NationStates Jolt Archive

Right, but for the couples who dont have kids that money spent on the backpacks and sneakers would go elsewhere.

and...more couples who don't have kids means more money for the non-necessities industries. Besides, the vast majority of married couples are still family-producing ones.

Correct. And while women may buy such things anyway, they usually have to buy sneakers and backpacks for the kids first.
Stereotype, perhaps?

Exactly what I was saying. Those supporting it will ONLY consider that is must be the reasons you give. The farce is yours because you would have people believe this is the only possible reason for not wanting it legalized. I certainly do not hear any debate on why it would be a sound economic decision to allow gay marriage. Shopping takes place whether marriage does or not, so that one is irrelevant. Give me a reason for the tax laws to encompass gay marriage, a reason that would make it advantageous to the government. That is the point, the government does not hand down tax law because it can, there has to be a reason, a valid economically sound one.

When same sex marriage supporters can do that, the chances of it becoming legal will rise greatly. Until then you can blame it all on religion etc, but the fact is it is all about money.

Again, provide proof.

And again, the farce stays with you. Everyone from the government officials to the holy roller preacher only base their argument on, as you put it "emotion". There is not one person, aside from you, saying that "gay marriage is horrible and disgusting because of the math and economic reasons...but I won't provide any date or proof to back up my claim...but I took classes so I know what I'm talking about, so go take classes to understand and we'll talk then." Yeah, you still hold the farce.

I certainly do not hear any debate on why it would be a sound economic decision to allow gay marriage.
If we decided that gardening just didn't give the government enough economic incentive, should we ban that, too?

Give me a reason for the tax laws to encompass gay marriage, a reason that would make it advantageous to the government. That is the point, the government does not hand down tax law because it can, there has to be a reason, a valid economically sound one.
The government wouldn't need to "hand down tax law". It would only have to extend marriage to any two consenting adults, regardless of gender. Not. Hard.

Stereotype, perhaps?

Many stereotypes exist only through a trend. I know a multitude of gays, and many couples, and I'm not really shooting far off the mark. Besides, I mentioned entertainment first because most of the gays I know are some degree of videogame nerd as well.

This post is from another board. It isn't mine but comes close to explaining what I am talking about. I understand that those supporting gay marriage will not appreciate it, but it nothing else consider that without a reason to sanction gay marriage, it isn't going to happen for simply emotional purposes. Those that think that is all it is about are sorely mistaken.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gay people don't qualify for marriage. Not as marriage is defined. And not with regards to the purpose that marriage serves (reducing the state burden with regards to production of children).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


How does popping out children reduce the state burden? If anything, it makes the burden worse. More kids, more schools. If there aren't enough schools, cram more kids into the existing ones, resulting in a lower aggregate level of education. Those dumber kids turn into dumber adults, who pay fewer taxes and tend to soak up a larger share of the money given to programs like unemployment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I didn't say that. In fact, I said the opposite. Popping out children does increase the state burden. On that, you are absolutely correct. So. In order to combat this burden, a state might create a legal status for heterosexual couples in order to maximize the number of children born to two parents joined in an economic unit. If they do this, then they reduce that burden.

Get it? No marriage means all children born to single mothers, which in turn means massive burden on the state. Creation of a status of marriage create economic units consisting of the two people responsible for production of said child and reduces the burden on the state. So much so, that it's benefitial for the state to profide incentives for heterosexual couples to form into these economic units *prior* to having children, and still worthwhile to maintain that status even for heterosexual couples who choose not to or cannot produce children.

But there is *no* logic within that structure for gay marriage. It simply does not make any sense. There is no need for the state to expend resources providing incentives for gay couples to marry, since the state gains no benefit in return. It's simply a cost. We'd be providing benefits to a segment of society for no reason other then that we can.

By that logic, why not just give those benefits to any two people who ask for them whether they're "married" or not? If it's just about helping people live better lives, why restrict it at all? Once you open the gay marriage genie, you automatically validate any other form of marriage because you no longer have any logical reason to continue to restrict it.

The primary disagreement is over whether the state should provide benefits to people based on whether the people need and/or want them, or whether the benefits themselves generate a benefit to the state in return. Liberals will tend to lean towards providing benefits based on people's needs and wants. Conservatives will tend to lean towards only providing benefits to people based on the return benefit to the state (ie: more money saved by not having to care directly for children then is spent providing the benefits of marriage to heterosexual couples). It has nothing to do with whether you "like gays" or "hate gays". It has everything to do with a political ideology that says that every expense by the government should have a purpose beyond just "we can afford it and it would be nice".


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd think that the state would love gay marriage. They work, they pay their taxes, collect their healthcare/etc. benefits, and then they die. And there's absolutely no chance of a gay married couple spitting out fifteen odd kids that they have no way to support, and who will drain the government coffers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Heh. Again. That's exactly the reason why there's no reason to provide marriage benefits to gay couples. Gay couples aren't going to generate a burden on the state whether they're married or not. Thus, there's no reason for the state to grant a status of marriage. Certainly, the state has no reason to discurage gay relationships, but there's a wide gap between allowing something and subsidizing it. Marriage status essentially subsidizes the relationship and there's no reason to do that. It's not like the lack of gay marriage benefits from the state will make gay couples go out and have hetero sex and produce children that need state assistance...


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose that marriage serves is to legally confer benefits on the two people as one entity. It may be historically defined as "man and woman," but if we're going to base all our future actions as a society on religious dogma, then I'd like to see marriage return to its former biblical glory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ignore the bible. Ask yourself "why would the state provide benefits for two people to form into one economic entity?". Remember. We're not talking about a religious sacrament. Nor are we talking about a simple social contract. We're talking about state recognized marriage, which carries with it a host of tax benefits, health care benefits, inheritance, guardianship, power of attorney and a zillion other minor things, every single one of which is incredibly useful for a couple that produces children, but is more or less totally unecessary for one that doesn't.



Oh. And to whoever piped in with the oh-so-original "but not every heterosexual couple will or can produce children". Been there done that. Got the t-shirt.

How exactly will the state determine if any givern heterosexual couple can or will produce children? It can't. Not without requiring significant tests prior to marriage or witholding benefits until children are born. Both cases are negative to the purpose of the state in this case though. If you require tests, that will make it more of a hassle to marry. We're already having a problem with hetero couples producing children outside of marriage (up from 3% to 35% over the last 60 years). Adding an extra hurdle to jump before getting a marriage license isn't likely to help. And witholding benefits puts us right back where we started. We need an incentive for couples to marry *before* having children. Providing them only when they do means that many people wont consider marriage until they do, which means many more wont bother (since they can often get better benefits directly by not marrying instead).


The point is that there's no cheap and easy way to subdivide heterosexual couples in order to only allow marriage for those that can/will produce children. We simply can't blanketly divide that group in any rational fashion. We can, however, state with absolute certainty that it's impossible for a gay couple to produce a child together. Thus, it's entirely reasonable and "cheap" (remember, this is about reducing cost to the state) to deny marriage to gay couples on this ground. It's not reasonable to require heterosexual couples to prove that they can or will produce children. It's just not practical...

Many stereotypes exist only through a trend. I know a multitude of gays, and many couples, and I'm not really shooting far off the mark. Besides, I mentioned entertainment first because most of the gays I know are some degree of videogame nerd as well.
I understand. I just have to deal with a bunch of stereotypes at once and as you can imagine, it gets rather irritating, especially when they conflict.

Gay: I must wear rainbows and do all sorts of flamboyant actions as well as speak with a lispe.

Black: I must have a gun and have lots of 'bling' as well as deal with the 'hood' or 'ghetto'.

Nerd: I must have no life or social eptitude.

Furry: I must screw animals.

Christian: I must harrass people for thinking differently and force them to believe lest I tell them they will burn in hell.

Good for you!

You really did woke up this sleeping society:eek: !

And yes... it really is ok to be gay and if a gay want's to get married then WHY NOT!?

And for all of you there. Here's even another gay too!!!:upyours:

maybe it isn't SO normal if your "straight to say" but I even have a straight BOY friend and there isn't anything strange about that. :D

And he know's that im gay by the way!:sniper:

that's all now folks!;)

You still haven't offered any data. I'm majoring in Economics, so I'd be able to understand as well. From what it seems, the ONLY reason you have that gays shouldn't marry is because it's not benificial economically (which you haven't shown any data to support). If it's not benificial, then perhaps the rules need to be rewritten.

Yes, perhaps they should be rewritten. Until they are, it is likely it will not change. The gay constituency is not large enough to impact the issue by popularity alone.

Good for you!

You really did woke up this sleeping society:eek: !

And yes... it really is ok to be gay and if a gay want's to get married then WHY NOT!?

And for all of you there. Here's even another gay too!!!:upyours:

maybe it isn't SO normal if your "straight to say" but I even have a straight BOY friend and there isn't anything strange about that. :D

And he know's that im gay by the way!:sniper:

that's all now folks!;)

All I got out of this was the thought that maybe those five smilies combine to form a Megazord.

that puts a bad images in my head
Vogonsphere, please stop using the report button to report trivial things. If you don't like something, learn to ignore it unless it violates the forum rules.

~Erastide
Forum Moderator

*Snip*
I've read that before. Didn't agree with it then and don't agree with it now. The government's policy should not be basis solely on the economics. And it would not be grossly more expensive to allow gays to marry. Not to mention that gay couples ARE capable of having children. The child just won't be the offspring of one of the two.

*snip*




None of this proves your point in the least. In fact, most of that talked about heterosexual couples. All you did was take someone's post to try and prove yours. Offer some statistics, some data, or something to prove your point. Don't find someone else's post and say this what you're talking about. You're becoming real ridicious.

All I got out of this was the thought that maybe those five smilies combine to form a Megazord.
That's a 'lawl' right there XD.

So wait...marriage is a reward to those who create an economic burden? I fail to see the logic here.

I've read that before. Didn't agree with it then and don't agree with it now. The government's policy should not be basis solely on the economics. And it would not be grossly more expensive to allow gays to marry. Not to mention that gay couples ARE capable of having children. The child just won't be the offspring of one of the two.

It doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not, it is the REASON government sanctions marriage. And though you may think it shouldn't be the reason it is, that doesn't change.

And the argument that gay couples are capable of having children has some meat to it, but at this point the majority of people still see that as unacceptable. You haven't straddled the hurdle of "same sex marriage is "normal"" within society yet, you have to clear that one first before you are going to clear one regarding homosexuals having children is a good idea.

None of this proves your point in the least. In fact, most of that talked about heterosexual couples. All you did was take someone's post to try and prove yours. Offer some statistics, some data, or something to prove your point. Don't find someone else's post and say this what you're talking about. You're becoming real ridicious.

You think statistics proves why government holds the stance it does on sanctioning marriage??

I used the post because it sums up the point.

It doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not, it is the REASON government sanctions marriage. And though you may think it shouldn't be the reason it is, that doesn't change.

And the argument that gay couples are capable of having children has some meat to it, but at this point the majority of people still see that as unacceptable. You haven't straddled the hurdle of "same sex marriage is "normal"" within society yet, you have to clear that one first before you are going to clear one regarding homosexuals having children is a good idea.
The hurdle would be a lot easier to clear without the government making it difficult on us.

So wait...marriage is a reward to those who create an economic burden? I fail to see the logic here.

I dont' know what to do about your failure to see the logic. I am sorry for that. Certainly you realize your inability to see the logic does not negate the logic though.

I dont' know what to do about your failure to see the logic. I am sorry for that. Certainly you realize your inability to see the logic does not negate the logic though.

Are you married? Did you do it for economic reasons or because you love your spouse? If the latter you should get divorced immediately.

Are you married? Did you do it for economic reasons or because you love your spouse? If the latter you should get divorced immediately.
You mean the former. If the latter, she should stay married.

The hurdle would be a lot easier to clear without the government making it difficult on us.

Well the difficulty is not that they are making it hard on supporters of same sex marriage. The difficulty is that supporters want a new definition of what marriage has long meant in society and what the government has recognized as marriage to date. Anytime anyone tries to redefine existing standards it is going to be extremely difficult, it is not the fault of society or the government. It really isn't a fault at all, it is an evolution of things.

How long did it take women to gain rights? How long did it take blacks? Women's rights came about overall simply because of the increase in the voting population. We like to think it is because the government and men alike suddenly recognized our worth, but that is naive at best. If women were suddenly so worthy we would not still be battling inequality today. Blacks rights began with 350,000 white men dying for them. Yet inequality still exists today. Both battles womens and blacks were long and difficult because both asked for society and government to change and ADD something that was not there.

Adding something is much harder to do than taking away something or reinstating something that was already there. Same sex marriage should not be an easy fight, equal rights do not come easy and never have.

Yes, but the changes came, albeit slowly and, in some cases, with lots of bloodshed. We hope to avoid that, but apparently humans aren't very good at learning from history.

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

Leviticus 18:22 refers to a man lying on a woman's 'menstrual bed', as does Leviticus 20:13. (A 'woman's bed, or couch, is the bed other than the marriage bed, where a menstruating woman must recline, so as not to make the marriage bed unclean). There are a lot of Levitical references to menstuation, and even to the 'woman's bed'.

The Corinthians reference uses the word 'arsenokoites'... which exists nowhere else in scripture. Paul 'coined' the phrase - and looking at the root meanings gives a strong suggestion it refers to adultery.

The Romans reference doesn't explain the 'natural function'... but it would seem consistent that it appertains to child-birth... that being the 'natural function' of the woman, according to scripture. So, it isn't homosexuality that is condemned - it is not having children - which would include anyone married but not having sex, anyone who has ever engaged in a sex act which does not culminate in an orgasm, or which does not involve strictly vaginal intercourse...


But, what disturbs me - is that people will go through the Bible LOOKING for reasons to persecute the homosexual.

Why are you presenting all these arguments? How did you come up with this list of verses?

What you are doing is PERVERTING the scripture... scanning through to find verses that support a decision on morality that YOU have ALREADY made - looking for justification in the Bible... but you have decided you are anti-homosexuality ANYWAY.

Given that Canada and other countries have legalized gay marriage without catastrophic results, any excuses people come up with for it not being allowed in the US just seem stupid.

Uner law, marriage is nothing but a contract that allows two people to choose to function as a single economic entity and confers mutuals rights and responsibilities that go along with such a decision. Minors join that contract by either being born into it or by adoption and the parties to the contract are obligatator to support those minors until their majority. Why should any two adults mentally capable of entering into a contract be allowed to enter such an arrangement.

The religious blessing of a marriage is an entirely different thing. When a religious leader conducts a marriage in the US they actually function in two capacities. They are licensed by the state to validate civil contracts of marriage. There then is a second function where they are empowered by their religion to bless the marriage. Religious groups have a right to define what relationships they will and will not bless on whatever basis they choose. Thus if Episcopalians want to bless same sex marriage God bless them, if Southern Baptist do not want to, well God bless them as well. It is no one outside the religions business what they decide to do, but it is equally not religions business to tell the state who can enter into a civil contract.

Are you married? Did you do it for economic reasons or because you love your spouse? If the latter you should get divorced immediately.

I am married. I lived with someone for 15 years without marriage, so I have done both the government sanctioned marriage, and the none government sanctioned relationship. Neither had a thing to do with economics.

You seem to be confusing why people get married to why the government recognizes it. They aren't the same. Most people in western cultures marry for love. The government could care whether two people love each other or not. Love is an intangible the government doesn't pretend to regulate.

You seem to be confusing why people get married to why the government recognizes it. They aren't the same. Most people in western cultures marry for love. The government could care whether two people love each other or not. Love is an intangible the government doesn't pretend to regulate.

Then why are they lying their ass off saying they are trying to protect the sanctity of marriage?

And I still fail to see how these economic reasons put money in YOUR pocket. Gays getting married does not in any way hinder the economy. Things like a dropping dollar, rising gas prices, and a 9 trillion dollar deficit do. But those are completely fine, right?

You mean the former. If the latter, she should stay married.

No, she claims marriage is only for economic reasons. So unless she purely recognizes their marriage is for economics, she should divorce.

If the government feels the need to play with people's lives because it's 'economically convient' then there needs to be changes. Change is what the American Government is all about, as much as the Conservative Adminstration refuses to believe that.

While there are economic and traditional reasons why we should not allow homosexual marriage. The issue really boils down to what is right. Homosexuality is wrong, and while we should not punish them for something done in the private of their homes and which harms nobody but themselves, that does not mean that we should give them official recognition. Our government has the God-given duty to support that which is moral and right.

And the argument that gay couples are capable of having children has some meat to it, but at this point the majority of people still see that as unacceptable. You haven't straddled the hurdle of "same sex marriage is "normal"" within society yet, you have to clear that one first before you are going to clear one regarding homosexuals having children is a good idea.
I thought it had nothing to do with being normal or not--wasn't it just economics? And wouldn't getting gay people get married in case they might decide to reproduce--which some do--serve exactly the same purpose as getting straight people to marry in case they might reproduce, in terms of keeping the burden off the government? Especially when we're not looking to add anything to the laws, but to lose the ridiculous gender stipulations, I can't see why you're arguing so hard against it.

Anyway, as I said: it's perverse to deny something that hurts no one just because there are no perceived economic benefits to the state.

*sighs*

As a gay Christian, I can only say one thing. Much of the bible, which has been mistranslated, is complete BS. I hate saying it, but the bible cannot be the sole authority of my life when it has obviously been infected by the biases of its publishers. One particular version was even translated FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF INCREASING ITS SALES. So while I believe in God, I believe that much of what he wants for us is tossed to the side for arbitrary rules and regulations that do nothing but cause us pain.

As a Roman Catholic I can only say two things - a) I couldn't care less what sexuallity you possess - you are my brother/sister in Christ and I love you with all my heart. I would die for your right to exist in peace.

b) the bible does not contain any 'BS'. There is no mistranslation and there is no confusion - only difference in interpretation. If a man approaches the bible to seek justification for his life then he is clearly not after the truth. it is wrong of you to speak of scripture in that manner - it is offensive and it is false - you do a disservice to both yourself and to God.

my sexuallity remains my own business. And it is irrelevant - I am a man and I am "part of the main" as John Donne once wrote.

My goal is the betterment of humanity, not the definition of each subgroup and 'cause'.

"If you cut us, do we not bleeed?"

Peace,

David.

While there are economic and traditional reasons why we should not allow homosexual marriage. The issue really boils down to what is right. Homosexuality is wrong, and while we should not punish them for something done in the private of their homes and which harms nobody but themselves, that does not mean that we should give them official recognition. Our government has the God-given duty to support that which is moral and right.

And lets not prove that homosexuality is "wrong"

Homosexuality is wrong, and while we should not punish them for something done in the private of their homes and which harms nobody but themselves, that does not mean that we should give them official recognition. Our government has the God-given duty to support that which is moral and right.

And what gives you the right to decide homosexuality is wrong?

Leviticus 18:22 refers to a man lying on a woman's 'menstrual bed', as does Leviticus 20:13. (A 'woman's bed, or couch, is the bed other than the marriage bed, where a menstruating woman must recline, so as not to make the marriage bed unclean). There are a lot of Levitical references to menstuation, and even to the 'woman's bed'.

The Corinthians reference uses the word 'arsenokoites'... which exists nowhere else in scripture. Paul 'coined' the phrase - and looking at the root meanings gives a strong suggestion it refers to adultery.

The Romans reference doesn't explain the 'natural function'... but it would seem consistent that it appertains to child-birth... that being the 'natural function' of the woman, according to scripture. So, it isn't homosexuality that is condemned - it is not having children - which would include anyone married but not having sex, anyone who has ever engaged in a sex act which does not culminate in an orgasm, or which does not involve strictly vaginal intercourse...


But, what disturbs me - is that people will go through the Bible LOOKING for reasons to persecute the homosexual.

Why are you presenting all these arguments? How did you come up with this list of verses?

What you are doing is PERVERTING the scripture... scanning through to find verses that support a decision on morality that YOU have ALREADY made - looking for justification in the Bible... but you have decided you are anti-homosexuality ANYWAY.

You only need one defence - the best defence there is against the miscontextualising of scripture - Jesus Said Not A Word About Homosexuallity.

That's how little it mattered to him.

Jesus spoke mostly in general terms for one good reason - his mission was to call people to God through integrity and honesty...not fear and condemnation.

Hence Only John's Gospel looks out of place...as though 'additions' were made.

D.

Then why are they lying their ass off saying they are trying to protect the sanctity of marriage?

Certainly you can realize that an emotional stance is much easier to feed a public that has little or no education regarding economics. Both sides are completely guilty of this. It isn't necessarily a lie by either side. Emotional issues sometimes are all people care about, and though politicians are not voting on emotional based issues because OF the emotion the general public doesn't know that or really care. It is all over these boards from both sides, "I support it because it is about love", "I don't support it because it offends me"....all of which are emotional. Do you think politicians vote based in emotion or the emotions of their constituents?

And I still fail to see how these economic reasons put money in YOUR pocket. Gays getting married does not in any way hinder the economy. Things like a dropping dollar, rising gas prices, and a 9 trillion dollar deficit do. But those are completely fine, right?

If you didn't understand the economics in the reprint I posted I am genuinely sorry. It is clearly stated why benefits are granted through sanctioned marriage and the platform of why we grant benefits. Also both views on when we should and why they are different. I truly don't know a way to help you understand the economics of it, if you aren't getting it.



No, she claims marriage is only for economic reasons. So unless she purely recognizes their marriage is for economics, she should divorce.

No, yet again I will say it, I said the government recognizes marriage for economic purposes.

How is it fucking possible you people think "Accepting homosexuality into society doesn't impact heterosexual life"
There is nothing more wrong than that statement.
The impact would be breaking a code honoured since the beginning of Western civilization.
How the fuck will that not affect people?
What about the media?
What about the children? (Yes I understand this is quite a cliche argument but think about it, think about the fucking confusion this would cause to children)
You honestly think society will open the door to one of the most controversial issues and nobody will care?
:rolleyes:

How is it fucking possible you people think "Accepting
The impact would be breaking a code honoured since the beginning of Western civilization.


Permitting divorce broke part of that code, doesnt seem to cause real problems now. Against that are you?

If we didnt change we'd still be living in caves.

Today, I am about to shock my Conservative friends, yes I a Conservative myself, I do believe in smaller taxes, and smaller and limited government. I also like to have as much freedom as I can under the Consitution and the Bill of Rights. Keeping within the spirit of my political ideals, I believe that gays and lesbian should get married and have the same benefits as hetrosexual couples. Why you might ask? Well, the Republican would like you to think that they are protecting the scanity of marriage, but we have a 50% divorce rate in this country, scanity of marriage went out the windows a looonnngggg time ago. I would also like to point to Hollywood, a place were people marry and divorce more often than I change underwear! If anyone ruining the scanity of marriage, it's those damn hollywood couples who only get married for the publicity. Let me ask yall this, would it really matter to you, personally, if Adam and John get married? I mean how does that interfear into your personal life, or into your life at all? I mean us straight people get to talk about our wives and husband, I say we should give our gay and lesbian counterpart the same opporunity. If the Republican really want to "protect" the sancity of marriage, they would allow gays and lesbian to get married, and enforce the idea that you marry someone because you love them, and that you can't see yourself being without that person. Marriage isn't about money, or security for life, it's about love. The Republican should try to enforce that when it comes with the scanity of marriage. Also, they should ban Hollywood couples from getting married and divorce so many damn often!

*steps off soapbox*
You sure your a conservative? You sound more like one of those crazy libertarians.

How is it fucking possible you people think "Accepting homosexuality into society doesn't impact heterosexual life"
There is nothing more wrong than that statement.
The impact would be breaking a code honoured since the beginning of Western civilization.
How the fuck will that not affect people?
What about the media?
What about the children? (Yes I understand this is quite a cliche argument but think about it, think about the fucking confusion this would cause to children)
You honestly think society will open the door to one of the most controversial issues and nobody will care?
:rolleyes:
First and foremost, children are TAUGHT to abhore homosexuality. If left to their own devices they would discover it in one way or another, and they WOULDN'T CARE. People are taught to fear and hate things. My being homosexual and married would NOT affect your way of life. The only possible way it could would be if you came to the wedding.

First and foremost, children are TAUGHT to abhore homosexuality. If left to their own devices they would discover it in one way or another, and they WOULDN'T CARE. People are taught to fear and hate things. My being homosexual and married would NOT affect your way of life. The only possible way it could would be if you came to the wedding.

Right now I am not affected by homosexuality.
However, the issue keeps being raised "Accept it into society"
If that happens, it will affect me and everyone else 100%.
It will be crammed down my throat with every flick of the channel, glance at a billboard, trip to the movies, celebrity gossip, workplace, etc.

Then just accept it and move it out of the forfront. It'll continue to intensify otherwise.

And no, accepting it does not mean that the media will be forcing you to become gay. Like everything else, the media will forget about it and move on to the next big discrimination.

Right now I am not affected by homosexuality.
However, the issue keeps being raised "Accept it into society"
If that happens, it will affect me and everyone else 100%.
It will be crammed down my throat with every flick of the channel, glance at a billboard, trip to the movies, celebrity gossip, workplace, etc.

Awww bless, poor you. Thats really going to be tough for you.

Then just accept it and move it out of the forfront. It'll continue to intensify otherwise.

No it won't, if you think everyone in the society is fine with homosexuality, you are dead wrong.

No it won't, if you think everyone in the society is fine with homosexuality, you are dead wrong.
If everyone was fine with homosexuality, this topic wouldn't exist. But once people grow up and realize that there's really nothing anyone can do about its existance, the sooner it will be forgotten by the media and life will move on.

No it won't, if you think everyone in the society is fine with homosexuality, you are dead wrong.

I'm not fine with a lot of things, that doesn't mean I think they should be illegal though.

If everyone was fine with homosexuality, this topic wouldn't exist. But once people grow up and realize that there's really nothing anyone can do about its existance, the sooner it will be forgotten by the media and life will move on.

Okay fine, in that sense you are saying it will be shoved into a dark corner.
As long as I don't hear about it, I don't care.

Okay fine, in that sense you are saying it will be shoved into a dark corner.
As long as I don't hear about it, I don't care.
Resolved issues never stay in the media long.

No it won't, if you think everyone in the society is fine with homosexuality, you are dead wrong.
Yeah. Not everyone's fine with having black people in their neighborhoods, either. We know there will always be bigots.

How is it fucking possible you people think "Accepting homosexuality into society doesn't impact heterosexual life"
There is nothing more wrong than that statement.
The impact would be breaking a code honoured since the beginning of Western civilization.
How the fuck will that not affect people?
What about the media?
What about the children? (Yes I understand this is quite a cliche argument but think about it, think about the fucking confusion this would cause to children)
You honestly think society will open the door to one of the most controversial issues and nobody will care?
:rolleyes:

"code Honoured since the beginning of western civilisation" ?!

Which history text are you getting that from?! Are you referring to the Romans? The Greeks? The Celts? The Vikings? In all of which homosexuallity was not the prime concern of the day.

Your assertion is both inflammatory and (more worryingly) incorrect. It demonstrates the lack of a basic understanding of western civilisation. Homosexuallity has never been the cause of a society's destruction. Not in the ancient world and not in modern times.

The prime cause for a society's implosion has always been 1)Money, 2)War.

It was once also considered 'honourable' to own as many slaves as possible. That too is an ancient code....I suppose you would 'honour' that as well?

I quote P J O'Rourke - "I have one word for people who hark back to 'The Good Old Days'....'Dentistry' ". Though he uses humour his point is clear - there has never been 'A Golden Age of Man'.

I believe you would do well to read some poems byt Holocaust survivor Primo Levi. They might throw light on this conviction of yours that there is an "Us" and a "Them".

DJSM.

How is it fucking possible you people think "Accepting homosexuality into society doesn't impact heterosexual life"
There is nothing more wrong than that statement.
The impact would be breaking a code honoured since the beginning of Western civilization.
How the fuck will that not affect people?
What about the media?
What about the children? (Yes I understand this is quite a cliche argument but think about it, think about the fucking confusion this would cause to children)
You honestly think society will open the door to one of the most controversial issues and nobody will care?
:rolleyes:

You realise all these same 'arguments' have been made about skin-colour? About religion? About nationality?

None of these 'arguments' was worth shit, then, either.

How would the "impact would be breaking a code honoured since the beginning of Western civilization"... and which code would that be? Have you even done the most cursory review of Western history?

What about the media? Good question... what about them? Are we going to determine what national policies should be... based on what journalists write? And, surely - if the media is faced with something that is rapidly NOT news anymore, this becomes irrelevent?

What about the children? What is your argument here? The nuclear family has never been the only model, and is rarely the best. The most stable family environments are those that share extended families - which means that it ultimately doesn't MATTER if Billy actually has a mom and another mom, because Billy's family is bigger than just that.

Single-parents, adoption, fostering, extended families, people with housemates or lodgers, children that live in two homes, children that live with grandma, sublets, even the duplex - all are variations on the standard 'household'. It is ridiculous to imply that homosexuality has any EXTRA impact.

Right now I am not affected by homosexuality.
However, the issue keeps being raised "Accept it into society"
If that happens, it will affect me and everyone else 100%.
It will be crammed down my throat with every flick of the channel, glance at a billboard, trip to the movies, celebrity gossip, workplace, etc.

Is he serious?

How is it fucking possible you people think "Accepting homosexuality into society doesn't impact heterosexual life"
There is nothing more wrong than that statement.
The impact would be breaking a code honoured since the beginning of Western civilization.

Laws against homosexual marriage traditionally havn't existed in Western society, they are pretty new. And you might be shocked at how many gay marriages there were in Western society, even that of a notable Roman Emperor. Yet, we're still here. It didn't bring civilization crashing down upon us.

Marriage as a 'code' between a man and a woman is a strictly Christian, religious code. It was not the civil code of all of Western society.

No, you completely misunderstand. Being born as I was does NOT stop me from believing in God and Jesus Christ and his teachings. I would never mock the Bible. I'm merely acknowledging the fact that it is an imperfect work written by imperfect people and that everything written in it should be taken with a grain of salt. And I refuse to let a single source dominate my life when there are so many other points of view to take into consideration.
OK, but if you discount the bits of the Bible that don't suit you (because frankly, the passages on homosexuality are no less reliable or unambiguous than the rest) then where do you draw the line? How do you still believe in Jesus Christ when his biography and theology is part of an imperfect work written by imperfect people?

OK, but if you discount the bits of the Bible that don't suit you (because frankly, the passages on homosexuality are no less reliable or unambiguous than the rest) then where do you draw the line? How do you still believe in Jesus Christ when his biography and theology is part of an imperfect work written by imperfect people?

Just because the bible is flawed doesnt mean Jesus and his teachings didnt exist.

But, what disturbs me - is that people will go through the Bible LOOKING for reasons to persecute the homosexual.

Why are you presenting all these arguments? How did you come up with this list of verses?

What you are doing is PERVERTING the scripture... scanning through to find verses that support a decision on morality that YOU have ALREADY made - looking for justification in the Bible... but you have decided you are anti-homosexuality ANYWAY.
I don't think that's true of myself. Before I became a Christian, I was in support of gay marriage. But then, reading the Bible, I began to realise that God's word was against such things.

Just because the bible is flawed doesnt mean Jesus and his teachings didnt exist.
All I'm saying is that if you wish to discount bits of the Bible, you should do it on the basis of textual reliability, not because they disagree with your convictions.

All I'm saying is that if you wish to discount bits of the Bible, you should do it on the basis of textual reliability, not because they disagree with your convictions.

And how much of the bible do YOU discount?

And how much of the bible do YOU discount?
Well, I am an evangelical Christian, so personally I think that all of it is theologically true and relevant.

Laws against homosexual marriage traditionally havn't existed in Western society, they are pretty new. And you might be shocked at how many gay marriages there were in Western society, even that of a notable Roman Emperor. Yet, we're still here. It didn't bring civilization crashing down upon us.

Marriage as a 'code' between a man and a woman is a strictly Christian, religious code. It was not the civil code of all of Western society.

Hatred against homosexuality has always existed.
Yes, it was always based around religious beliefs.
Do you know what? People were and are still strongly attached to the beliefs of their religion.

http://www.iwgonline.org/docs/persecution.html

homosexuality is an illness

homosexuality is an illness

Funny, I don't recall finding homosexuality as a disease in the medical dictionary.

Well, I am an evangelical Christian, so personally I think that all of it is theologically true and relevant.
Well, I'm not evangelical. I'm non-denominational. You could say that I'm looking for a church that suits the way I view the world. You could say that I believe in God and Christ but am wary of the bible. In the passage of 2000 years, it's obvious that certain things were changed, possibly editted out by people in the past. I believe that the Book of Revelations was almost not accepted by the Catholic Church because it showed a Jesus far less kind than the image they wanted.

So basically, you could say that I use the bible to determine how I should best live my lifestyle, not only to further society, but to increase my happiness. If that means that I'll go to hell for eating pork and getting screwed by God, well, that's between me and Him. I like to think that our God is above such arbitrary rules and would not condemn the people He made. I believe He is far more lenient than what is put forward.

You can sort of say that I believe that any good person, who tries his or her best to improve society and himself, will make it into heaven, even if they don't necessarily believe in him. After all, eternal life should not be taken away so frivolously. There are souls that have died without ever hearing of the words of Jesus Christ. Others yet have been taught that it is evil. Others still don't believe it's logical enough and have been dissuaded by the followers of the religion. It's not their fault, and they shouldn't be punished for it.

In Reply To Thread Title

:upyours: Let's not. When an overwhelming majority are opposed to it, let's definitely not. I'm not for letting a minority ruin the moral values of this country, much less letting them redefine the whole concept of marraige and family values:mad: . I've worked tirelessly, along with a great many others, to help get legislation like this put before Congress and the House of Reps. There's a saying around these parts, "If you don't like it you can leave".

Our next hope is to get adoption of children by queers put an end to.

(I refuse to call queers "gay". Gay is a word that means happy, not queer or deviant. Queer is a perfectly apt description in this. Screw political correctness, it's ruining this country:mad: . I'd rather be openly honest about how I feel rather than anxious and discusted while catering to the feelings of someone I could care less about.)

In Reply To Thread Title

:upyours: Let's not. When an overwhelming majority are opposed to it, let's definitely not. I'm not for letting a minority ruin the moral values of this country, much less letting them redefine the whole concept of marraige and family values:mad: . I've worked tirelessly, along with a great many others, to help get legislation like this put before Congress and the House of Reps. There's a saying around these parts, "If you don't like it you can leave".

Our next hope is to get adoption of children by queers put an end to.

(I refuse to call queers "gay". Gay is a word that means happy, not queer or deviant. Queer is a perfectly apt description in this. Screw political correctness, it's ruining this country:mad: . I'd rather be openly honest about how I feel rather than anxious and discusted while catering to the feelings of someone I could care less about.)

Your country has morals? It has values? HA! Thats good one! :p

In Reply To Thread Title

:upyours: Let's not. When an overwhelming majority are opposed to it, let's definitely not. I'm not for letting a minority ruin the moral values of this country, much less letting them redefine the whole concept of marraige and family values:mad: . I've worked tirelessly, along with a great many others, to help get legislation like this put before Congress and the House of Reps. There's a saying around these parts, "If you don't like it you can leave".

Blacks are a minorty....
:rolleyes:

Well, I'm not evangelical. I'm non-denominational. You could say that I'm looking for a church that suits the way I view the world. You could say that I believe in God and Christ but am wary of the bible. In the passage of 2000 years, it's obvious that certain things were changed, possibly editted out by people in the past. I believe that the Book of Revelations was almost not accepted by the Catholic Church because it showed a Jesus far less kind than the image they wanted.

So basically, you could say that I use the bible to determine how I should best live my lifestyle, not only to further society, but to increase my happiness. If that means that I'll go to hell for eating pork and getting screwed by God, well, that's between me and Him. I like to think that our God is above such arbitrary rules and would not condemn the people He made. I believe He is far more lenient than what is put forward.

You can sort of say that I believe that any good person, who tries his or her best to improve society and himself, will make it into heaven, even if they don't necessarily believe in him. After all, eternal life should not be taken away so frivolously. There are souls that have died without ever hearing of the words of Jesus Christ. Others yet have been taught that it is evil. Others still don't believe it's logical enough and have been dissuaded by the followers of the religion. It's not their fault, and they shouldn't be punished for it.
If you believe in Jesus Christ, then it's probably important to you what Jesus said. Now Jesus said things like, "No-one comes to the Father except through me." Jesus keeps talking about hell and judgement. The Jesus of the Gospels talks about himself being given authority to judge the world, and in Revelation we see him do exactly that.
Basically, according to the Bible there are no "good people". In fact, the Bible's verdict is pretty damning. Paul sums it up, with a lot of quotes from the Old Testament (from Romans):
9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better[b]? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."
13"Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit."
"The poison of vipers is on their lips."
14"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."
15"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery mark their ways,
17and the way of peace they do not know."
18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."
Basically, you and I both deserve God's judgement for our rejection of Him. Homosexuality is a sin and must be punished by God, but so are other sexual sins, including my own. Jesus saves us from God's judgement by suffering it himself. If we could make it into heaven by ourselves, Jesus needn't have come. But he came to save sinners like myself.

American politicians place their hand on the Bible (or whatever book they believe in) to uphold the Constitution, they don't place their hand on the Constitution to uphold the Bible.

I don't think that's true of myself. Before I became a Christian, I was in support of gay marriage. But then, reading the Bible, I began to realise that God's word was against such things.

This is entirely untrue.

Even if you DID believe that the Levitical passages, etc frown upon homosexual SEX (which is highly debatable... and 'Old Law' anyway)... nowhere does the scripture EVER discuss the rights or wrongs of gay marriage, except in roundabout fashion.

For example - try taking a look through the scripture at how many times ANY act of 'lust' (or even CONTEMPLATION) of such acts is decried.

The problem with homosexual sex, in a scriptural sense - is that it is ALL ABOUT lust... it cannot be used for reproduction (although a homosexual can still have children...) so it MUST be lust.

But - you notice, that homosexual AND heterosexual lust are condemned... and, in fact, Paul has a specific solution...

"It is better to marry, than to burn".

In other words - if you call yourself a Christian, and you claim to follow scripture - you should EMBRACE gay marriage, as the antidote to 'lust'.

This is entirely untrue.

Even if you DID believe that the Levitical passages, etc frown upon homosexual SEX (which is highly debatable... and 'Old Law' anyway)... nowhere does the scripture EVER discuss the rights or wrongs of gay marriage, except in roundabout fashion.

For example - try taking a look through the scripture at how many times ANY act of 'lust' (or even CONTEMPLATION) of such acts is decried.

The problem with homosexual sex, in a scriptural sense - is that it is ALL ABOUT lust... it cannot be used for reproduction (although a homosexual can still have children...) so it MUST be lust.

But - you notice, that homosexual AND heterosexual lust are condemned... and, in fact, Paul has a specific solution...

"It is better to marry, than to burn".

In other words - if you call yourself a Christian, and you claim to follow scripture - you should EMBRACE gay marriage, as the antidote to 'lust'.

A sin to stop a sin?
Contradiction.

A sin to stop a sin?
Contradiction.
With as fucked up as some of the Christian dogma is that contradiction is a rather small one compared to some of that shit

A sin to stop a sin?
Contradiction.

How would it be a sin to stop a sin?

The scripture NEVER says 'gay marriage' IS a sin.

When a man loves a woman, it's called love.
But when a man/woman loves their own gender, it's called lust.

I REALLY don't understand that. Why is it that people think that we're more likely to commit lust? If I LOVE someone, it isn't the love of getting into that person's pants. I love them because of who they are. Sex is not important (albeit fun) and not what I like to base my relationship on.

A sin to stop a sin?
Contradiction.

I'm afraid you'll have to take that up with St. Paul. He's quite clear on the matter. As far as he was concerned, marriage was the lesser of two evils - the best case scenario was for everyone to be entirely celibate, but, if one couldn't manage that, one should marry the person he would otherwise be lusting after and/or fornicating with.

This is entirely untrue.

Even if you DID believe that the Levitical passages, etc frown upon homosexual SEX (which is highly debatable... and 'Old Law' anyway)... nowhere does the scripture EVER discuss the rights or wrongs of gay marriage, except in roundabout fashion.

For example - try taking a look through the scripture at how many times ANY act of 'lust' (or even CONTEMPLATION) of such acts is decried.

The problem with homosexual sex, in a scriptural sense - is that it is ALL ABOUT lust... it cannot be used for reproduction (although a homosexual can still have children...) so it MUST be lust.

But - you notice, that homosexual AND heterosexual lust are condemned... and, in fact, Paul has a specific solution...

"It is better to marry, than to burn".

In other words - if you call yourself a Christian, and you claim to follow scripture - you should EMBRACE gay marriage, as the antidote to 'lust'.
I never said that the Bible doesn't condemn all acts of lust; it certainly does. Some Christians, including myself a lot of the time, are guilty of over-emphasizing the sin of homosexuality whilst not devoting as much attention to lust, extramarital heterosexual sex etc.
Naturally the Bible doesn't discuss the specifics of gay marriage, simply because it wasn't an issue in the context of the time. Nonetheless, it gives us valuable guidelines.
There's a reason why God made men and women to be different and not the same - so that man could perfectly help, support and complement woman and vice versa. Marriage, as instituted by God, is a celebration of the differences between men and women. Gay marriage is not what God meant for marriage to be.

...is a celebration of the differences between men and women.

And SSM is a celebration of the differences in human sexuality that god created.

I'm afraid you'll have to take that up with St. Paul. He's quite clear on the matter. As far as he was concerned, marriage was the lesser of two evils - the best case scenario was for everyone to be entirely celibate, but, if one couldn't manage that, one should marry the person he would otherwise be lusting after and/or fornicating with.
Paul's thinking on the matter is that you could serve God more whole-heartedly as an unmarried person. Nonetheless, in biblical thinking (including Paul) marriage is not "the lesser of two evils", but a gift of God.

I never said that the Bible doesn't condemn all acts of lust; it certainly does. Some Christians, including myself a lot of the time, are guilty of over-emphasizing the sin of homosexuality whilst not devoting as much attention to lust, extramarital heterosexual sex etc.
Naturally the Bible doesn't discuss the specifics of gay marriage, simply because it wasn't an issue in the context of the time. Nonetheless, it gives us valuable guidelines.
There's a reason why God made men and women to be different and not the same - so that man could perfectly help, support and complement woman and vice versa. Marriage, as instituted by God, is a celebration of the differences between men and women. Gay marriage is not what God meant for marriage to be.
Fortunately, here in Holland we've decided to tell people like you to shove it, because we have separation of church and state.

I never said that the Bible doesn't condemn all acts of lust; it certainly does. Some Christians, including myself a lot of the time, are guilty of over-emphasizing the sin of homosexuality whilst not devoting as much attention to lust, extramarital heterosexual sex etc.
Naturally the Bible doesn't discuss the specifics of gay marriage, simply because it wasn't an issue in the context of the time. Nonetheless, it gives us valuable guidelines.
There's a reason why God made men and women to be different and not the same - so that man could perfectly help, support and complement woman and vice versa. Marriage, as instituted by God, is a celebration of the differences between men and women. Gay marriage is not what God meant for marriage to be.
So presumptuous to know the will of god … especially a will assumed through omission rather then defined.

I never said that the Bible doesn't condemn all acts of lust; it certainly does. Some Christians, including myself a lot of the time, are guilty of over-emphasizing the sin of homosexuality whilst not devoting as much attention to lust, extramarital heterosexual sex etc.
Naturally the Bible doesn't discuss the specifics of gay marriage, simply because it wasn't an issue in the context of the time. Nonetheless, it gives us valuable guidelines.
There's a reason why God made men and women to be different and not the same - so that man could perfectly help, support and complement woman and vice versa. Marriage, as instituted by God, is a celebration of the differences between men and women. Gay marriage is not what God meant for marriage to be.

The reason men and women are different, is because one needs to throw the sperm, and one needs to catch it... IF you want babies.

As for your assertion that 'gay marriage wasn't an issue'... it is scary how right you are, but for all the wrong reasons. We are talking about times and places with a strong Greek presence. Thus the society was much more accepting than our backwards society of today.

As for 'what God meant marriage to be', that's between YOU and YOUR god, and should have NOTHING to do with what OTHER people do.

Fortunately, here in Holland we've decided to tell people like you to shove it, because we have separation of church and state.

Thats some smart thinking indeed. More countries should adopt that concept.

Paul's thinking on the matter is that you could serve God more whole-heartedly as an unmarried person. Nonetheless, in biblical thinking (including Paul) marriage is not "the lesser of two evils", but a gift of God.

Not at all - Paul is explicit that one SHOULD be an eunuch if one could, and that marriage is marginally better than fornication.

The reason men and women are different, is because one needs to throw the sperm, and one needs to catch it... IF you want babies.
Of course there is a biological reason too. But God didn't make men and women different just for the purpose of reproduction, but also so they could complement each other.
As for your assertion that 'gay marriage wasn't an issue'... it is scary how right you are, but for all the wrong reasons. We are talking about times and places with a strong Greek presence. Thus the society was much more accepting than our backwards society of today.
You're forgetting that the apostles all came from Jewish society, in which gay relationships were frowned upon. Paul strongly asserted Old Testament moral law.
As for 'what God meant marriage to be', that's between YOU and YOUR god, and should have NOTHING to do with what OTHER people do.
Well, if the Bible is true, then God is the God of the whole universe, and His commands apply everywhere and to everyone.

Paul's thinking on the matter is that you could serve God more whole-heartedly as an unmarried person. Nonetheless, in biblical thinking (including Paul) marriage is not "the lesser of two evils", but a gift of God.

Fair; to call it the lesser of two evils is perhaps an overstatement - the phrase has become idiomatic, and was not meant to imply that Paul thought of marriage as "evil." While he did think some rather crazy things about marriage, at least in my opinion (the whole "husband is to wife as God is to man" thing? gah...), that was indeed not one of them. :)

That said, he was pretty unambiguous about celibacy being morally superior to marriage, gift of God or no, which was really all I was saying.

Of course there is a biological reason too. But God didn't make men and women different just for the purpose of reproduction, but also so they could complement each other.

I'm a little confused as to what you're trying to say. It sounds as if you believe that all men are identical, and all women are identical. The gay couples I know appear to be made up of two different people who complement each other, just like all of the straight couples I know.

Not at all - Paul is explicit that one SHOULD be an eunuch if one could, and that marriage is marginally better than fornication.
1 Corinthians 7:7: "I wish that all were as I myself am [i.e. single]. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another."
So basically, according to Paul, singleness is a gift. But marriage is a gift too. God gives different gifts to different people.
Paul does say that he would prefer for people to stay single, but he does not consider marriage something bad. Indeed, he frequently outlines right ideals for marriage (Romans 7:2-5, 10-16; Ephesians 5:22-33; Colossians 3:18-19).

I'm a little confused as to what you're trying to say. It sounds as if you believe that all men are identical, and all women are identical. The gay couples I know appear to be made up of two different people who complement each other, just like all of the straight couples I know.
I'm not saying that all men are identical. That would be kind of weird. But there are differences between the sexes that go beyond anatomy.

I'm not saying that all men are identical. That would be kind of weird. But there are differences between the sexes that go beyond anatomy.
Hell there are differences between members of the same sex that go beyond anatomy … who are you to say that those differences can not be complementary despite the sex they happen to be?

I'm not saying that all men are identical. That would be kind of weird. But there are differences between the sexes that go beyond anatomy.

Really? Please, name one entirely non-anatomical trait that is true of all men or of all women.

Hell there are differences between members of the same sex that go beyond anatomy … who are you to say that those differences can not be complementary despite the sex they happen to be?
I was only trying to outline the Bible's position, which is that men and women are complementary in a way that people of the same sex aren't. I assume that that's why God made a woman as Adam's helper, and not another man.

Hatred against homosexuality has always existed.
Yes, it was always based around religious beliefs.
Do you know what? People were and are still strongly attached to the beliefs of their religion.

http://www.iwgonline.org/docs/persecution.html

I think several ancient cultures would disagree with you.

I was only trying to outline the Bible's position, which is that men and women are complementary in a way that people of the same sex aren't. I assume that that's why God made a woman as Adam's helper, and not another man.

God made men and women experience love and sexual pleasure. So what makes you think two men or two women cannot experience love and sexual pleasure? Why would God oppose something he created himself? Contradiction right there.

I was only trying to outline the Bible's position, which is that men and women are complementary in a way that people of the same sex aren't. I assume that that's why God made a woman as Adam's helper, and not another man.

You haven't read your scripture very well, then.

Eve was FAR from the first design.

You haven't read your scripture very well, then.

Eve was FAR from the first design.
Explain?

Of course there is a biological reason too. But God didn't make men and women different just for the purpose of reproduction, but also so they could complement each other.


Opinion.


You're forgetting that the apostles all came from Jewish society,


Really? I'd like to see you prove this...

in which gay relationships were frowned upon.


This is also something I'd like to see proved...

Paul strongly asserted Old Testament moral law.


No, he really didn't - he asserted the Post-Jesus version.


Well, if the Bible is true, then God is the God of the whole universe, and His commands apply everywhere and to everyone.

And, if the Koran is true, you'd better be on your knees calling out Allah's name.

But - we can't PROVE it for ANY of them - which is why we have to get along DESPITE the religious convictions each of us may hold.

And that means keeping YOUR church the hell out of MY bedroom.

God made men and women experience love and sexual pleasure. So what makes you think two men or two women cannot experience love and sexual pleasure? Why would God oppose something he created himself? Contradiction right there.
Through the Fall, God's perfect creation was corrupted. One aspect of that corruption is that we misuse God's gifts. For example, God gave us the earth to enjoy and to sustain us; but instead, we're going around destroying the environment. Similarly, we have also corrupted God's gift of sex, which was meant to be experienced in the context of an exclusive, lifelong heterosexual relationship.

Explain?

Not the scriptural expert you pretend?

Have you READ Genesis?

Explain?

Try googling "Apocrypha". You might learn something... ;)

Through the Fall, God's perfect creation was corrupted. One aspect of that corruption is that we misuse God's gifts. For example, God gave us the earth to enjoy and to sustain us; but instead, we're going around destroying the environment. Similarly, we have also corrupted God's gift of sex, which was meant to be experienced in the context of an exclusive, lifelong heterosexual relationship.

Well if god didn't meant for 2 men or 2 women to experience love and relationship, why would he even make same-sex love possible? Explain that.

Through the Fall, God's perfect creation was corrupted. One aspect of that corruption is that we misuse God's gifts. For example, God gave us the earth to enjoy and to sustain us; but instead, we're going around destroying the environment. Similarly, we have also corrupted God's gift of sex, which was meant to be experienced in the context of an exclusive, lifelong heterosexual relationship.
There we go again, basing homosexual relationships merely off sex. It's not all about that.

Opinion.
Bible.
Really? I'd like to see you prove this...
What's there to prove? The Twelve were all Jewish men, in fact part of rural Galilean society that was not as exposed to hellenization.
This is also something I'd like to see proved...
Leviticus, I assume.
No, he really didn't - he asserted the Post-Jesus version.
Romans 7:12: "So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good."
And, if the Koran is true, you'd better be on your knees calling out Allah's name.

But - we can't PROVE it for ANY of them - which is why we have to get along DESPITE the religious convictions each of us may hold.

And that means keeping YOUR church the hell out of MY bedroom.
Saying that we can't prove it is to assume that religion is guessing about God. But the God of the Bible is one who reveals Himself, foremost in Jesus Christ. So, if we can find out whether Jesus really did and said what the gospels claim he did, then that tells us a lot about the God of the universe and his standards. Jesus is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of history.

I was only trying to outline the Bible's position, which is that men and women are complementary in a way that people of the same sex aren't. I assume that that's why God made a woman as Adam's helper, and not another man.

There are certain problems that arise from using a statistical sample of one person. (And that's without even debating whether or not that person ever really existed.) Say, for example, that Eve had brown hair. Does that mean that for a man to marry a blonde woman is unnatural - because, y'know, God must have had a reason for making Adam's helper a brunette? How about if Eve's second toe was longer than her first toe? Is marrying longer-first-toed women unnatural and not as God intended?

Or is it possible that (assuming Adam and Eve ever existed), Adam just happened to be one of the 90-some percent of people who are straight, and thus the statistical probability was that his ideal partner would be a woman? In ther words, that God could have created Adam and Steve, but Adam just didn't happen to swing that way?

Not the scriptural expert you pretend?

Have you READ Genesis?
Yes, actually, I've just finished reading it.
I just didn't understand what you meant when you said that Eve was far from the first design.
And I hope I've never pretended to be a scriptural expert, because I'm not.

I was only trying to outline the Bible's position, which is that men and women are complementary in a way that people of the same sex aren't. I assume that that's why God made a woman as Adam's helper, and not another man.

No - God created Adam, Eve and Steve. Oh, and Lilith of course, since sometimes one does not want a threesome.
However, when Gods lover Satan decided to find love elsewhere God got hurt, and forbade homosexual relationships since they reminded Him of the love he once shared.

No - God created Adam, Eve and Steve. Oh, and Lilith of course, since sometimes one does not want a threesome.
However, when Gods lover Satan decided to find love elsewhere God got hurt, and forbade homosexual relationships since they reminded Him of the love he once shared.
Hm. For some reason that bit is missing in my Bible.

No - God created Adam, Eve and Steve. Oh, and Lilith of course, since sometimes one does not want a threesome.
However, when Gods lover Satan decided to find love elsewhere God got hurt, and forbade homosexual relationships since they reminded Him of the love he once shared.
Please do not insult this religion...

Hm. For some reason that bit is missing in my Bible.

It was in one of the gospels the churches decided not to include. Possibly because God asked them not to, possibly because they had poliical motives and twisting the word of God to suit ones own needs has never really been a big nono for the clergy.

It was in one of the gospels the churches decided not to include.
I'm sure I'm missing out ;)

It was in one of the gospels the churches decided not to include. Possibly because God asked them not to, possibly because they had poliical motives and twisting the word of God to suit ones own needs has never really been a big nono for the clergy.
Care to specify that gospel? I'm really rather interested ;)

Government should serve to protect its citizens from harm's way and ensure that they have the basic necessities for living. Stances on issues such as same-sex marriage should not be defined by one's personal beliefs about homosexual relationships.

And religion, as in all political issues, should mind itself with matters of worship, lest it be necessary to eliminate its tax exempt status.

I'm sure I'm missing out ;)

You are. Its basic message is that we should strive to be happy and nice to eachother, instead of focussing on condemnation and hate. That one should always look to see similarities in others instead of focussing on differences.

Of course, such messages are unacceptable to rulers.

And religion, as in all political issues, should mind itself with matters of worship, lest it be necessary to eliminate its tax exempt status.
Is the assumption that "religious people" should not allow their beliefs to influence politics?

Is the assumption that "religious people" should not allow their beliefs to influence politics?

Yes, its called secularism.

Is the assumption that "religious people" should not allow their beliefs to influence politics?
"Religious people" are quite entitled to let their political beliefs influence their politics.

You are. Its basic message is that we should strive to be happy and nice to eachother, instead of focussing on condemnation and hate. That one should always look to see similarities in others instead of focussing on differences.

Of course, such messages are unacceptable to rulers.
I don't wish to condemn or hate anyone. Considering that I'm no better than anyone else, I would thereby be condemning myself too.
And by the way, the Church at the time of canonization can hardly be called "rulers".
But seriously, which gospel is this?

"Religious people" are quite entitled to let their political beliefs influence their politics.
Er, sorry, I meant should "religious people" let their religious beliefs influence their politics? Because some people, so I am told, think that that would be a bad thing entirely - a logic by which William Wilberforce should not have pushed for the abolition of the slave trade.

All gays are going to hell. simple as that.

:sniper:

All gays are going to hell. simple as that.

:sniper:
OK. Good to know. But they should still be allowed to marry.

All gays are going to hell. simple as that.

:sniper:
What about a gay person who puts their trust in Jesus?

Wanting to ban gay marriage, especially through the constitution, is not conservative or liberal, it is fucking stupid, which is a frighteningly large political orientation in the US (and abroad).

All gays are going to hell. simple as that.

:sniper:

Brilliant argument. Have any evidence for that?

What about a gay person who puts their trust in Jesus?
Thank you.

I was born the way I am. It wasn't due to the way I've been raised. I was raised like several other people, with divorced parents, and while they remained heterosexual, I did not. I have NEVER liked females attraction-wise, though I've forced myself to for the sake of fitting in with society. I can recognize female beauty, but there's no way I'd go close to it.

So obviously I have a few issues with being condemned to hell for something I had no control over. I would rather not think God created me simply so that I could suffer.

See, just like I wrote earlier. "I have no problem with gay people, but" and then follows something that indeed shows that this person has a problem with gay people. At least be bloody honest and admit it - don't think you're fooling anyone but yourself with that little disclaimer.


read what i said. dont twist it into something else. i do NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH GAY PEOPLE. i do not believe that they should have the right to get married. are those sentences the same thing? does that mean i have a problem with gays and that i do not like gays? no. what i said is what i meant. no more. no less.

I was raised in a single parent household for most of my life (3 to 17).

I guess I am not normal then.


i did not say the children are not normal. i did not say the parents are not normal. i said that the living situation is NOT normal.

read what i said. dont twist it into something else. i do NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH GAY PEOPLE. i do not believe that they should have the right to get married. are those sentences the same thing? does that mean i have a problem with gays and that i do not like gays? no. what i said is what i meant. no more. no less.

If you did not have a problem with gay people, you would have no problem with them getting married.

Its really very simple.

Today, I am about to shock my Conservative friends, yes I a Conservative myself, I do believe in smaller taxes, and smaller and limited government. I also like to have as much freedom as I can under the Consitution and the Bill of Rights. Keeping within the spirit of my political ideals, I believe that gays and lesbian should get married and have the same benefits as hetrosexual couples. Why you might ask? Well, the Republican would like you to think that they are protecting the scanity of marriage, but we have a 50% divorce rate in this country, scanity of marriage went out the windows a looonnngggg time ago. I would also like to point to Hollywood, a place were people marry and divorce more often than I change underwear! If anyone ruining the scanity of marriage, it's those damn hollywood couples who only get married for the publicity. Let me ask yall this, would it really matter to you, personally, if Adam and John get married? I mean how does that interfear into your personal life, or into your life at all? I mean us straight people get to talk about our wives and husband, I say we should give our gay and lesbian counterpart the same opporunity. If the Republican really want to "protect" the sancity of marriage, they would allow gays and lesbian to get married, and enforce the idea that you marry someone because you love them, and that you can't see yourself being without that person. Marriage isn't about money, or security for life, it's about love. The Republican should try to enforce that when it comes with the scanity of marriage. Also, they should ban Hollywood couples from getting married and divorce so many damn often!

*steps off soapbox*


*laughs*
No, no way. It's wrong, it's disgusting, and frankly I'm tired of people whining because America still has a shred of morality.

i did not say the children are not normal. i did not say the parents are not normal. i said that the living situation is NOT normal.
MOST living situations are not normal. However, if the living situation is STABLE then there should be no problem with it.

Today, I am about to shock my Conservative friends, yes I a Conservative myself, I do believe in smaller taxes, and smaller and limited government. I also like to have as much freedom as I can under the Consitution and the Bill of Rights. Keeping within the spirit of my political ideals, I believe that gays and lesbian should get married and have the same benefits as hetrosexual couples. Why you might ask? Well, the Republican would like you to think that they are protecting the scanity of marriage, but we have a 50% divorce rate in this country, scanity of marriage went out the windows a looonnngggg time ago. I would also like to point to Hollywood, a place were people marry and divorce more often than I change underwear! If anyone ruining the scanity of marriage, it's those damn hollywood couples who only get married for the publicity. Let me ask yall this, would it really matter to you, personally, if Adam and John get married? I mean how does that interfear into your personal life, or into your life at all? I mean us straight people get to talk about our wives and husband, I say we should give our gay and lesbian counterpart the same opporunity. If the Republican really want to "protect" the sancity of marriage, they would allow gays and lesbian to get married, and enforce the idea that you marry someone because you love them, and that you can't see yourself being without that person. Marriage isn't about money, or security for life, it's about love. The Republican should try to enforce that when it comes with the scanity of marriage. Also, they should ban Hollywood couples from getting married and divorce so many damn often!

*steps off soapbox*

Look. Nobody prevents Adam and John getting married. As long as the marry Sue and Betty. Not each other. (End sarcasm)

MOST living situations are not normal. However, if the living situation is STABLE then there should be no problem with it.

More importantly, what is a normal living situation, and why or how should we enforce it?

Look. Nobody prevents Adam and John getting married. As long as the marry Sue and Betty. Not each other. (End sarcasm)
But if Adam and John don't LIKE/LOVE Sue and Betty, doesn't that mean that the marriage would end up being a farce. I believe that's a blow to the 'sanctity of marriage'; getting married because society demands it.

But if Adam and John don't LIKE/LOVE Sue and Betty, doesn't that mean that the marriage would end up being a farce. I believe that's a blow to the 'sanctity of marriage'; getting married because society demands it.

Therefore, we must submit people to painful and intrusive 'love exams'.

Heh. Love exams. Heh.

I haven't read this thread... but I would like to congratulate the initial poster in it for his post and express my concern about the frequency of his underwear changes.

Therefore, we must submit people to painful and intrusive 'love exams'.

Heh. Love exams. Heh.
But that would be costly and serve no benifit! I still can't see how anyone could think two people of same gender getting married affects their own marriage.

I haven't read this thread... but I would like to congratulate the initial poster in it for his post and express my concern about the frequency of his underwear changes.
You only REALLY have to change your underwear between 360-370 times a year .

If you did not have a problem with gay people, you would have no problem with them getting married.

Its really very simple.


wow. i am going to try to stop wasting my time on this board. i forgot how stupid people are.



being tolerant of gay people

does NOT equal

being ok with what they want to do



i would think this is fairly easy to see, but i have to keep explaining it because nobody understands. there is no getting through in these message boards :headbang:

one of my best friends is gay. i have no problem with that. otherwise, he wouldnt be one of my best friends. i just dont think he should be able to marry another man. i support him, but not necessarily all of his actions. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE!

what you seem to be trying to do is make it seem as though i have a problem with gay people to make me look bad or something like that.

here, i will fill in the oh so witty response that someone already thought of for my last statement:

"no, you make yourself look bad by opening your mouth!"

oh wow that was a good one.


gay people = fine with me. it does not make them bad people.

gay lifestyle = not something i approve of, but i won't condemn them for it.

gay adoption = ONLY if there are not heterosexual couples fit to adopt. ideally a mother and father would be there for the child. that is what is best for the child.

gay marriage = NEVER ok.

it really is THAT simple.

meant to take the "stupid people" thing out of my post. it was being typed out of frustration. i dont think i can take it back, but for the record. i dont mean that. i meant to remove it. i apologize

I have a better title for this thread and all the others like it: Let the Gays Alone. If they are not having sex with you, then it's not any of your business.

What ever happened to "the paragraph"?
Anyway, civil unions are legal aren't they? If allow gay-marrige, we're saying gay is "normal". I have nothing agaist gays, so don't say I'm biased, but gay is NOT normal. Not that that's bad, I'm not "normal" in any sense of the word, but we'd be saying "gay is just as natural, as straight". And that is simply not true. I'll bet you guys will be saying to legalize animal-to-human marrige next.

This is why I don't think the government should regulate marriage at all. It eliminates the slippery-slope argument.

If they legalize gay marriage they better legalize polygamy. I want my right to have 47 concurrent wives dammit!

meant to take the "stupid people" thing out of my post. it was being typed out of frustration. i dont think i can take it back, but for the record. i dont mean that. i meant to remove it. i apologize

There should be an edit button on your post...

You said all of that and really never said anything.

gay marriage = NEVER ok.

Why?

wow. i am going to try to stop wasting my time on this board. i forgot how stupid people are.



being tolerant of gay people

does NOT equal

being ok with what they want to do



i would think this is fairly easy to see, but i have to keep explaining it because nobody understands. there is no getting through in these message boards :headbang:

one of my best friends is gay. i have no problem with that. otherwise, he wouldnt be one of my best friends. i just dont think he should be able to marry another man. i support him, but not necessarily all of his actions. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE!

what you seem to be trying to do is make it seem as though i have a problem with gay people to make me look bad or something like that.

here, i will fill in the oh so witty response that someone already thought of for my last statement:

"no, you make yourself look bad by opening your mouth!"

oh wow that was a good one.


gay people = fine with me. it does not make them bad people.

gay lifestyle = not something i approve of, but i won't condemn them for it.

gay adoption = ONLY if there are not heterosexual couples fit to adopt. ideally a mother and father would be there for the child. that is what is best for the child.

gay marriage = NEVER ok.

it really is THAT simple.

Cardinal Nation, I understand and appreciate that you're not saying "All gays are evil and should be beaten to death so they can burn in hell sooner!" I'm glad you understand that disliking homosexuality doesn't mean you have to hate and abuse all homosexuals. That said, I think you're misunderstanding the point people are making. If you don't consider a homosexual couple in some way inferior because they are homosexual, why wouldn't they be just as good candidates to adopt children, and why shouldn't they have the same rights as heterosexual couples? And if you do consider them inferior on the basis of their homosexuality, then you do have a problem with gay people. Obviously, it's not nearly as big a problem as someone who wants to lynch them all, and that's good, but it's hardly nonexistent, either.

Now, if you can explain your position on gay marriage and adoption in a way that does not necessitate believing that homosexuality is somehow fundamentally worse than heterosexuality, I'll happy revise my statement. That just hasn't seemed to be your point of view.

tried that. computer doesnt seem to want to work. it never does anything when i click on that button. i figured by the time i got to another computer and edited that part out, someone else would post responding to the comment and making me out to be a jerk. now i figure the apology would be better than trying to cover it up as if i never said/typed it.

If they legalize gay marriage they better legalize polygamy. I want my right to have 47 concurrent wives dammit!

Sounds good to me. As long as we have some gender equality here.

Gay's can get married, but that's not the issue here. The issue is how they can and would exploit their social benefits from marriage. Gay's have different needs and more of them, than straight people. Therefor bigger benefits, and bigger taxation. Before you know it, we'll be giving more social status to illegal aliens. Then we'll become an all out socialist country that makes Europeans look like the rich capitalist pig and give us the image of pot smoking hippies. Then after we give illegal aliens social status, we'll be taken over. Good bye, the end, good game America.

Gay's can get married, but that's not the issue here. The issue is how they can and would exploit their social benefits from marriage. Gay's have different needs and more of them, than straight people. Therefor bigger benefits, and bigger taxation. Before you know it, we'll be giving more social status to illegal aliens. Then we'll become an all out socialist country that makes Europeans look like the rich capitalist pig and give us the image of pot smoking hippies. Then after we give illegal aliens social status, we'll be taken over. Good bye, the end, good game America.

How do gays have different needs and "more of them"?

You only REALLY have to change your underwear between 360-370 times a year .
Yes, and most hollywood marriages last more than a day...

Your thread title is flawed. Homos have never been barred from getting married.

Gay's have different needs and more of them, than straight people.

I'm guessing your post was meant to be a joke anyway, but I'm curious what you meant by this. The gay people I know all seem to have the same needs everyone else does...

gay people = fine with me. it does not make them bad people.

gay lifestyle = not something i approve of, but i won't condemn them for it.

gay adoption = ONLY if there are not heterosexual couples fit to adopt. ideally a mother and father would be there for the child. that is what is best for the child.

gay marriage = NEVER ok.

it really is THAT simple.
If it were that simple, this wouldn't be an issue. But seeing as it is an issue, it must not be all that simple. You can't just say something's not okay because you don't support it. You have to have legitimate reasoning behind it; something that you're not showing/detailing.

As for adoption, if there are two couples, one heterosexual and the other not, that are COMPLETELY equal in terms of status, then the child should pick which couple s/he would like to live with. There is nothing a woman can do that a man can't do (short of breast-feeding), and there is nothing a man can do that a woman can't do. Parenting-wise, gender should not make a difference. Otherwise, we're falling into stereotypes and gender roles.

Your thread title is flawed. Homos have never been barred from getting married.

Yeah, they can still marry people they aren't attracted too. Christ what more do they want? I mean back in the day blacks had the same right to marry someone of their own race just like the whites.

Gay's can get married, but that's not the issue here. The issue is how they can and would exploit their social benefits from marriage. Gay's have different needs and more of them, than straight people. Therefor bigger benefits, and bigger taxation. Before you know it, we'll be giving more social status to illegal aliens. Then we'll become an all out socialist country that makes Europeans look like the rich capitalist pig and give us the image of pot smoking hippies. Then after we give illegal aliens social status, we'll be taken over. Good bye, the end, good game America.
...What?

Your thread title is flawed. Homos have never been barred from getting married.
:rolleyes:

Your thread title is flawed. Homos have never been barred from getting married.

I'm sure the OP and most people in modern Western society equate "marriage" with "marriage to someone you actually want to marry and who wants to marry you." I'm sure, in fact, that you understood this, too, and know perfectly well that not allowing someone to marry the person he loves but offering him his choice of people he isn't interested in isn't exactly a helpful solution.

...What?

If you're not going to state what part of that you don't understand, or atleast say what you disagree with what I have said. Then don't post such a stupid statement such as "...What?";)

If you're not going to state what part of that you don't understand, or atleast say what you disagree with what I have said. Then don't post such a stupid statement such as "...What?";)
Maybe because your post made no sense whatsoever?

If you're not going to state what part of that you don't understand, or atleast say what you disagree with what I have said. Then don't post such a stupid statement such as "...What?";)

I'm guessing that the "...What?" refers to the entirety of your post as none of it made any sense.

How do gays have different needs and "more of them"?

Homos that want kids need to take kids from an outside source.

Homos need more from public health care.

Homos need legislation that protects them against discrimination. They also need legislation to keep the public from acknowledging the negative effects of their behaviour (health care, effect on adopted kids). They also need legislation to force every student in BC to learn about the alleged benefits of homosexuality with no opt-out option.

Homos have needs to march big scantily clad parades through many capitols of the world proclaiming their 'pride.'

If you're not going to state what part of that you don't understand, or atleast say what you disagree with what I have said. Then don't post such a stupid statement such as "...What?";)
Then allow me to elaborate. How could you come up with such a rediculous scenario such as the one you presented. As the others have said, yes, it refers to your whole post because it is absolutely... I don't think English has a word for it.

Gay's can get married, but that's not the issue here. The issue is how they can and would exploit their social benefits from marriage. Gay's have different needs and more of them, than straight people. Therefor bigger benefits, and bigger taxation. Before you know it, we'll be giving more social status to illegal aliens. Then we'll become an all out socialist country that makes Europeans look like the rich capitalist pig and give us the image of pot smoking hippies. Then after we give illegal aliens social status, we'll be taken over. Good bye, the end, good game America.

What a post! Let's see how the judges scored it:

Inflammatory: 8.5
Incoherency: 9.6
Fallacies: 10.0
Display of Bias: 9.2

Final Troll Score: 9.325

No, Only Lesbians, wed be know as the Gay country, I dont want that!

an early one to quote, I know but that te same as calling theNetherlands, "The euthanist country" it just a stupid stereotype that places everyone within the brder under the same view, to b worried about the nickname of your country, while slightly patriotic, is very retarded. besides, what would be so diferent about being known as the "lesbian country" yeesh, no one really cares...

Homos that want kids need to take kids from an outside source.

Homos need more from public health care.

Homos need legislation that protects them against discrimination. They also need legislation to keep the public from acknowledging the negative effects of their behaviour (health care, effect on adopted kids). They also need legislation to force every student in BC to learn about the alleged benefits of homosexuality with no opt-out option.

Homos have needs to march big scantily clad parades through many capitols of the world proclaiming their 'pride.'

Your post may have more weight without the repition of the word "homo".

whether gays can get married or not there will still be the predijuce against them. (does marriage really matter anyway? )

Homos that want kids need to take kids from an outside source.

Homos need more from public health care.

Homos need legislation that protects them against discrimination. They also need legislation to keep the public from acknowledging the negative effects of their behaviour (health care, effect on adopted kids). They also need legislation to force every student in BC to learn about the alleged benefits of homosexuality with no opt-out option.

Homos have needs to march big scantily clad parades through many capitols of the world proclaiming their 'pride.'
1) So do sterile couples and other couples unable to reproduce.
2) No we don't. Me being gay does not make me more susceptible to diseases than the married heterosexual guy that goes to a strip club. It makes me no more susceptible than the priest who vows celibacy.
3) Yes, it's called Pursuit of Happiness or Human Rights. Just like other minorities need legistlation to protect them. Just like schools have rules to prevent bullying.
4) BS.

Cardinal Nation, I understand and appreciate that you're not saying "All gays are evil and should be beaten to death so they can burn in hell sooner!" I'm glad you understand that disliking homosexuality doesn't mean you have to hate and abuse all homosexuals. That said, I think you're misunderstanding the point people are making. If you don't consider a homosexual couple in some way inferior because they are homosexual, why wouldn't they be just as good candidates to adopt children, and why shouldn't they have the same rights as heterosexual couples? And if you do consider them inferior on the basis of their homosexuality, then you do have a problem with gay people. Obviously, it's not nearly as big a problem as someone who wants to lynch them all, and that's good, but it's hardly nonexistent, either.

Now, if you can explain your position on gay marriage and adoption in a way that does not necessitate believing that homosexuality is somehow fundamentally worse than heterosexuality, I'll happy revise my statement. That just hasn't seemed to be your point of view.


ok NOW we are getting to some reasonable discussion. i do not have a problem with homosexuals as people. however, because i believe that ideally a child has a mother and father, the living situation with a gay couple is what i find inferior. if a heterosexual couple is not available to adopt a child, and an acceptable gay couple is, then they can have the child. that is still better than not having anyone adopt the child. however, i think few would argue against the idea that there are certain things that only a mother can provide, and certain things that only a father can provide, and that ideally, a child has one of each in their life.

these thoughts come with the child's best interest at heart. i am sure they can grow up with a gay couple and turn out fine. im sure it has happened before, and will happen again, but having a mother and a father is what i believe is BEST for the child. if that is available, we should provide that for the child at every opportunity.

as for gay marriage, i really do want to get in on that debate. it is something i feel pretty strongly about, and i would have a lot to say on it (if i ever got all of my thoughts sorted out). i do not want to debate it simply by saying "its against my religion!" or something like that. this is true, but that alone is just a part of my personal religious beliefs, and would not hold its own in ANY forum.

frankly, i dont have the time to type up my whole stance on gay marriage. not to be rude, but i have a lot of things to do that are more important than typing on a forum, and this is just not that high up on my priority list. if i wasnt working two jobs and trying to find time for a social life, i would probably be more willing to keep up on this forum.

this issue IS something that is very important to me, and i do not want to appear as if i am dodging the issue, but let's face it. i could either go make money at my jobs, play inline hockey, go out and have a social life

or

stay at home in front of my computer and post on a message board.

now if you will excuse me, i have a game tonight in a couple hours and i still have to eat and then go get ready for.

Homos that want kids need to take kids from an outside source.

The amount of children under state care make this a very good thing.

Homos need more from public health care.

How so?

Homos need legislation that protects them against discrimination. They also need legislation to keep the public from acknowledging the negative effects of their behaviour (health care, effect on adopted kids). They also need legislation to force every student in BC to learn about the alleged benefits of homosexuality with no opt-out option.

Homos have needs to march big scantily clad parades through many capitols of the world proclaiming their 'pride.'

Now you have gotten circular and nonsensical, so you may be a satirical troll as well.

Ok - first things first - I'm in favour of gay marriage for the simple reason that I believe that gay people deserve exactly the same rights in society as straight people.

I haven't read all this thread, it's far too long, but I was interested by Darwinian's long post about economics. Now I do follow the logic of this post - that stable relationships reduce the burden to the state associated with the raising of children. What I do not agree with is the essential postulate of this argument against gay marriage, which is that the motivation behind government decisions is wholly economic.

Now I believe that the role of government should be to better the lives of its citizens. This does not mean just making decisions based on economics - and that is not what governments do. I would pick up on one particular quote:

"We'd be providing benefits to a segment of society for no reason other then that we can."

How about free healthcare (I believe you have this in the US?). Someone who is bedridden with a serious disease and will never be able to work again is merely a drain on society by your logic, and to pursue it to the logical extreme, should not be provided with any support by the state and merely left to die.

You also said

"a political ideology that says that every expense by the government should have a purpose beyond"

I vote Conservative. I agree with this. However, that "purpose" is not neccesarily pure financial gain for the state (what is the ultimate purpose of that after all?). In an ideal world that purpose would be an improvement of the quality of life of the state's citizens, which the act of allowing gay marriage would do by eliminating unfair discrimination and promoting healthy, stable long term relationships, be they heterosexual or homosexual.

Now my final point - we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a democracy. And in a democracy the government's decisions are almost invariably aimed at winning votes. That is why I believe the Bush administration does not wish to legalise gay marriage - they will win more votes if they do not. Cynical perhaps, but I would say realist.

By the way, I'm British, 19, a physics student, straight, and an atheist if you want to know where I'm coming from!

Chris

While I don't believe that homosexuality is right, I believe that being in a democratic government means that we need to make laws and procedure that are right and benefit all the people as much as possible. The same laws should apply to everyone. People who want to get married, no matter who to, should get the same rules no matter who they decide to marry. However I kinda find it ironic that the homosexual community (including a great number of my friends) have gay pride parades and such (i live near SF)... I've never been a part of a Straight pride parade. Why should they get police force for such events given to them by the state government when the police could be used for other much needed everyday tasks. Everything should be equal... They can hire special forces for such events just like the straight community would. Does this strike a chord with anyone else?

I'm sure the OP and most people in modern Western society equate "marriage" with "marriage to someone you actually want to marry and who wants to marry you." I'm sure, in fact, that you understood this, too, and know perfectly well that not allowing someone to marry the person he loves but offering him his choice of people he isn't interested in isn't exactly a helpful solution.

A man cannot "marry" a man any more than he can marry a box, since "marriage" is the basis of a family unit, which 2 men are not. I'm sorry for not "offering him the choice," but I didn't create nature. It would be great if no one had warped desires that led to twisting of reality, but everyone has them, not just homos. Just because you desire something, doesn't mean it makes sense...

Homos that want kids need to take kids from an outside source.

Homos need more from public health care.

Homos need legislation that protects them against discrimination. They also need legislation to keep the public from acknowledging the negative effects of their behaviour (health care, effect on adopted kids). They also need legislation to force every student in BC to learn about the alleged benefits of homosexuality with no opt-out option.

Homos have needs to march big scantily clad parades through many capitols of the world proclaiming their 'pride.'

It's true that homosexual couples who want kids need some sort of outside help, but this is also true of infertile couples and couples with genetic disorders they don't want to pass on. We don't bar them from marrying.

I don't know of any reasons why homosexuals would need more from public health care. There are no diseases, to my knowledge, that only (or even mostly) affect homosexuals.

Everyone needs anti-discrimination legislation as much as homosexual people do, unless you live in a society in which homosexuals are the only people anyone ever treats unfairly. If so, I'd like to move there, since my society unfortunately still contains a good deal of discrimation on the basis of gender, race, religious belief or lack thereof, economic status, and many other things.

If you can name a real, documented "negative effect" of "homosexual behavior", feel free. Myself, I've never heard of any.

As for gay pride parades, I'm not at all sure why they're relevant, but regardless, few people feel the need to hold demonstrations and shout about why they deserve the same rights as everyone else once they have the same rights as everyone else. A good way to get those scantily-clad parades to go away would be to stop creating a perceived need for them - i.e. give gay people the same rights and treat them with the same respect as everyone else.

A man cannot "marry" a man any more than he can marry a box, since "marriage" is the basis of a family unit, which 2 men are not. I'm sorry for not "offering him the choice," but I didn't create nature. It would be great if no one had warped desires that led to twisting of reality, but everyone has them, not just homos. Just because you desire something, doesn't mean it makes sense...

Then obviously infertile people should also be forbidden from marriage.

however, i think few would argue against the idea that there are certain things that only a mother can provide, and certain things that only a father can provide, and that ideally, a child has one of each in their life.
When you come back, I would very much love to see what these certain things are. With the exceptions of anatomy-related incidences, and without retreating to gender roles, I don't see anything that one gender can do that another can't do just as well.

I tend to think all governments need to get their ugly noses out of marriage in general. As far as i'm concerned, marriage is a private contract between individuals. The state has no business messing with marriage.

If people decide to divorce, it should be treated as any other breach of contract. Treat it like when a business partnership is dissolved, where the assets and the clients are split between the partners as fairly as possible and any heated disputes can be resolved in a court if need be.

But I know this may be a sort of radical position, so i can bring it down a notch and i think most reasonable people will agree: religion should have no bearing on marriage WHATSOEVER. And naturally, the government should not be allowed to use any religious beliefs/ideology to try to prohibit individuals from entering into a marriage contract.

No religion "created" marriage and god certainly did not. The only evidence we have that god ordained marriage is some poorly written mythology from a few thousand years ago. I know people have 'faith' that god created marriage for us, but faith and a nickel will buy you jack squat. Utterly meaningless in the public square.

Seriously though, there's only two types of people who oppose gay marriage: homophobes/bigots and religious nuts who typically don't even seen to understand their own lame religious texts.

We're all so fuckin' stupid, this is just one instance that bugs the shit out of me. Yes "we" are all petty pieces of shit and "we" need to at least figure that much out and pull our own thumbs out of our asses.

/rant

There are no diseases, to my knowledge, that only (or even mostly) affect homosexuals.

What about AIDS? I know that it can affect everyone, but is spread quite easily and more frequently in the gay community compared to the straight community (aside from the drug users who i don't think should factor because they are in both communities).

When you come back, I would very much love to see what these certain things are. With the exceptions of anatomy-related incidences, and without retreating to gender roles, I don't see anything that one gender can do that another can't do just as well.

It boils down to his actual problem with gays, that men should not fulfill a woman's role. He will turn against tradition someday and give up on that idea.

Homos that want kids need to take kids from an outside source.

False. I'm not suddenly infertile because I like men.


Homos need more from public health care.

False. I'm perfectly healthy. I'm gonna assume you,re referring to AIDS victims here; know that injection drug users now have infection rates far higher than gays. Side note: which country are you from? Not all countries have public health care. The USA, sadly enough, lack such a free healthcare system.




Homos need legislation that protects them against discrimination. They also need legislation to keep the public from acknowledging the negative effects of their behaviour (health care, effect on adopted kids). They also need legislation to force every student in BC to learn about the alleged benefits of homosexuality with no opt-out option.

Strawmen if I ever saw any. Homosexuals need legislation to protect against discrimination because morons disciminate against them. People of different skin color and/or religion already have those dispositions. Writing legislation
is what a govermnent does, and they're paid to do it anyway.

The negative effects you speak of are illusions. I have no idea what you meant by that last sentence of yours.


Homos have needs to march big scantily clad parades through many capitols of the world proclaiming their 'pride.'
Heteros have similar parades in the form of the Mardi Gras in New Orleans, and the carnival of Rio de Janeiro in brazil. Get the fuck over yourself and don't attend or watch the parades if you don't like them.

What about AIDS? I know that it can affect everyone, but is spread quite easily and more frequently in the gay community compared to the straight community (aside from the drug users who i don't think should factor because they are in both communities).

Doesn't marriage usually promote a monogomous relationship, thereby lowering the likelihood of contracting AIDS?

A man cannot "marry" a man any more than he can marry a box, since "marriage" is the basis of a family unit, which 2 men are not. I'm sorry for not "offering him the choice," but I didn't create nature. It would be great if no one had warped desires that led to twisting of reality, but everyone has them, not just homos. Just because you desire something, doesn't mean it makes sense...

I'm pretty sure another man offers a lot of critical traits which a box does not, such as (a) being human, (b) being an adult, (c) being capable of giving consent, and (irrelevant legally, but nice) (d) being capable of loving you back.

Two men can certainly be the basis of a family unit. I've met families with two male parents. They exist. Since your only argument appears to be that this is impossible, your argument would likewise appear to be disproven.

Oh, and good job on your last sentence. I'm glad you realize that just because you desire all people to be straight doesn't mean that makes sense. ;)

The amount of children under state care make this a very good thing.
By propagating the idea that homosexuality is something good, more people embrace a homosexual lifestyle so there are less couples to adopt overall. Even if SSM produced more stable couples though, it still wouldn't be a good thing because of the effect on children of having 2 daddies. Even ignoring this, I wasn't saying anything about adoption, just that a homo couple NEEDS adoption. My post was replying to a question about homosexual couple NEEDS.


How so?
Because practicing homosexuals have a much higher rate of AIDS infection.




Now you have gotten circular and nonsensical, so you may be a satirical troll as well.
Satirical but not a troll, neither circular or nonsensical. Please, more arguments, less name calling.

It boils down to his actual problem with gays, that men should not fulfill a woman's role. He will turn against tradition someday and give up on that idea.
So he's not actually homophobic but rather macho, sexist and misogynist to the extreme.

Doesn't marriage usually promote a monogomous relationship, thereby lowering the likelihood of contracting AIDS?
Yup. By engaging in such a bonding, you are more or less devoting your life to a single person. If homosexuals are prevented from creating these bonds, then there is no chance of the contraction decreasing.

Because practicing homosexuals have a much higher rate of AIDS infection.


Which could only be reduced by the promotion of gay marriage and monogamous relationships as has already been pointed out.

Edit: Beaten to the obvious point!

Seriously though, there's only two types of people who oppose gay marriage: homophobes/bigots and religious nuts who typically don't even seen to understand their own lame religious texts.
I understand my "lame" religious text... The Bible states that homosexuality is wrong. However, being an open minded Christian, I realize that people are going to do what they want and feel. However, I don't believe that the government should step in and tell people what to do. It is not the place of the government to make a judgement call based on religion. If the government isn't based on religion, then it has no reason to make a law on an issue of morality.

By propagating the idea that homosexuality is something good, more people embrace a homosexual lifestyle so there are less couples to adopt overall. Even if SSM produced more stable couples though, it still wouldn't be a good thing because of the effect on children of having 2 daddies. Even ignoring this, I wasn't saying anything about adoption, just that a homo couple NEEDS adoption. My post was replying to a question about homosexual couple NEEDS.

Bullshit. I can impregnate a woman just as you can.

Also: there is no such thing as an homosexual lifestyle. Gay couples are not any less stable than straight ones. Children are not in any way affected by having 2 daddies or mommies instead of a daddy and a mommy. Get your facts straight(pun).

So he's not actually homophobic but rather macho, sexist and misogynist to the extreme.

I would imagine he has a misogynist streak, although less pronounced, but it isn't a matter of being macho. It is socially conditioned preferences for how one is supposed to behave. Everybody has the preferences, and everyone of us has those preferences that we don't recognize as being useless.

I tend to think all governments need to get their ugly noses out of marriage in general. As far as i'm concerned, marriage is a private contract between individuals. The state has no business messing with marriage.

The problem is that a family has more needs than say, a single man fending just for himself. Unless you don't believe in social welfare, or taking everyone's money and giving back according to one's need, in which case I agree with you 100%. The only downside to that though, is that you'll have to call yourself a fiscal conservative.

Gay's have less odds at raising a decent child than a straight couple. They don't know how to explain to their child why they have two dads or moms. If they do, they'll pretty much fill their heads in with their politic shit. Forever ruining their age of innocence.

Also gay's do something that is second worse to abortion, artificial insemination. It is a psychologically immoral thing to do, to take a inseminate semen into a woman, so the gay couple can have a baby. Then once that takes place, guess what he has three parents. Further extending his or her misguided life. Incest children probably would have a better chance at growing up better than these children. But still the majority of gays adopt, which is a very good thing.

So gays would use medicare and therapy more often than a straight couple, therefor they would be given a bigger check.

P.S. Don't respond if you're too empty headed to understand.

Thank you,
President of The Republic of Bul-Katho

:D

What about AIDS? [in response to the question: There are no diseases, to my knowledge, that only (or even mostly) affect homosexuals.]I know that it can affect everyone, but is spread quite easily and more frequently in the gay community compared to the straight community (aside from the drug users who i don't think should factor because they are in both communities).Just so this doesn't go uncorrected. AIDS is closely associated with the gay community only in the West--primarily U.S./U.K. Other areas with large occurrences of AIDS (zB Africa, SE Asia) it is very much "a heterosexual disease".

Not only that but even in the West the highest increases of disease are being seen in hetero communities.

Gay's have less odds at raising a decent child than a straight couple. They don't know how to explain to their child why they have two dads or moms. If they do, they'll pretty much fill their heads in with their politic shit. Forever ruining their age of innocence.

Also gay's do something that is second worse to abortion, artificial insemination. It is a psychologically immoral thing to do, to take a inseminate semen into a woman, so the gay couple can have a baby. Then once that takes place, guess what he has three parents. Further extending his or her misguided life. Incest children probably would have a better chance at growing up better than these children. But still the majority of gays adopt, which is a very good thing.

So gays would use medicare and therapy more often than a straight couple, therefor they would be given a bigger check.

P.S. Don't respond if you're too empty headed to understand.

Thank you,
President of The Republic of Bul-Katho

:D

What about the very real possibility that we could combine the DNA of two fathers or two mothers to produce a child? Do you disagree with that as strongly?

The whole adoption situation stems from socially-induced gender roles. The idea that two members of the same gender are incapable of the same things as the traditional pairing is really just pathetic. The home environment can be just as stable, possibly even more, and if children weren't taught that same-sex pairing are unusual, then it wouldn't be an awkward situation. Most children don't care about the genders of the parents, not until their parents teach them otherwise.

Skimmed the first and this page quickly, so I don't know if this has been brought up before.

Abolish "Legal" Marriage, they're now a private affair, and instead amend a rule of "Legal Unity". "Legal Unities" are viewed by the law under the same rights as marriages, so everyone gets the same rights they used to, but now it is not limited to Gender. This, of course, shuts up Religious people as myself, and leaves no reasons for it not to exist except mere opinion.

"Marriage", is of defined here as the Unity of two people for the purposes of Reproduction.

"Legal Unity" is defined as a Unity for the purpose of Love and (or?) Legal Rights of united individuals.

Gay's have less odds at raising a decent child than a straight couple. They don't know how to explain to their child why they have two dads or moms. If they do, they'll pretty much fill their heads in with their politic shit. Forever ruining their age of innocence.

You just pulled that out of your ass. I know children who have been raised by two men or two women, and they've grown into perfectly fine, normal adults.


Also gay's do something that is second worse to abortion, artificial insemination. It is a psychologically immoral thing to do, to take a inseminate semen into a woman, so the gay couple can have a baby. Then once that takes place, guess what he has three parents. Further extending his or her misguided life. Incest children probably would have a better chance at growing up better than these children. But still the majority of gays adopt, which is a very good thing.

Artificial insemination is both legal and regarded as moral by most people in industrialized country. I have no idea what the hell is going in your head if you think insemination is immoral. You need to stop for a moment and use logic to analyze your feelings, as this makes no sense whatsoever.


So gays would use medicare and therapy more often than a straight couple, therefor they would be given a bigger check.
:D
Again, myth. Gay people are neither more nor less healthy than straight people. Even the argument of higher AIDS infection for gay men is moot, as lesbians boast much lower infection rates than the rest of population, and the two cancel each other out.

Why is there such hysteria over the legalizing of Same-Gender Marriage? To deny couples the right to state recognized marriage just because a segment “feels it is wrong” is not acceptable. So how does the recognition of same-gender marriage exactly “damage” different-gender marriages? Are there less rights now afforded to different-gender marriage because of this legalization? Are different-gender marriage now no longer legal?

Pfft...

What about AIDS? I know that it can affect everyone, but is spread quite easily and more frequently in the gay community compared to the straight community (aside from the drug users who i don't think should factor because they are in both communities).

HIV/AIDS is spread most easily by people who've had multiple partners and who don't use condoms, regardless of their sexual orientation. At this point, there are actually far more heterosexuals than homosexuals with HIV/AIDS.

Besides, even if gay people were bigger AIDS risks than anyone else, wouldn't getting them into stable monogamous partnerships be the best way to stop the spread of the disease and not have to fund as many people's health care? :p

Is this as in defined in US law? Or something else?
Should have quoted - thats about the definition thing a few posts back.

A man cannot "marry" a man any more than he can marry a box, since "marriage" is the basis of a family unit, which 2 men are not. I'm sorry for not "offering him the choice," but I didn't create nature. I'll let the Family == one man, one woman and 2.5 children go, since others have pointed out your fallacious reasoning.

What I want to ask is, when in the world have you seen marriage in the wild? Nature doesn't give a loaded jelly donut for marriage. Mating for life can be found, and interestingly enough, between animals of the same sex, but not marriage.

What ever happened to "the paragraph"?
Anyway, civil unions are legal aren't they? If allow gay-marrige, we're saying gay is "normal". I have nothing agaist gays, so don't say I'm biased, but gay is NOT normal. Not that that's bad, I'm not "normal" in any sense of the word, but we'd be saying "gay is just as natural, as straight". And that is simply not true. I'll bet you guys will be saying to legalize animal-to-human marrige next.
I LUV KITTENS!

By propagating the idea that homosexuality is something good, more people embrace a homosexual lifestyle so there are less couples to adopt overall.

See this is what I mean by a circular argument. Even if we take your ridiculous assumptions we are left with the argument that we should not legalize gay marriage because it would encourage gayness, which in turn would lead to less available couples for adoption because gays are not allowed to adopt.

Even if SSM produced more stable couples though, it still wouldn't be a good thing because of the effect on children of having 2 daddies. Even ignoring this, I wasn't saying anything about adoption, just that a homo couple NEEDS adoption.

There are no negative effects.

My post was replying to a question about homosexual couple NEEDS.

And I maintain that need will benefit society, therefore making it a pro for gay marriage.

Because practicing homosexuals have a much higher rate of AIDS infection.

And why does that matter for either gay marriages or the cost of healthcare?

Skimmed the first and this page quickly, so I don't know if this has been brought up before.

Abolish "Legal" Marriage, they're now a private affair, and instead amend a rule of "Legal Unity". "Legal Unities" are viewed by the law under the same rights as marriages, so everyone gets the same rights they used to, but now it is not limited to Gender. This, of course, shuts up Religious people as myself, and leaves no reasons for it not to exist except mere opinion.

"Marriage", is of defined here as the Unity of two people for the purposes of Reproduction.

"Legal Unity" is defined as a Unity for the purpose of Love and (or?) Legal Rights of united individuals.
This is a comprimise most people would be ready to accept, since it would mean the law gives equal treatment to all. However, it's sad that there is no political will to explore that solution.

On a side note, civil marriage can be legal without churches' right to refuse to perform ceremonies to be trampled. This is what is going in Canada right now. Judges and civil servants can and do hand out marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The churches who want to bless these unions, like the United Church of Canada, can do so freely. Churches like the Roman Catholic Church can refuse to perform those ceremonies because it's not part of their beliefs. Everyone is happy. Except the bigots, of course.

I've been trying to keep my posts from being gender-specific, despite being gay and being male. I urge everyone else to do the same.

Then obviously infertile people should also be forbidden from marriage.

Then obviously, fertility tests should be mandatory before marriage. Just as it was meant to be :rolleyes:

Anyway, you're right in that they don't need gov't assistance, since they won't have children which will have to be taken care of, but they are still meant to be a family, with the misfortune of having a defect or accident. Two men were never and will never be meant to be a family, save in communist EU.

I LUV KITTENS!

Baked or Fried?

Baked or Fried?
Raw.

Gay's have less odds at raising a decent child than a straight couple. They don't know how to explain to their child why they have two dads or moms. If they do, they'll pretty much fill their heads in with their politic shit. Forever ruining their age of innocence.

"Why do I have two daddies/mommies?"

"Well you see, when two people love each other very much, they like to get married and raise kids. It doesn't matter if they are a man and a woman, two women or two men."

Yes, that would truly ruin their 'age of innocence'...

Also gay's do something that is second worse to abortion, artificial insemination. It is a psychologically immoral thing to do, to take a inseminate semen into a woman, so the gay couple can have a baby. Then once that takes place, guess what he has three parents. Further extending his or her misguided life. Incest children probably would have a better chance at growing up better than these children. But still the majority of gays adopt, which is a very good thing.

Holy crap, three parents?! I mean, that's unheard of! Of course people never get divorces and remarry, leaving their children with anywhere from three to four parents. Seriously, the very idea is outrageous.

Then obviously, fertility tests should be mandatory before marriage. Just as it was meant to be :rolleyes:

Anyway, you're right in that they don't need gov't assistance, since they won't have children which will have to be taken care of, but they are still meant to be a family, with the misfortune of having a defect or accident. Two men were never and will never be meant to be a family, save in communist EU.

...And there went your arguement...

Gay's have less odds at raising a decent child than a straight couple. They don't know how to explain to their child why they have two dads or moms. If they do, they'll pretty much fill their heads in with their politic shit. Forever ruining their age of innocence.

Also gay's do something that is second worse to abortion, artificial insemination. It is a psychologically immoral thing to do, to take a inseminate semen into a woman, so the gay couple can have a baby. Then once that takes place, guess what he has three parents. Further extending his or her misguided life. Incest children probably would have a better chance at growing up better than these children. But still the majority of gays adopt, which is a very good thing.

So gays would use medicare and therapy more often than a straight couple, therefor they would be given a bigger check.

P.S. Don't respond if you're too empty headed to understand.

Thank you,
President of The Republic of Bul-Katho

:D

“Protect the Children” is the cry of last resort. Children are not damaged by same-gender couples, that is unless one proscribes to the concept that “homosexuality is a disease” and can be “caught”.

“Protect the Children” is a hollow claim even when the criers “claim” to have studies indicating that children are best in different-gender households. Here’s a hint, those criers are misusing the study! The study they are using compare different-gendered households to single parented households, with absolutely no study of same-gender households involved.

Here’s another hint, same-gender couples have had families for a very long time. Further, studies of those families, as compared to different-gender families, has shown that, in general, the children are psychologically identical. There was once exception noted for the children of the same-gender household, they were far more tolerant and accepting then the children of the different-gender households. Oh, we can’t have that! After all what would the world be like if everyone was tolerant and accepting?

World Peace!

...And there went your arguement...

No, he never really had one.

Raw.
Kinky.

"Why do I have two daddies/mommies?"

"Well you see, when two people love each other very much, they like to get married and raise kids. It doesn't matter if they are a man and a woman, two women or two men."

Yes, that would truly ruin their 'age of innocence'...



Holy crap, three parents?! I mean, that's of heard of! Of course people never get divorces and remarry, leaving their children with anywhere from three to four parents. Seriously, the very idea is outrageous.
Yup, four parents here.

Gay's have less odds at raising a decent child than a straight couple. They don't know how to explain to their child why they have two dads or moms.

Bwuh? Homosexual = mentally deficient? Heck, I'm about as straight as one can get, and I can figure out how to explain the concept of "two mommies" or "two daddies." It goes something like this:

"Little Susie was telling you she has a mommy and a daddy, and that she thinks it's weird that you have two daddies? Well, sweetie, some people have a mommy and a daddy, and some people have two mommies, and some people have two daddies, and some people only have one mommy or one daddy, and some people have a mommy and a daddy and a step-mommy, and some people have a daddy and a mommy and a step-daddy, and some people have other sorts of families. There are lots of different kinds of family out there, but all of them are families, and love their kids in their own ways, just like how Papa and Dad love you very much. Now go brush your teeth and I'll read you a bedtime story."

See? That wasn't too hard...

Bwuh? Homosexual = mentally deficient? Heck, I'm about as straight as one can get, and I can figure out how to explain the concept of "two mommies" or "two daddies." It goes something like this:

"Little Susie was telling you she has a mommy and a daddy, and that she thinks it's weird that you have two daddies? Well, sweetie, some people have a mommy and a daddy, and some people have two mommies, and some people have two daddies, and some people only have one mommy or one daddy, and some people have a mommy and a daddy and a step-mommy, and some people have a daddy and a mommy and a step-daddy, and some people have other sorts of families. There are lots of different kinds of family out there, but all of them are families, and love their kids in their own ways, just like how Papa and Dad love you very much. Now go brush your teeth and I'll read you a bedtime story."

See? That wasn't too hard...
That is so sweet...

That is so sweet...
Yeah, it almost makes me want to have little brats of my own :p

I'll let the Family == one man, one woman and 2.5 children go, since others have pointed out your fallacious reasoning.
I'll let the misquote of the idea of family go, but I'll still have to ask where others pointed out the fallacity of my reasoning.

What I want to ask is, when in the world have you seen marriage in the wild? Nature doesn't give a loaded jelly donut for marriage. Mating for life can be found, and interestingly enough, between animals of the same sex, but not marriage.

I have seen marriage in the differences of a man and a woman. A woman's nature builds her to attract a man and give birth to kids. A man's nature builds him to impregnate a woman and to be able to protect her and their children. His leadership and her compassion also complement each other and help to create a stable relationship between them and a good environment for their children.

FYI, mating cannot be found between animals of the same sex. To mate, you need the required sex organs. Two male cats cannot 'mate', they can hump (speaking of which, my girlfriend's cat often humps her table. Are they mating?)

I understand my "lame" religious text... The Bible states that homosexuality is wrong. However, being an open minded Christian, I realize that people are going to do what they want and feel. However, I don't believe that the government should step in and tell people what to do. It is not the place of the government to make a judgement call based on religion. If the government isn't based on religion, then it has no reason to make a law on an issue of morality.

If you believe homosexuality is 'wrong' because the bible says so, then i'd expect you to advocate the death penalty for homosexuality which is what the bible advocates. Unfortunately, i'm not sure if homosexuality is against the law anywhere in the states, not even the south like it was in the past. Shalle we just lock up all the homos.

Anyways, Maycondia, i apologize if i've made some rather nasty assumptions about your position, so i'd be interested to hear your response.

If you haven't already, read this article, its pretty thorough and there are many external references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality

I am sorry - everyone - for ruining your jolly moods regarding this issue, but let's face the music.

It's not anyone's fault - or disease - to be gay. We shouldn't ostricize them. But come on - when you grow up noone tells you " you should be hetero", you fancy people you fancy because this is who you are.

up till about here hes doing okay

On the other hand though, all males born should have sex with females ( and vice versa ) therefore different option makes you ( sorry ) a freak of nature. Not your fault, the nature F-d something up.

I dunno about you but last time I cheked the only way a male was to have intercourse was to use their behind as well, which seems to work just fine, especially considering the prostate, an organ used for stimulation, is located, convenienly in that area.

I say it's okay to be gay, but slightly wrong. No marriages for you guys, no adoption either. Some legislation is missing though, as you should be able to live normally even though you're not entirely normal. Face it.

Im not even entirely sure what hes trying to convey by that, whether hes against gays having rights or whether thats just an observation... still pretty retarded

Let's not change the world into a freakshow, okay?

regards,

Cockstein:sniper:


+++++++

Well I'd just like to point out that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG with homosexuality it's cousine, bisexuality. No guy wakes up one morning when hes thirteen to fifteen or something and think "I think maybe I will sleep with men for the rest of my life"

I personally am bi, 16, and life in Canada, a place of morality and acceptence, though not without it's crazed people fighting in the government to up hold their own beliefs. And why shouldn't they? It is their right after all... but I also happen to know that most of their arguments have nothing or littlle to do with the topic they discuss, gay marriage.

In order to discuss something properly between people all people have to have a common understanding of the issue and the definitions in which the issue is described.

Marriage is the high in love, the point at which two people celebrate their want to spend the rest of their lives together, even animals do it, though not by ceremony, more by mating for life. It is about love and devotion, not the christian, more specifically the catholic, church telling you that God has to recognize it or it isn't true...

Thats like denouncing that gay love in general has feelings attached to it.

Gay love isn't all about sex, though that's what many think.

I have a boyfreind, and even though we haven't met personally, we manage to hold up our long distance relation ship very well though comunication, and you can immagine the pain fro talking to someone who you love but can't see because your in Canada and they are in New Zealand.

Gay and Bi people should have every right to marriage, just as a way to prove that they are an accepted pair in society, and though Christians argue that their priests are not allowed to do that because sodomy is a "sin", they can get others to help them celebrate, after all, God didnt invent our law system, and marriage is merely a legal title given to two people.

Anyway, I have tons more information on what it is to be gay or bi and how it has influenced our history, appeared in history, blah blah blah...

please visit me at www.freewebs.com/metromental

thanks for reading

Regan Flavelle, of Orchastrata

*"haha my soapbox is bigger than yours" uses ladder to get down*

Hooray for you!! Its already hapened here in the UK and to all those who believe it is evil blah blah blah I ask you when is happiness evil?

I guess sadists aren't evil either. Neither is drugs and alcohol, it makes you happy; hell, we should all have a huge horribly depraved, hedonistic orgy full of drugs, sex, alcohol and violence, after all, that's what makes some people happy right?

That is so sweet...

Yeah, I'm a little baffled as to how exactly anybody's "age of innocence" would be ruined by that.

(And honestly, "Why do I have two daddies?" is easy compared to a lot of kid questions. I don't even have kids of my own, and I've already had to field such doozies as "Why did God take Grandpa away?" "Why does my friend Hakim have to ride in a wheelchair and I don't?" "Why can't I go back in Mommy's tummy if I came out of it?" "Why doesn't God have a phone number so I can call him?" and so on. Explaining two daddies? Piece of cake. :) )

I guess sadists aren't evil either. Neither is drugs and alcohol, it makes you happy; hell, we should all have a huge horribly depraved, hedonistic orgy full of drugs, sex, alcohol and violence, after all, that's what makes some people happy right?
Please note that except for drugs, everything you enumerated is perfectly legal between consenting adults. Even violence(it's what S&M is about, after all). So yes, those who are made happy by those hedonistic orgies can have them all they want; it's perfectly legal, and doesn't affect anyone not participating in it.

What you fail to grasp is that different things makes different people happy. As long as the things that make you happy are not illegal and only involves other adults who want to partake in it, it's fine. Stop trying to push what makes YOU happy on the rest of the world. Stop trying to shove your morals down our collective throat. Get off your moral high horses.

Just because your neighbour likes roman-style orgies doesn't mean you have to participate in it. And just because your OTHER neighbour wants to enter a meaningful, life-long and fulfilling relationship with a person of the same gender doesn't force you to do the same, either.

Get over yourself and let others live their lives as they see fit. Their decisions have no bearing on your life, so live and let live.

Yeah, I'm a little baffled as to how exactly anybody's "age of innocence" would be ruined by that.

(And honestly, "Why do I have two daddies?" is [i]easy[/i[ compared to a lot of kid questions. I don't even have kids of my own, and I've already had to field such doozies as "Why did God take Grandpa away?" "Why does my friend Hakim have to ride in a wheelchair and I don't?" "Why can't I go back in Mommy's tummy if I came out of it?" "Why doesn't God have a phone number so I can call him?" and so on. Explaining two daddies? Piece of cake. :) )

Cuz daddy and daddy really REALLY like each other... :p

On the TV program "Penn and Teller: Bullshit!" they recently did an episode on "Family Values" which is what most of this gay marriage shit is filed under.

According to a number of studies, you wanna know what the worst part about being raised by a same-sex couple is? Thats right, having to put up with the bigotry and intolerance of others. Even before elementary school is over and done with, the vast majority of children raised by same-sex parents have been teased, bullied, or discriminated against.

I'm not gay myself, but there's not much else that grinds my gears more than the bigotry of others against homosexuals.

Sociology has shown us that regardless of the behavior, if a person's behavior is perceived as 'weird' or 'abnormal' by most they will be ostracized and probably condemned or attacked. Lets try to grow up...

His leadership and her compassion also complement each other and help to create a stable relationship between them and a good environment for their children.


What was that I was saying about socially reinforced gender roles, and the discomfort some people have when men do not fill those gender roles?

I didn't say that was a principle basis for the anti-SSM crowd, did I?

It matters to God, he judes a nation based on the laws and decisions that we make . Right and wrong does affect the outcome of this nation. Right after the last person was pulled out of the Gaza stript, Katria formed. What we do and what we support does make a difference.

It matters to God, he judes a nation based on the laws and decisions that we make . Right and wrong does affect the outcome of this nation. Right after the last person was pulled out of the Gaza stript, Katria formed. What we do and what we support does make a difference.
No. That's just as bad as saying that the tsunami hit Asia because of the large Hindu and Muslim populations there.

I am a little crazy for thinking that meteorological events happening because we've been collectively raping and abused our planet earth are actually sent by God because our governments passed some piece of legislation to displease Him

Are you one of those who believe 9/11 was caused by God because of "teh evil gays"?

So you're a Westboro Baptist, or whatever these lunatics are called?

I guess sadists aren't evil either. Neither is drugs and alcohol, it makes you happy; hell, we should all have a huge horribly depraved, hedonistic orgy full of drugs, sex, alcohol and violence, after all, that's what makes some people happy right?

Sadists aren't evil, assuming they're practicing their sadism upon consenting masochists.

Drugs and alcohol aren't evil. Using them in an irresponsible manner might be consdered evil, but few people would argue that the existence of a can of beer is evil.

Violence could reasonably be called evil, but no one has advocated it. (EDIT: In the context of what could be called consensual violence, i.e. S&M, I can even speak from experience when I say that it's definitely not evil.) ;)

As for orgies - as long as the parties involved are all consenting adults, I don't really see an issue. It's not my cup of tea, but I can choose not to participate in other people's orgies, just like I choose not to date members of my own gender, seeing as I don't happen to be sexually attracted to them. Amazing how that works, isn't it?

It matters to God, he judes a nation based on the laws and decisions that we make . Right and wrong does affect the outcome of this nation. Right after the last person was pulled out of the Gaza stript, Katria formed. What we do and what we support does make a difference.


I hope you realize that your god is a cruel maniac. So, why did he send that tsunami to kill 100,000 people? That was magnificent work :/

Hitler burned people like Anne Frank for being Jewish. For that, we call him evil.
God burns Anne Frank for being Jewish, forever. For that, theists call him "good"

I do believe that drinking very moderate amounts of alcohol can increase life-span. Or so I've heard.

Sadists aren't evil, assuming they're practicing their sadism upon consenting masochists.

Drugs and alcohol aren't evil. Using them in an irresponsible manner might be consdered evil, but few people would argue that the existence of a can of beer is evil.

Violence could reasonably be called evil, but no one has advocated it.

As for orgies - as long as the parties involved are all consenting adults, I don't really see an issue. It's not my cup of tea, but I can choose not to participate in other people's orgies, just like I choose not to date members of my own gender, seeing as I don't happen to be sexually attracted to them. Amazing how that works, isn't it?


It seems to me that "evil" is defined as "anything Rightous Reclamation doesn't like

It matters to God, he judes a nation based on the laws and decisions that we make . Right and wrong does affect the outcome of this nation. Right after the last person was pulled out of the Gaza stript, Katria formed. What we do and what we support does make a difference.

I saw the smiley face, I get it.

I agree with the premsis of this thread and I am actully pleased that there has only been one idiot on here so far that disagrees with the idea. It is promising for the future that most people do in fact support the idea and that the best arguement that the other people can come up with is bullshit.
Well, calling me an idiot is hardly civilized. I don't care what you call me, or think of me, but I'm saying putting that here is not a proper debate.

It seems to me that "evil" is defined as "anything Rightous Reclamation doesn't like

Well, he's stated (I forget whether it was in this thread or one of the other gay marriage threads going on today) that he likes violence, provided it's against gay people. Given that, maybe he really likes all of these things, provided they involve gay people, and is trying to let us know about his secret desire to be thoroughly spanked by a bunch of gay men while drinking and doing drugs. :p

I saw the smiley face, I get it.

well fuck me...

at least i have an excuse... i've only just started posting here :P

I do believe that drinking very moderate amounts of alcohol can increase life-span. Or so I've heard.
No, not alcohol in general. Drinking moderate amounts of wine lowers the chances of cardiac troubles, but I'm confident you won't have the same effect if drinking beer. Beer actually makes you put on weight, which would increase the chance of cardiac conditions.

well fuck me...

Come on, RHI, you could've used telegrams if you were gonna come unto him. Get a room or something! :D

No, not alcohol in general. Drinking moderate amounts of wine lowers the chances of cardiac troubles, but I'm confident you won't have the same effect if drinking beer. Beer actually makes you put on weight, which would increase the chance of cardiac conditions.
Ah, yes. I had meant to say wine. Thank you for correcting me.

Wow, I continue to be horrified at the level of idiocy I see on these forums. :rolleyes:

First of all, a civil union is not the same as marriage. Second, you say you have "nothing against" gays and are not "biased' and then turn around and say they are "not normal". Make up your mind, doofus. Define NORMAL. Normal as in heterosexual, or normal as in human or normal as in "Just like me"? To homosexuals, homosexuality is NATURAL TO THEM, therefore it is. Then you equate gay marriage to marrying animals. So it would be safe to say that you see homosexuals as animals, right?

You must have some pretty thick calluses on your knuckes from dragging on the ground...:rolleyes:
I think I already said I MYSELF am not normal in a lot of ways... So they aren't ether. I'm not asking for people to recognize me as normal, why should they regognize them as normal? And how are gays animlas? I never said that. I'm saying "gay-marrige" is a non-sequitur. What I said isn't.

To say a gay person can't say they are married to another gay is oppressive. But, don't force me to.

you forget, the guy who posted that said he WAS gay and that he liked his fencing buddies:fluffle:
Queer=gay...DOES NOT COMPUTE!

I think I already said I MYSELF am not normal in a lot of ways... So they aren't ether. I'm not asking for people to recognize me as normal, why should they regognize them as normal? And how are gays animlas? I never said that. I'm saying "gay-marrige" is a non-sequitur. What I said isn't.

To say a gay person can't say they are married to another gay is oppressive. But, don't force me to.
Bringing up marriage with an animal basically equates same-sex marriage to beastiality. The two are fundamentally different. Guess what, if animals were sentient, we'd have to afford them rights as well, especially if they could give their consent.

I am sorry - everyone - for ruining your jolly moods regarding this issue, but let's face the music.

It's not anyone's fault - or disease - to be gay. We shouldn't ostricize them. But come on - when you grow up noone tells you " you should be hetero", you fancy people you fancy because this is who you are.

On the other hand though, all males born should have sex with females ( and vice versa ) therefore different option makes you ( sorry ) a freak of nature. Not your fault, the nature F-d something up.

I say it's okay to be gay, but slightly wrong. No marriages for you guys, no adoption either. Some legislation is missing though, as you should be able to live normally even though you're not entirely normal. Face it.

Let's not change the world into a freakshow, okay?

regards,

Cockstein:sniper:
Here, here!

because god meant for us to all be heterosexual and then some faggot fucked it up but even if i wasn't religious i would still think the same way


STAB YOU THROUGH THE EYE WITH A RAINBOW PRIDE PEN!

Well now that is out of my system. Time to add my 2 cents *ahem* as a teenage woman living in america and having to deal with this shit for the rest of my life I have to ask why the hell not?

Now allow me to eleborate. Last I understood America was a country based on the belief of religious tollorence, am I correct? So there goes your argument that god said so. Some of us do not believe in your god and really dont give two shits about what he has to say.

Secondly, I am under the assumption that our country was also founded on the idea that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL!!!! And last I checked homosexuals and bisexuals were human.

Now I would like you, or one of you who are running scared at the idea of gay marriage to explain to my little baby cousin how come her daddy and pappa can't prove they love eachother by getting married. The day you can explain why it is so wrong to an athiest child is the day I will be able to look at what you have to say without rage.

well fuck me...

If you are a guy I think that constitutes flamebait on this thread.

This isn't directed at anyone in particular.

Yes, I am gay. Yes, I think I should be able to marry another man if I so choose. Love is love, that's all there is to it. If you're straight, it's not like I'm gonna come up to you and try to force my beliefs down your throat, so don't go and try to force your Bible thumping, God fearing morals down mine.

Also, I am religious and I don't have anything against straight folks, just the Right Wing Nut-Jobs. I'm also fairly conservative, so there.

Bringing up marriage with an animal basically equates same-sex marriage to beastiality. The two are fundamentally different. Guess what, if animals were sentient, we'd have to afford them rights as well, especially if they could give their consent.
Gay is not normal. Allowing gay-marrige is forcing the public to legally agree it is. Same thing with animal-human marrige. I just KNOW it, in a few years, people will be pushing for it all-over.

It seems to me that "evil" is defined as "anything Rightous Reclamation doesn't like

damn right. "I" am HOLY.

first off... being gay isnt bad, being a gay STERIOTYPE is bad.
I dont care if a guy likes guys, but speaking that high gets
annoying REALLY quick.

2nd... I'm from Massachussetts, ya the "gay state" gay marriage doesnt
change anything, except different people are complaining to the
government.

Gay is not normal. Allowing gay-marrige is forcing the public to legally agree it is. Same thing with animal-human marrige. I just KNOW it, in a few years, people will be pushing for it all-over.

Oh dear god! Those evil, icky gays might get the ability to marry. The entire world as we know it will be destroyed!

Amen.
Now if you could only convince the rest of the Conservatives.

Gay is not normal. Allowing gay-marrige is forcing the public to legally agree it is. Same thing with animal-human marrige. I just KNOW it, in a few years, people will be pushing for it all-over.
How is telling people to get their fucking nose out of other peoples busness forcing them to "agree its normal" ?

What ever happened to "the paragraph"?
Anyway, civil unions are legal aren't they? If allow gay-marrige, we're saying gay is "normal". I have nothing agaist gays, so don't say I'm biased, but gay is NOT normal. Not that that's bad, I'm not "normal" in any sense of the word, but we'd be saying "gay is just as natural, as straight". And that is simply not true. I'll bet you guys will be saying to legalize animal-to-human marrige next.

this reminds me of seinfeld...." not that there's anything wrong with that.."

Oh dear god! Those evil, icky gays might get the ability to marry. The entire world as we know it will be destroyed!
It's not a threat to the world. It is, however, a sign of what has been coming for a long time...the U.S. gone crazy.