. I don't care if you think that sounds discriminatory, because calling me a homophobe and a bigot is the same as the pot calling the kettle black. I've respected everyone else's opinions, I haven't called anyone names just because I disagree with them.
You got to understand your opinions are the same ones that have been keeping us from equality in this country.

Don’t expect our opinions of your opinions to be pleasant

yes i am anti-homosexual but thats my belief, i understand that other people have other views, and i do understand to homosxuality as a belief, and beliefs in most cases should not have to be defended,
i dont agree with homosexuality but i dont blame the people who choose to be so.

Hey, I'm not an asshole for believing what I believe in. I am tired of people calling me a bigot and a racist and a homophobe just because I think something is wrong. Damnit, it pisses me off. I don't hate gays, I just don't think they should be allowed to get married. I don't care if you think that sounds discriminatory, because calling me a homophobe and a bigot is the same as the pot calling the kettle black. I've respected everyone else's opinions, I haven't called anyone names just because I disagree with them.

well, people also have the right to be not civil

it's just annoying when people say they are right just because the particular group they are in, I.E. religion, say they are

and everybody else better speak English, or die

You think they shouldn't get married on religious grounds, right? But what about the "wall of separation between church and state", to quote Jefferson?
Doesn't exist in the Constitution. All it says is freedom "of" religion, not freedom "from" religion.

If anyone would beat you up for being gay, I would want them thrown in jail. I am not preaching hatred. You can love each other, I don't care about that, but if you want to get married, then go to Canada or the Netherlands. We don't have to bend over backwards(No pun intended) to please you.

Why should we go to Canada, NO THANKS! we are not gona bend over backwards (no pun intended as well) either for you! or people that think like you.

yes i am anti-homosexual but thats my belief, i understand that other people have other views, and i do understand to homosxuality as a belief, and beliefs in most cases should not have to be defended,
i dont agree with homosexuality but i dont blame the people who choose to be so.
Fine... so yu don't blame the tiny and probably nonexistent minority. What about the vast majority of us who have no choice but just are?

yes i am anti-homosexual but thats my belief, i understand that other people have other views, and i do understand to homosxuality as a belief, and beliefs in most cases should not have to be defended,
i dont agree with homosexuality but i dont blame the people who choose to be so.
it's not exactly a belief, bud

and try to stay consistant, or else it isn't fun to pop your bubble

Doesn't exist in the Constitution. All it says is freedom "of" religion, not freedom "from" religion.
But that Jefferson line was in direct reference to it and the effects it should have.

Doesn't exist in the Constitution. All it says is freedom "of" religion, not freedom "from" religion.


so what if, in someones religion, gay marriage is allowed?

isn't that against the constitution if you are banning it?

You got to understand your opinions are the same ones that have been keeping us from equality in this country.

Don’t expect our opinions of your opinions to be pleasant
I already consider you equal to me, but I just don't think you need to get married. Nothing wrong with believing that is there.

I don't expect your opinions to be pleasant, I just expect them to be respectful.

*snip*i also ackowledge the moral issues raised by these contexts and also the questions they raise.
insult me if u wish but ive made my point.

So which "moral" system should be used to judge others?

Doesn't exist in the Constitution. All it says is freedom "of" religion, not freedom "from" religion.
It does not say that either

It says

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Fine... so yu don't blame the tiny and probably nonexistent minority. What about the vast majority of us who have no choice but just are?
Everyone has a choice in thier beliefs or rather wether or not to follow them, i was brought up as a christian but as i reached a certain age i decided that science was a better path and changed my beliefs.

I already consider you equal to me, but I just don't think you need to get married. Nothing wrong with believing that is there.

I don't expect your opinions to be pleasant, I just expect them to be respectful.
Wait. You consider us equal and yet refuse to afford us equal rights? That's a pretty twisted logic, that; I'd say, in fact, it inherently showed you didn't consider us equal!

NR, being gay is not a belief, its something I am whether or not I believe in it or choose it. Its a bitch but there you are.

Doesn't exist in the Constitution. All it says is freedom "of" religion, not freedom "from" religion.

To have freedom of religion you also have to have freedom from religion.

No religious test is needed to be a citizen of this nation.

I already consider you equal to me, but I just don't think you need to get married. Nothing wrong with believing that is there.

I don't expect your opinions to be pleasant, I just expect them to be respectful.
Nope … I have put up with too much shit in this life to lie down and take it one more time. I have been put into the hospital twice for walking down the street and just had another incident of violence Friday. I refuse to settle for less then equality.

If that means not respecting what I feel to be an unjust and stupid opinion so be it.

Even the overall population of NS agrees gays should be allowed to get married, by the current results of this poll, at least the British know what they are doing. Too bad the US is not as socially enlightend as them.

Doesn't exist in the Constitution. All it says is freedom "of" religion, not freedom "from" religion.

My religion says gays can get married. By not allowing them you are trampling on my freedom.

Why should we go to Canada?

Because they have a flag with a maple leaf on it. Now that kicks ass!

Sorry, I just needed some humor. I get very lonely on these forums because my opinions are usually the opposite of everyone elses'.

Personally, I think the state should butt out altogether from this issue. Since when does anyone need government's blessing for a (originally) religious parterneing between two people? What's government's angle?

Well, states like to get fees for marriage licenses. Oh, yeah, make the tax code rife with complexities regarding marriage - helpful in someways, hurtful in others. That way, government can make money in the process of trying to influence the behavior of it's citizens.

This is B.S. If society thinks that certain legal assistance or obligations are needed to be made in the family space, then link it to the presence of dependent children, not marriage. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand anymore. Change the law to give people's last will and testaments more weight compared to common law probate (which favors spouses and descendents). That's a start on some real change to allow people more freedom in how they choose to live their lives.

All this 'marriage' debate does is cloud the issue of freedom and government intrusion into our lives and morph it into a clash in the 'culture war'. It's very scary that those on the right and left choose to play out their culture war using government - both sides smack of what is commonly mis-labeled as fascism (i.e., government force).

I would vehemently oppose any Constitutional amendment dealing with marriage - whether supporting or opposing gay marriage. However, if passed by 67 senators (not that likely) and ratified by 3/4's of the states (more likely), then either would be the law of the land and nothing could be done about it, short of amending the constitution again.

Do we really want to go there?

Even the overall population of NS agrees gays should be allowed to get married, by the current results of this poll, at least the British know what they are doing. Too bad the US is not as socially enlightend as them.
Some of us are working awful hard

So which "moral" system should be used to judge others?

everyone has thier own set of morals, even those who follow religion dont follow the exact same belief its all about interpritation, for instance the suicide bombers responsible for 9/11 did so because of a religious belief, however most people folling that religion would not even think about doing such a thing.

From a purely economic standpoint, opening marriage to gay would eventually destroy a country. I don't understand why gays would even want to get married except to flout victory at pushing forward an agenda. Most gays do not participate to life long mahoganies relationships anyway. My stand and the stand of my country is marriage is between one man and one woman, instituted for life.

Nope … I have put up with too much shit in this life to lie down and take it one more time. I have been put into the hospital twice for walking down the street and just had another incident of violence Friday. I refuse to settle for less then equality.

If that means not respecting what I feel to be an unjust and stupid opinion so be it.
I consider the people who harmed you to be pieces of worthless shit that I hope burn in hell. But I don't have to think that its okay if you get married.

Even the overall population of NS agrees gays should be allowed to get married, by the current results of this poll, at least the British know what they are doing. Too bad the US is not as socially enlightend as them.
Actually we still won't call it marraige and didn't for fear the Conservatives or Lords would block the Bill...

Yes!
The United States was founded on freedome on the persuit of happiness...
Creating a Constitutional Ammendmant to ban same sex marriage is a HUGE step backwards in the progress of our still young nation!

Actually we still won't call it marraige and didn't for fear the Conservatives or Lords would block the Bill...


exactly, as long as people don't call it marriage, although I think it's retarded that the Christian church movement, or whatever you want to call it, basically anyone who reads and follows the bible, apparently have a monopoly on the word and it's definition?

aren't monopolies illegal? :p

Its up the person, not the government to decide in my august opinion.

exactly, as long as people don't call it marriage, although I think it's retarded that the Christian church movement, or whatever you want to call it, basically anyone who reads and follows the bible, apparently have a monopoly on the word and it's definition?

aren't monopolies illegal? :p
Only in business.
Actually I'm not sure its legally the same thing with full rights, but I'm hazy on the difference...

It still sickens me that 84 people voted no.

Most of them being fellow Americans.

Yes!
The United States was founded on freedome on the persuit of happiness...
Creating a Constitutional Ammendmant to ban same sex marriage is a HUGE step backwards in the progress of our still young nation!


kinda funny how this is a UK site...

but everygody in this thread speaking from a USA perspective

LOL

kinda funny how this is a UK site...

but everygody in this thread speaking from a USA perspective

LOL
The internet is dominated by the US... kinda like the world...

Only in business.
Actually I'm not sure its legally the same thing with full rights, but I'm hazy on the difference...


ahaha....still, come on, why should one group define exactly what something means, and it means *only* that?

The internet is dominated by the US... kinda like the world...


until the oil runs out, then we're screwed

along with most other developed nations.....

all the money saudi arabia gets from us with oil sales...they invest in our economy

they practically own us

It still sickens me that 84 people voted no.

Most of them being fellow Americans.
It sickens you that people have a different opinion than you? I am glad there are 214 people disagree with me, that creates debate, which shapes policy, which shapes the world.

it seems to me that both the church and homosexuals argue on the same level, they both strike out at each others beliefs and they both regularily denounce each other. so they're not that different after all lol

It sickens you that people have a different opinion than you? I am glad there are 214 people disagree with me, that creates debate, which shapes policy, which shapes the world.

this i agre with, why would it sicken you because people disagree?

now, if this was a debate on whether or not rape and murder was moral or not


that would sicken me

it seems to me that both the church and homosexuals argue on the same level, they both strike out at each others beliefs and they both regularily denounce each other. so they're not that different after all lol


....wow..'nuf said. totally deep with SOO many examples....:eek:

Yeah, that would be disturbing.

It sickens you that people have a different opinion than you? I am glad there are 214 people disagree with me, that creates debate, which shapes policy, which shapes the world.

It sickens me that in a country which professes in its constitution that "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL" we treat certain groups of people like shit. From women, to african americans, and now gays. And people like you contribute to it.

Yeah, that would be disturbing.


betcha it's out there

like, neo-nazi type sites

it seems to me that both the church and homosexuals argue on the same level, they both strike out at each others beliefs and they both regularily denounce each other. so they're not that different after all lol

Ok I am bored poking the troll. Anybody want to take over now?

Ok I am bored poking the troll. Anybody want to take over now?

ahaha...been doing it...too easy

If you think about it though, nothing can be done short of a constitutional amendment to allow or prevent gay marriage. The first amendment prevents establishing something that favors or disfavors religion. So if a religion agreed with gay marriage, no law could be made because that favors or disfavors said religion.

betcha it's out there

like, neo-nazi type sites
I wouldn't be surprised.

If you think about it though, nothing can be done short of a constitutional amendment to allow or prevent gay marriage. The first amendment prevents establishing something that favors or disfavors religion. So if a religion agreed with gay marriage, no law could be made because that favors or disfavors said religion.


well, there are certain churches that allow gay religion, christian churches, too.

What about them?

this is essentially something that has to be taken to the supreme court

I am in the middle on this issue.

Gay people cannot reproduce, so they stop the world polulation from growing. If they adopt, the adopted kids would be made fun of. I personnally would not like to have two dads.

I also think that it is up to the people on who they want to marry.

i give up, your obviously so dependent on your won beliefs you refuse to find a middle ground, theres a word for that but im obviously too stupid to think of it right now. :upyours:

If you think about it though, nothing can be done short of a constitutional amendment to allow or prevent gay marriage. The first amendment prevents establishing something that favors or disfavors religion. So if a religion agreed with gay marriage, no law could be made because that favors or disfavors said religion.

And yet two states were for it and the "states rights" types (well those that are Christians in this situation) started screaming for the Feds to outlaw it.

Let the States decide. California and Mass will allow it and many if not most of those icky satanic gay types will leave your "moralistic" community.

If they adopt, the adopted kids would be made fun of.

Maybe if the government stops advocating the hate...

i give up, your obviously so dependent on your won beliefs you refuse to find a middle ground, theres a word for that but im obviously too stupid to think of it right now. :upyours:


....'nuf said

i give up, your obviously so dependent on your won beliefs you refuse to find a middle ground, theres a word for that but im obviously too stupid to think of it right now. :upyours:

Translation: I am taking my ball and going home!

And yet too states were for it and the "states rights" types (well those that are Christians in this situation) started screaming for the Feds to outlaw it.

Let the States decide. California and Mass will allow it and many if not most of those icky satanic gay types will leave your "moralistic" community.


come on, if ARNOLD supports it, (does he?), those GIRLY MEN should be able to marry

:D :D :D

i give up, your obviously so dependent on your won beliefs you refuse to find a middle ground, theres a word for that but im obviously too stupid to think of it right now. :upyours:

There is no middle ground. Gays, as men (men meaning "human being", are created equal, as all men are created equal. They deserve marrigae, just like everyone else.

Translation: I am taking my ball and going home!

only one? XD

Yes, they deserve the good and bad it can bring just as much as I do.

I am in the middle on this issue.

Gay people cannot reproduce, so they stop the world polulation from growing.


Gay people are steril??????

If they adopt, the adopted kids would be made fun of.

Isn't Christianity great!

I personnally would not like to have two dads.

What if your mom was really butch?

I also think that it is up to the people on who they want to marry.

There is hope for you. ;)

Translation: I am taking my ball and going home!
well it looks like youve just grown some, and theres me thinking all you puffs tiptoe about with handbags shouting "HI SUE!"

i give up, your obviously so dependent on your won beliefs you refuse to find a middle ground, theres a word for that but im obviously too stupid to think of it right now. :upyours:
Compromising your beliefs does not effect your personal life (in this case)

Compromising on my personal belief effects my personal future ... so you can shove it

well it looks like youve just grown some, and theres me thinking all you puffs tiptoe about with handbags shouting "HI SUE!"

There we go! Normal trolling!

There we go! Normal trolling!


ahahaha....sad. O well, this thread is worn out, surprisingly, i think i'm gonna grab some lunch. almost noon here on the west coast.

ahahaha....sad. O well, this thread is worn out, surprisingly, i think i'm gonna grab some lunch. almost noon here on the west coast.

Have a good one! I think I will do the same!

There we go! Normal trolling!

well thats what happens, someone tries to help smooth things over between two sides which hate each others guts and in the end one side turns on them, if you were smart enough to notice i was trying to evaluate both sides of the story but since you happy getting no where ill leave it be :headbang:

P.s, if im driving and a gay crosses the street, i speed up ;)

well thats what happens, someone tries to help smooth things over between two sides which hate each others guts and in the end one side turns on them, if you were smart enough to notice i was trying to evaluate both sides of the story but since you happy getting no where ill leave it be :headbang:

P.s, if im driving and a gay crosses the street, i speed up ;)

Said the fellow how thinks they should be publicly hung.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11097276&postcount=234

well thats what happens, someone tries to help smooth things over between two sides which hate each others guts and in the end one side turns on them, if you were smart enough to notice i was trying to evaluate both sides of the story but since you happy getting no where ill leave it be :headbang:

P.s, if im driving and a gay crosses the street, i speed up ;)

If I'm driving and you cross the street, I'll be sure not to hit you.

And yes, I am implying I am a better person.

If I'm driving and you cross the street, I'll be sure not to hit you.

And yes, I am implying I am a better person.

How can anyone tell that the person crossing the street is gay in the first place?

What, are homophobes expecting gay people to dress in pink and purple tutus, and sport bouffant hair styles?

well thats what happens, someone tries to help smooth things over between two sides which hate each others guts and in the end one side turns on them, if you were smart enough to notice i was trying to evaluate both sides of the story but since you happy getting no where ill leave it be :headbang:

P.s, if im driving and a gay crosses the street, i speed up ;)
Smooth things over? you opened up by stating we should be hung

How the fuck are we suposed to have civilized conversation after you state you want to kill us all

You dont want to debate you want to troll

How can anyone tell that the person crossing the street is gay in the first place?

What, are homophobes expecting gay people to dress in pink and purple tutus, and sport bouffant hair styles?

Probably.

N00bZ!!!1 YA FKI'N N00bZ!!!!! U POOPID STOOPID N00bZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BAN GAY MARRIAGE!!!!!!!!! ANYONE WHU IZ GAY IS A N00b!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:upyours: :upyours:

Wow, is that the stupidest post today, or what?

You know, part of the trouble with this argument is that I think I've read about 4 or 5 different takes on what meaning you put in the word "marriage".
Unless you define what it means (at least for teh sake of the debate), and everyone abides by that definition whenthey argue, you're just going to end up with confusion and un-constructive arguments.

Ok, there's marriage as a legal union between man and woman, acknowledged by the state.
Marriage as a legal union between man and woman, acknowledged by the church.
Marriage as an expression of love.

These are the three main ones I think.


My opinion is that two (or more) consenting adults (adults though, not kids) should be allowed to enter into a union that legaly means that they get family benefits according to what the government allots to families. Regardless of gender.

However, I also think that this union should include that those whop are a part of it should be equal (at least legally (or it it called juridically?)).
Some definitions of marriage today turns the woman into the husband's property. Not something I wish to see.


As for homosexuality being unnatural, I don't think it is. Based on what I've read and my own observations, most people seems to be bisexual, with monorities or heterosexuals and homosexuals.
However, thanks to the (particularily the West's) focus on heterosexuality as the norm, and because that is how the majority of people are raised, a majority of people think of themselves, or at least act outwardly, as heterosexuals.

Sex itself has also been debated, and there I believe (again both based on what I've read and my own observations) that humans are very much like the bonobo chimps, but with a much more structured culture (or rather, cultures) to confuse the matter.
Based on what people do if left to their own devices, humans practice sex for three reasons: To make babies; as a down to earth form of social interaction; comfort. (And sometimes boredom. The tellyshows isn't what they were :P)

The most obvious one is of course the mostly biological urge to make babies to continue the species.
Technically, we don't really need that, since we're at a point where we already are the dominant species and (thanks to shoddy management) can't feed everyone as it is.

However, humans also use sex as a form of social interaction (Sex and the City ring a bell? Or how the spartan women stopped a war by not putting out until their husbands singed a peace treaty :P).
Not only is there the pleasure and/or the desire of it, there's also the matter of how having sex with someone, or withholding it, affects our friends and enemies and how they think and deal with us outside the bed.

Third, there is comfort. Arguably, this is as much a case of love/intimacy as sex, but sex is part of it and therefore should be included.
The simple reason to feel desired, or safe, or cherished. Since sex can be a very intimate experience it also means it cam make you feel desired/safe/cherished very strongly when doing it and afterwards.

allow me to ask a question, lets say that the catholic bible bashers are right, and heaven and hell exists and God frowns upon homosexuality and all homosexuals are sent to hell, would you regret your life?

p.s i dont mean this to be offensive, im trying to understand your point of view.

allow me to ask a question, lets say that the catholic bible bashers are right, and heaven and hell exists and God frowns upon homosexuality and all homosexuals are sent to hell, would you regret your life?

p.s i dont mean this to be offensive, im trying to understand your point of view.
No. I'd think God was a bastard for making me this way then punishing me for being the way he made me.

In case you didn't guess, I'm an atheist.

Oh right, homosexuals as parents.

Besides thinking that everyone should have to go through a screening process if they want to get a baby (be they homo, hetero or single), I see no reason why homosexuals shouldn't be parents.

As usual, I base it both on what I've read and what I've observed, and since one of my friends and former boss is a lesbian with a girlfriend and two kids (and a dog. Except for being lesbians, they're the stereotype 'average family', which is very amusing in its irony).

I've observed no probelms with the kids and (except for being lesbians) they are good people on any moral standard, including the christian.


As with most other cases (bullying, tolerance, respect), good parents are good parents, whether they are homo or hetero.

How can anyone tell that the person crossing the street is gay in the first place?

What, are homophobes expecting gay people to dress in pink and purple tutus, and sport bouffant hair styles?


I can show you some spots in San Francisco and Los Angeles where you wouldn't have a problem. ;)

Oh, I also found a good link on pederasty (didn't know what the english term stood for).
It's Wikipedia, but the cite sources pretty extensively, so I think they have solid backgrounds for what is written there.

Part of the text:
Historical synopsis

In antiquity, pederasty as an educational institution for the inculcation of moral and cultural values, as well as a sexual diversion, was practiced from the Archaic period onwards in Ancient Greece. As idealized by the Greeks, pederasty was a relationship and bond–whether sexual or chaste–between an adolescent boy and an adult man outside of his immediate family. While most Greek men engaged in relations with both women and boys, exceptions to the rule were known, some avoiding relations with women and others rejecting relations with boys. In Rome relations with boys took a more informal and less civic, often illicit path.

Analogous relations were documented among other ancient peoples, such as the Thracians[1], the Celts and various Germanic peoples such the Heruli and the Taifali. According to Plutarch, the ancient Persians, too, had long practiced it (though according to Herodotus they learned of pederasty from the Greeks[2]).

Opposition to the carnal aspects of pederasty existed concurrently with the practice, both within and outside of the cultures in which it was found. Among the Greeks, a few cities prohibited pederasty, and in others, such as Sparta, some claimed that only the chaste form was permited. Likewise, Plato's writings devalue and finally condemn sexual intercourse with the boys one loved, while glorifying the self-disciplined lover who abstained from consummating the relationship.

The Judaeo-Christian faiths also condemned sodomy, a theme later promulgated by Islam and, later still, by the Baha'i Faith. Pederasty in particular was a target. The second century preacher Clement of Alexandria used pederasty as an indictment of Greek religion: "For your gods did not abstain even from boys. One loved Hylas, another Hyacinthus, another Pelops, another Chrysippus, another Ganymedes. These are the gods your wives are to worship!" [3] The early Christian emperors quashed pederasty, together with the other manifestations of Greco-Roman religion and culture, as part of the imposition of Christianity as a state religion. Early legal codes prescribed harsh penalties for violators. The law code of Visigoth king Chindasuinth called for both partners to be "emasculated without delay, and be delivered up to the bishop of the diocese where the deed was committed to be placed in solitary confinement in a prison." The Visigothic Code At Rome, the punishment was burning at the stake.

More recently, pederasty was widespread in Moorish Spain [4], and Tuscany and northern Italy during the Renaissance[5][6]. The Baha'i faith, which claims to be the fulfillment of all major religions and comes after Islam forbids pederasty. Indeed, it is the only mention of any type of homosexuality by Baha'u'llah. "We shrink, for very shame, from treating of the subject of boys. Fear ye the Merciful, O peoples of the world! Commit not that which is forbidden you in Our Holy Tablet, and be not of those who rove distractedly in the wilderness of their desires."[7] "The word translated here as "boys" has, in this context, in the Arabic original, the implication of paederasty. Shoghi Effendi has interpreted this reference as a prohibition on all homosexual relations." [8]

Elsewhere, it was practiced in pre-Modern Japan until the Meiji restoration [9], in Mughal India until the British colonization, amongst the Aztecs and Maya prior to the Spanish conquest of Mexico and in China and Central Asia until the early 20th century. In the Islamic world spiritual pederasty was incorporated into many mystic Sufi teachings. The tradition of pederasty persists to the present day in certain areas of Afghanistan, the Middle East, North Africa, and Melanesia.

Sexual expression between adults and adolescents is not well studied and since the 1990s has been often confused with pedophilia. Such relationships raise issues of morality and functionality, agency for the youth, and parental authority. They may also raise issues of legality in those cases where the minor is below the age of consent. Though they have been deemed beneficial by, for example, ancient philosophers, Japanese samurai and modern writers such as Oscar Wilde, today, many disapprove of them and claim that they have a negative effect on the psychological development of the youth. A study contradicting both positions, authored by Bruce Rind and others, was published by the American Psychological Association in 1998. See Historical pederastic relationships and Pederasty in the modern world

Link to Wiki entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty

allow me to ask a question, lets say that the catholic bible bashers are right, and heaven and hell exists and God frowns upon homosexuality and all homosexuals are sent to hell, would you regret your life?

p.s i dont mean this to be offensive, im trying to understand your point of view.

What?

Oh, I also found a good link on pederasty (didn't know what the english term stood for).
It's Wikipedia, but the cite sources pretty extensively, so I think they have solid backgrounds for what is written there.

Part of the text:
Historical synopsis

In antiquity, pederasty as an educational institution for the inculcation of moral and cultural values, as well as a sexual diversion, was practiced from the Archaic period onwards in Ancient Greece. As idealized by the Greeks, pederasty was a relationship and bond–whether sexual or chaste–between an adolescent boy and an adult man outside of his immediate family. While most Greek men engaged in relations with both women and boys, exceptions to the rule were known, some avoiding relations with women and others rejecting relations with boys. In Rome relations with boys took a more informal and less civic, often illicit path.

Analogous relations were documented among other ancient peoples, such as the Thracians[1], the Celts and various Germanic peoples such the Heruli and the Taifali. According to Plutarch, the ancient Persians, too, had long practiced it (though according to Herodotus they learned of pederasty from the Greeks[2]).

Opposition to the carnal aspects of pederasty existed concurrently with the practice, both within and outside of the cultures in which it was found. Among the Greeks, a few cities prohibited pederasty, and in others, such as Sparta, some claimed that only the chaste form was permited. Likewise, Plato's writings devalue and finally condemn sexual intercourse with the boys one loved, while glorifying the self-disciplined lover who abstained from consummating the relationship.

The Judaeo-Christian faiths also condemned sodomy, a theme later promulgated by Islam and, later still, by the Baha'i Faith. Pederasty in particular was a target. The second century preacher Clement of Alexandria used pederasty as an indictment of Greek religion: "For your gods did not abstain even from boys. One loved Hylas, another Hyacinthus, another Pelops, another Chrysippus, another Ganymedes. These are the gods your wives are to worship!" [3] The early Christian emperors quashed pederasty, together with the other manifestations of Greco-Roman religion and culture, as part of the imposition of Christianity as a state religion. Early legal codes prescribed harsh penalties for violators. The law code of Visigoth king Chindasuinth called for both partners to be "emasculated without delay, and be delivered up to the bishop of the diocese where the deed was committed to be placed in solitary confinement in a prison." The Visigothic Code At Rome, the punishment was burning at the stake.

More recently, pederasty was widespread in Moorish Spain [4], and Tuscany and northern Italy during the Renaissance[5][6]. The Baha'i faith, which claims to be the fulfillment of all major religions and comes after Islam forbids pederasty. Indeed, it is the only mention of any type of homosexuality by Baha'u'llah. "We shrink, for very shame, from treating of the subject of boys. Fear ye the Merciful, O peoples of the world! Commit not that which is forbidden you in Our Holy Tablet, and be not of those who rove distractedly in the wilderness of their desires."[7] "The word translated here as "boys" has, in this context, in the Arabic original, the implication of paederasty. Shoghi Effendi has interpreted this reference as a prohibition on all homosexual relations." [8]

Elsewhere, it was practiced in pre-Modern Japan until the Meiji restoration [9], in Mughal India until the British colonization, amongst the Aztecs and Maya prior to the Spanish conquest of Mexico and in China and Central Asia until the early 20th century. In the Islamic world spiritual pederasty was incorporated into many mystic Sufi teachings. The tradition of pederasty persists to the present day in certain areas of Afghanistan, the Middle East, North Africa, and Melanesia.

Sexual expression between adults and adolescents is not well studied and since the 1990s has been often confused with pedophilia. Such relationships raise issues of morality and functionality, agency for the youth, and parental authority. They may also raise issues of legality in those cases where the minor is below the age of consent. Though they have been deemed beneficial by, for example, ancient philosophers, Japanese samurai and modern writers such as Oscar Wilde, today, many disapprove of them and claim that they have a negative effect on the psychological development of the youth. A study contradicting both positions, authored by Bruce Rind and others, was published by the American Psychological Association in 1998. See Historical pederastic relationships and Pederasty in the modern world

Link to Wiki entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty


Don't forget the long British tradition of the "old boy network".

I would have a problem with Homosexual parents IF they forced thier child to become homosexual, if the child became homosexual through choice then i wouldnt have a problem but if they were pushed by thier parents it would be a different matter.

allow me to ask a question, lets say that the catholic bible bashers are right, and heaven and hell exists and God frowns upon homosexuality and all homosexuals are sent to hell, would you regret your life?

p.s i dont mean this to be offensive, im trying to understand your point of view.
In an abstract sense I don't think so, but if the choices I made in my life would condemn me to eternal suffering, does it matter?
Even if there was a chance to repent, the fact that I didn't regret my choices would make any conversion/repenting false and only a way to escape the tormenting, which probably would get me sent back to Hell.


On the other hand, I'm neither gay nor christian, so for me it's a moot point.

I would have a problem with Homosexual parents IF they forced thier child to become homosexual, if the child became homosexual through choice then i wouldnt have a problem but if they were pushed by thier parents it would be a different matter.


Too bad its not a choice. Do me a favor and see if you can choose to be gay, just for the sake of proving a point that shouldnt need to be proven. Of course, you wont know youre gay until you experiment ;)

What?

i was assuming that most of you didnt follow the catholic religion as most of the posts were denouncing it, it was a hypothetical question i wasnt expecting any serious answers lol

Don't forget the long British tradition of the "old boy network".
Good point. Perhaps it should be added to teh Wiki article.
I don't have sufficient knowledge of it myself, but it could be pointed out in the discussion section on Wiki.

I would have a problem with Homosexual parents IF they forced thier child to become homosexual, if the child became homosexual through choice then i wouldnt have a problem but if they were pushed by thier parents it would be a different matter.

I would have a problem with heterosexual parents if they (actively or not) forced their children to be heterosexual.

However, you cant FORCE anyone to have any kind of sexuality!!!! It just doesnt work that way! :headbang:

Too bad its not a choice. Do me a favor and see if you can choose to be gay, just for the sake of proving a point that shouldnt need to be proven. Of course, you wont know youre gay until you experiment ;)

Ahem. That's only proven to me that I'm bisexual.

No. Let them have the same legal rights as partners (hospital visitation and the like) but to allow them to marry is out of the question.

Ahem. That's only proven to me that I'm bisexual.

Hence why I said you dont know until you experiment.

Seriously, I wouldnt be surprised if he found something out about himself.

I would have a problem with Homosexual parents IF they forced thier child to become homosexual, if the child became homosexual through choice then i wouldnt have a problem but if they were pushed by thier parents it would be a different matter.
Which doesn't happen... and homosexuality, I repeat, is not a matter of choice. I'd rather be straight but, not being attracted to girls, I don't have that option...

DK, the old boys' network is entirely different and don't try to claim otherwise.

No. Let them have the same legal rights as partners (hospital visitation and the like) but to allow them to marry is out of the question.

Great argumentation. Really.:rolleyes:

Ahem. That's only proven to me that I'm bisexual.
Take a look at this... it might interest you... (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8772014&dopt=Citation)

I would have a problem with Homosexual parents IF they forced thier child to become homosexual, if the child became homosexual through choice then i wouldnt have a problem but if they were pushed by thier parents it would be a different matter.
I would have a problem with any parents that tried to force a child to conform to a norm they weren't suited to, or deisred.

I've met some wiccans that tried to force their beliefs on their daughter (who was atheist mostly), and I gave them as much a piece of my mind as I did the christians that tried to force their beliefs onto their son.

Like I said, good parents are good parents, regardless.


Those homosexual couples I know hasn't tried to force their kids to become homosexual.
The only difference in their raising I've encounterd is that they teach their kids that being homo is equally as valid as being hetero or bi.

No. Let them have the same legal rights as partners (hospital visitation and the like) but to allow them to marry is out of the question.

Then what the hell is the difference? A word? Is that it? Is this battle over a fucking word?

i was assuming that most of you didnt follow the catholic religion as most of the posts were denouncing it, it was a hypothetical question i wasnt expecting any serious answers lol

Catholic Bible Bashers tend to not believe in Heaven or Hell......

why should the government decide who can marry?

free the people and let the INDIVIDUAL choose who they marry and what they do in general.

why should the government decide who can marry?

free the people and let the INDIVIDUAL choose who they marry and what they do in general.
Ummm... yeah... anarchy doesn't work, it turns into darwinism which fails, we need a government. Look up some Hobbes...

Which doesn't happen... and homosexuality, I repeat, is not a matter of choice. I'd rather be straight but, not being attracted to girls, I don't have that option...

DK, the old boys' network is entirely different and don't try to claim otherwise.

can i ask, why would you choose to be straight? i mean the majority of the homosexuals on this board embrace thier sexuality and defend it openly.
i would also like to add that even if i were attracted to other men i would continue down the hetro path as i think its the right one.

I would have a problem with any parents that tried to force a child to conform to a norm they weren't suited to, or deisred.

Yeah, just like New Rhun's parents probably forced him to hate gays.

DK, the old boys' network is entirely different and don't try to claim otherwise.
I think DK meant that the Old Boy network had elements of spiritual (non-sexual) pederasty in it, ergo an older man taking on a younger man/adolescent to be his mentor/teacher.

can i ask, why would you choose to be straight? i mean the majority of the homosexuals on this board embrace thier sexuality and defend it openly.
i would also like to add that even if i were attracted to other men i would continue down the hetro path as i think its the right one.
I'd choose to be straight for a couple of reasons... primarily straight people don't get discriminated against, and there's no chance of being a target of hatecrime for my sexuality!

Ahem. That's only proven to me that I'm bisexual.

If you continue to like both sure.

Yeah, just like New Rhun's parents probably forced him to hate gays.

lmao, my mum and dad couldnt care less, as most of you say "its the individual that decides" lol

I think DK meant that the Old Boy network had elements of spiritual (non-sexual) pederasty in it, ergo an older man taking on a younger man/adolescent to be his mentor/teacher.
Nope... the old boy network is simply people advancing others, from the same school or uni, but expecting nothing in return...

I think DK meant that the Old Boy network had elements of spiritual (non-sexual) pederasty in it, ergo an older man taking on a younger man/adolescent to be his mentor/teacher.

Rather Jedi-esque...

Yeah, just like New Rhun's parents probably forced him to hate gays.
I doubt they forced him.
You know how most people respond to being forced. It only makes them push harder the other way.

If his parents have any part in his animosity towards gays (which doesn't have to be the case) it is probably their own general attitude, not what they taught him specifically, or forced him to.

Then what the hell is the difference? A word? Is that it? Is this battle over a fucking word?

no it's a battle those protecting the nuclear family and traditional values, and those who want to shove their 'progressive views' down the majority of America's throats.

It's a battle of beliefs. Give gay couples their legal rights that they piss and moan for, and then they wont have to invade a Christian institution.

Nope... the old boy network is simply people advancing others, from the same school or uni, but expecting nothing in return...
Well, they do get the presitige of having advocated a prodigy (if their prodigy is successful).
But thanks for clearing the matter up.

Unless someone comes and contradcts you. :P

they should be banned.


listen, it's not a question of ethics or morels. it's not wether they should be happy or not. it's about seperatation of church and state. Think about it. what is marrige. is it not a union of two people in the face of god, wether ahalla, yawhee, or whoever. look at the animal world. do animals marry, no. marrige came to be because of religion. really, marrige is nothing without religion. thus, it is Unconstitutional for the goverment to interfere in something that without religion, wouldn't exist. what should happen is that delagets from each major relgion decide what should happen for their relgion. and the government should step out of the church.

No. That's all. If someone starts argueing with me, I don't care. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Well, they do get the presitige of having advocated a prodigy (if their prodigy is successful).
But thanks for clearing the matter up.

Unless someone comes and contradcts you. :P
I go to a school with one of the most serious Old Boy's networks outside the South-East and my mother went to Cambridge.. yeah, bring it. :D

can i ask, why would you choose to be straight? i mean the majority of the homosexuals on this board embrace thier sexuality and defend it openly.
i would also like to add that even if i were attracted to other men i would continue down the hetro path as i think its the right one.
Probably out of a desire to have a simpler life.
It is easier to be openly homosexual on the net, less so in the real world, where stating a preference that differs from the norm can get you anything from ridiculed to killed.

Rather Jedi-esque...
Except for the Jedi/Padawan not being restricted to men and boys.

they should be banned.


listen, it's not a question of ethics or morels. it's not wether they should be happy or not. it's about seperatation of church and state. Think about it. what is marrige. is it not a union of two people in the face of god, wether ahalla, yawhee, or whoever. look at the animal world. do animals marry, no. marrige came to be because of religion. really, marrige is nothing without religion. thus, it is Unconstitutional for the goverment to interfere in something that without religion, wouldn't exist. what should happen is that delagets from each major relgion decide what should happen for their relgion. and the government should step out of the church.

The marriage laws and customs of ancient Rome are not easily summarized, because they were rather varied and underwent significant changes in the course of time. Still, without simplifying the issue too much, one may say that marriage and divorce were always personal, civil agreements between the participants and did not need the stamp of governmental or religious approval. Early in Roman history, a husband had considerable power over his wife and children, whom he could punish, sell, or even kill as he saw fit. However, eventually women came to enjoy a better legal position and gained more and more control over their lives and property. Thus, in imperial times husband and wife approached marriage as equals. Yet it seems that there was also a decline in marriage and birth rates, since the emperor Augustus found it necessary to pass drastic laws compelling people to marry and penalizing those who remained single. There were several forms of marriage, the first of which (by usus) involved no ceremony at all. It was established simply by the couple's living together for one year. Divorce was just as informal. A more formal kind of marriage (by coemptio) began with a ceremony in front of witnesses and was also dissolved with a ceremony. Members of the upper classes usually preferred an elaborate ceremony and thus married by confarreatio in front of ten witnesses and a priest. In the case of a divorce, another great ceremony was required. However, all three forms of marriage and divorce were equally valid.

The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century rejected the prevailing concept of marriage along with many other Catholic doctrines. Martin Luther declared marriage to be "a worldly thing . . . that belongs to the realm of government", and a similar opinion was expressed by Calvin. The English Puritans in the 17th century even passed an Act of Parliament asserting "marriage to be no sacrament" and soon thereafter made marriage purely secular. It was no longer to be performed by a minister, but by a justice of the peace. The Restoration abolished this law and reverted to the old system, but the Puritans brought their concept of marriage to America where it survived.

So... you were saying?

I Believe all the quire muffins should be forced to marry people of the opposite sex. And then we would not have this problem would we?

I Believe all the quire muffins should be forced to marry people of the opposite sex. And then we would not have this problem would we?
Either you are taking the piss, or you are being serious. In the first case... Ha. Ha. Ha.
In the second... that's what happened for centuries... and guess what. We have the problem...

I am a devout Christian, but I do not believe that being gay is a sin. If someone falls in love with the person of the same sex, they have the right to live together and be happy, and even get married.

they should be banned.


listen, it's not a question of ethics or morels. it's not wether they should be happy or not. it's about seperatation of church and state. Think about it. what is marrige. is it not a union of two people in the face of god, wether ahalla, yawhee, or whoever. look at the animal world. do animals marry, no. marrige came to be because of religion. really, marrige is nothing without religion. thus, it is Unconstitutional for the goverment to interfere in something that without religion, wouldn't exist. what should happen is that delagets from each major relgion decide what should happen for their relgion. and the government should step out of the church.
You might have a point there, but I think marriage will be very hard to get rid of.
Going back to what marriage actually was back in the days, before it became an issue of rights and a spectacle to ruin the bride and groom's families, marraige was simply a couple in love asking their priest or priestess to have the gods witness their love and bless it.

Marriage was originally only a confirmation of a love that already existed between the couple.

You might have a point there, but I think marriage will be very hard to get rid of.
Going back to what marriage actually was back in the days, before it became an issue of rights and a spectacle to ruin the bride and groom's families, marraige was simply a couple in love asking their priest or priestess to have the gods witness their love and bless it.

Marriage was originally only a confirmation of a love that already existed between the couple.
To requote one example...
Martin Luther declared marriage to be "a worldly thing . . . that belongs to the realm of government", and a similar opinion was expressed by Calvin. The English Puritans in the 17th century even passed an Act of Parliament asserting "marriage to be no sacrament" and soon thereafter made marriage purely secular. It was no longer to be performed by a minister, but by a justice of the peace
So, you were saying it was religious, right? In the protestant America, and the Protestant evangelical churches, it certianly shouldn't be! So in fact... they are traitors to their faith...

I Believe all the quire muffins should be forced to marry people of the opposite sex. And then we would not have this problem would we?
Hmm, no, we would have even worse problems.
They would cheat on their spouses with people they actually loved, but probably feel more miserable in general than what would have been the case if they had been free to marry the person they did love.

A miserable person is less effective at work, thus even with homosexuals being in the minority, the fact that their spouses might be miserable too quite likely would have an impact on the national economy.

I am a devout Christian, but I do not believe that being gay is a sin. If someone falls in love with the person of the same sex, they have the right to live together and be happy, and even get married.This is a true Christian right here. ^^^^

As long as marriage is a government institution, gay marriage should be allowed. If it is a religious institution, it would be wrong to force the matter. The line is rather blurry, but since the government makes specific laws and allowances for married couples I would argue marriage is a governmental institution. Thus, to maintain equal protection of laws, I argue that the government has an obligation to legalize gay marriage.

Wow, this poll is not a good measurement of America's view point.
Most Americans view marriage between a man and a woman union only.
Bottom line: This is not a scientific poll.

The state of CA (a liberal state with San Francisco) voted that marriage is between a man and a woman.