NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello,

Now Should Gays, and Bisexuals get married. A big question.

I think gays and bisexuals should be able to get married. Me being a fellow bisexual think that if you love each other then they can get married. If 2 straight people who don't love each other can get married, why can't 2 gay or Bisexual who love each other get married. There is nothing that says EXACTLY, states in the BIBLE{I am atheist though} that the same gender can get married. So, give me your thoughts, and don't get all Homophobic on me, or gays.

This is not a debate forum. This is for discussing WA proposals and limited WA roleplay. Take it to General (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227).

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad28ts.png

This is not a debate forum. This is for discussing WA proposals and limited WA roleplay. Take it to General (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227).

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad28ts.png

this is, we need to see if people want to make laws about it, DUH!!!

First off, wrong forum. However, I am very pro gay marriage and such. There is not one excuse that I cannot shoot down. Try me.

Towed to General.

Hello,

Now Should Gays, and Bisexuals get married. A big question.

I think gays and bisexuals should be able to get married. Me being a fellow bisexual think that if you love each other then they can get married. If 2 straight people who don't love each other can get married, why can't 2 gay or Bisexual who love each other get married. There is nothing that says EXACTLY, states in the BIBLE{I am atheist though} that the same gender can get married. So, give me your thoughts, and don't get all Homophobic on me, or gays.

Hello,

Now Should Gays, and Bisexuals get married. A big question.

I think gays and bisexuals should be able to get married. Me being a fellow bisexual think that if you love each other then they can get married. If 2 straight people who don't love each other can get married, why can't 2 gay or Bisexual who love each other get married. There is nothing that says EXACTLY, states in the BIBLE{I am atheist though} that the same gender can get married. So, give me your thoughts, and don't get all Homophobic on me, or gays.

The homophobes of the forum will be out in force soon, as will the rest of us both atheist and religious who support gay rights. What the Bible states is completely irrelevant as the Bible is not an acceptable basis for the law. Nor is the Koran, Torah, Principia Discordia, or your favorite book by Richard Dawkins.

Man. Have I really been here that long?

The homophobes of the forum will be out in force soon, as will the rest of us both atheist and religious who support gay rights. What the Bible states is completely irrelevant as the Bible is not an acceptable basis for the law. Nor is the Koran, Torah, Principia Discordia, or your favorite book by Richard Dawkins.

/thread

Fine with me, let them get married. But should they be allowed to adopt children?

Fine with me, let them get married. But should they be allowed to adopt children?

Why shouldn't they?

Adoption: Meh... I don't see what's so great about kids, but whatever.

Marriage: No. Definitely not. [But then again, I don't much care for the whole marriage thing anyways.]


And before anyone comes along calling me a homophobe, don't even bother. I'm gay myself.

Personally.. I think anyone wanting to get married should be able too, I also beleive that homosexual couples should be able to adopt children. I never understood what the big deal was anyway.

except when the kid gets beaten up in school everyday becasue he/she has 2 dads? Think about the kids first, please! They cannot be protected from other peoples small mindedness.

why should it be any question at all. if they feel like it i really don't see what the hell bussiness it is of anyone else.

what is one person's belief is for that one person to exemplify and practice, not to impose on someone else.

personally i could give a rat, other then being offended by the fanatacism of opposition to the proposition.

=^^=
.../\...

except when the kid gets beaten up in school everyday becasue he/she has 2 dads? Think about the kids first, please! They cannot be protected from other peoples small mindedness.

Wow, that's an incredibly stupid argument, now isn't it? Can't have gay rights because kids might get harassed at school? Genius

Wow, that's an incredibly stupid argument, now isn't it? Can't have gay rights because kids might get harassed at school? Genius
seconded

And before anyone comes along calling me a homophobe, don't even bother. I'm gay myself.

And why does being gay automagically mean you can't be a homophobe? Not that I'm saying you suffer from self-hate, but that does exist....

except when the kid gets beaten up in school everyday becasue he/she has 2 dads? Think about the kids first, please! They cannot be protected from other peoples small mindedness.

Instead of just not allowing gay people to marry in case their children get harassed, why not educate children at school on how there's nothing wrong with it?

Don't just deny someone a right because of the possible consequences, find a way around it!

Government should have no part in marriage other than to enforce agreements made by the parties before marriage.

Require a prenup which lays out how they will deal with all issues including divorce, children, etc. You can marry 3 men and 2 women for all I care. Just make the deal and stick with it. People who are adults should be able to marry as they please.

4-4;13666561']Instead of just not allowing gay people to marry in case their children get harassed, why not educate children at school on how there's nothing wrong with it?In some countries, education is not available to such a degree (cf. USA).

4-4;13666561']Don't just deny someone a right because of the possible consequences, find a way around it!Yeah, a way around the law is always a good thing ;)

Yeah, a way around the law is always a good thing ;)

Not every law, but in a case like this, it should be changed (if its not already) to give a gay couple of the same rights as a straight one.

Yes to equal rights in every sphere. I don't have any problem with other people's religious beliefs, that is entirely personal to them. However, we (well, the vast majority of people who post on here, anyway) live in liberal democracies founded upon ideals of equal rights. In this context, religion should be purely a private matter, not the basis for political policy on issues such as marriage and adoption law. We are not Iran, so please, dear politicians of the 'free world', drop this theocratic nonsense.

4-4;13666580']Not every law, but in a case like this, it should be changed (if its not already) to give a gay couple of the same rights as a straight one.
Rights yes, but not marriage. Marriage is a meaningless heterosexual institution, that homosexuals should not want to imitate. And why get married before a fucking god who does not want them?

except when the kid gets beaten up in school everyday becasue he/she has 2 dads? Think about the kids first, please! They cannot be protected from other peoples small mindedness.

Kids get beaten up in school for any reason. If it's not for two dads, it'll be because they're fat, or skinny, or tall, or short, or their name is funny, or their face. You can't keep childhood from happening to children.

In some countries, education is not available to such a degree (cf. USA).


Better make it available asap then...

Marriage is simply a contract between some people about living together, ofcourse same-sex marriage should be legal.

Hello,

Now Should Gays, and Bisexuals get married. A big question.

I think gays and bisexuals should be able to get married. Me being a fellow bisexual think that if you love each other then they can get married. If 2 straight people who don't love each other can get married, why can't 2 gay or Bisexual who love each other get married. There is nothing that says EXACTLY, states in the BIBLE{I am atheist though} that the same gender can get married. So, give me your thoughts, and don't get all Homophobic on me, or gays.


If I had my way, not only will homosexuals be banned to marry, but even heterosexuals who cannot commit to each other or do not love each other will not be allowed to marry. Divorce will be made illegal.

But of course, I do not have my way and I am ready to accept homosexual marriages. I just have to realise that marriage is such a good thing that non-religious people have copied it as well. Sure, they have taken the context of God completely out of it, but it's not the first time they've done it with other things.

My only worry is how this would affect society. Don't kid yourself into thinking that what you do in your bedroom concerns only you and other consenting adults. You are also part of a society, and everything you do affects society as well.

Rights yes, but not marriage. Marriage is a meaningless heterosexual institution, that homosexuals should not want to imitate. And why get married before a fucking god who does not want them?

Marriage gives rights, such like as in child custody and visitation rights in hospitals (and some other things someone pointed out in another thread, but I've forgotten).

But does a civil union do the exact same thing, except it isn't religious?
*off to research*

Better make it available asap then...

Marriage is simply a contract between some people about living together, ofcourse same-sex marriage should be legal.No. It's a "contract" under the supervision of the State or the Church. State and Church do not give marriage unconditionally. It does not just involve the two getting married, it involves inheritance rights, health insurance, and even the not-so-unconditional love of a certain fabricated deity. marriage should be abolished altogether, as well as folks like Dragons Bay.

except when the kid gets beaten up in school everyday becasue he/she has 2 dads? Think about the kids first, please! They cannot be protected from other peoples small mindedness.

By that theory, then fat people should not be allowed to have children because their offspring may, or may not, be fat.... and may, or may not, be bullied for being rotund.

Kids bully/beat up other kids that are different to themselves because it is a behaviour they have learned from adults.
As others have said... if the children are educated about why this is wrong, then that would help. If those values were backed up by the parents when the kids got home from school, then that would also be an immense help.

Just because heterosexuals can have children on a whim, it does not make them good parents. By the same token, just because homosexuals like the same gender, it does not make them bad parents.

When there are so many children in care homes, abandoned or taken away from their hetero parents, I would think that it would be much better for a child to be raised in a caring/loving environment with whatever parental structure is available than left to grow up in care. There are too many kids in care that never get to have a family structure.

except when the kid gets beaten up in school everyday becasue he/she has 2 dads? Think about the kids first, please! They cannot be protected from other peoples small mindedness.

With every step towards equality, there is always a backlash from bigots.

To let fear of their prejudice narrow our options is in effect to concede the point, to let homophobia hold sway over our society forever.

My only worry is how this would affect society. Don't kid yourself into thinking that what you do in your bedroom concerns only you and other consenting adults. You are also part of a society, and everything you do affects society as well.

Ignoring your outdated views on marriage, how do same-sex couples affect society?

personally i could give a rat, other then being offended by the fanatacism of opposition to the proposition.

=^^=
.../\...

I'll take your rat. At least the thread wasn't a complete waste of time!

*cooks rat and eats*

And why does being gay automagically mean you can't be a homophobe? Not that I'm saying you suffer from self-hate, but that does exist....

And also what has not wanting gays to marry automatically mean you are afraid of them?

And also what has not wanting gays to marry automatically mean you are afraid of them?

What other reason is there to oppose it?

Marriage? Yes.

Children? Yes.

Don't base it on what a kid's peers MIGHT do to the child. Instead if making adoption illegal, educate other children on different types of families. Or pay for martial arts classes. Either way.

The thing that's most annoying is when people say gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage. How, may I ask, will two gay people in Wichita, Kansas getting married afffect YOUR marriage? Sigh.

/endrant

There is nothing that says EXACTLY, states in the BIBLE{I am atheist though} that the same gender can get married.

(I'm assuming you meant "can't get married"?)

Anyway, although you're right in that it doesn't say that explicitly, it's not entirely correct. The thing is that in the biblical sense, marriage has very little to do with love, and everything to do with sex. In the biblical sense, marriage is just a way of two people telling God: "Yo, check this, we're going to be having sex from now on!" and even though love would have been an added bonus in the biblical times, it wasn't a requirement, especially considering how most marriages in that time were arranged by the parents. And since gay sex between men is strictly forbidden in the Bible, the inevitable result is that gay marriage between men is equally strictly forbidden.

As for my personal opinion about gay marriage, I couldn't care less. It's neither my problem nor my business. That is, as long as the gays don't try to include anything Christian into their ceremony, for the reason mentioned above.

Show me a right that I have, which gays do not.

But yes, they should be able to marry eachother if they want to.

Yes to everything, partially because the only counter-arguement is drawn from religion, which really doesn't have a place in the law books.

Yes to both issues . When it comes to legal rights it shouldn't matter who you love/have sex with. Religious views have no place within the legal system of a country and those views are the only ones opposing those matters they shouldn't matter.

Show me a right that I have, which gays do not.

But yes, they should be able to marry eachother if they want to.

That depends on where you are and who you're around. And that's why those rights need to be visibly enumerated and protected. Matthew Shepard didn't have the right to live in Laramie, Wyoming.

And also what has not wanting gays to marry automatically mean you are afraid of them?

It's an irrational action, and the vast majority of irrational actions taken by whole groups of people are motivated at some level by fear.

That depends on where you are and who you're around. And that's why those rights need to be visibly enumerated and protected. Matthew Shepard didn't have the right to live in Laramie, Wyoming.

I meant legally. Legal rights under the law.

And you know that what happened to him would not have been prevented just because the law said it was alright for gays and bisexuals to be married. Sadly.

Since you know... it's already illegal to kill people.

And also what has not wanting gays to marry automatically mean you are afraid of them?

It doesn't. It would depend on the reason(s) why you don't want gays to marry. That/those might mean you're afraid of gays.

I was just pointing out that just because you're gay doesn't mean you can be (self-)homophobic. Just look at the string of Republican politicians, etc. caught in gay-sex scandals for what appears to be prima facie evidence of that!

I meant legally. Legal rights under the law.

And you know that what happened to him would not have been prevented just because the law said it was alright for gays and bisexuals to be married. Sadly.

Since you know... it's already illegal to kill people.

You can join the military. In some school districts, you would be allowed to teach where a gay person wouldn't. You can be a Scoutmaster or Boy Scout.

You can join the military.
That should be changed.
In some school districts, you would be allowed to teach where a gay person wouldn't.
That as well, as long as they are public schools. (Private is another matter entirely)
You can be a Scoutmaster or Boy Scout.
Is this a public 'institution'? I don't know.

And also what has not wanting gays to marry automatically mean you are afraid of them?

Oh, yay, another person that doesn't know that the suffix -phobia doesn't only mean "exaggerated fear of", but that it also means "intolerance or aversion for" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phobia).

We get your etymologically challenged lot a lot. Get educated.

But in the very first place, why do we care about who people want to be with? Nobody cares about whether A is with B or C is with D. So why should we make such a big fuss if guy A is with guy B or girl C is with girl D?
Pardon my style of thinking but if homophobia exist...what is to say that 'heterophobia' doesnt exist? For all you know, homosexuals may find heterosexuals to be as repulsive as the latter find them.

Figures?

Of course they should be allowed to marry if they want to. It's their choice. However, I don't think they should be allowed to marry in church. After all, the church is christian and should follow the bible. A priest who lets gay/bi couples marry in church doesn't have the right to call himself a priest or christian.

And no, I'm not christian.

My only worry is how this would affect society. Don't kid yourself into thinking that what you do in your bedroom concerns only you and other consenting adults. You are also part of a society, and everything you do affects society as well.

My splooging affects society? Intriguing. Tell me more =)

Oh, yay, another person that doesn't know that the suffix -phobia doesn't only mean "exaggerated fear of", but that it also means "intolerance or aversion for" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phobia).

We get your etymologically challenged lot a lot. Get educated.

Lol how did Blouman not understand that...

Of course they should be allowed to marry if they want to. It's their choice. However, I don't think they should be allowed to marry in church. After all, the church is christian and should follow the bible. A priest who lets gay/bi couples marry in church doesn't have the right to call himself a priest or christian.

And no, I'm not christian.

Well by that logic, he shouldn't be allowed to eat pork or refuse to brutally murder adulterers and still call himself a priest. Oh yeah, or molest little boys, yet somehow many of the priests that where involved in that scandal still retain their priest-ship(?) and have only been transferred to other regions.

If I had my way, not only will homosexuals be banned to marry, but even heterosexuals who cannot commit to each other or do not love each other will not be allowed to marry.

So you think that gays can't love each other or commit to each other? Seriously?

(Love and companionship is, after all, the divine purpose of marriage--God says so very clearly in Genesis.)

Gay marriage is heresy and blasphemy against the Lord Most High.
Purge the heretic from His sight!

Call me close-minded and such if you want. I know I am and I'm proud of it.

"An open mind is a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded."
- Imperial Proverb

Oh, yay, another person that doesn't know that the suffix -phobia doesn't only mean "exaggerated fear of", but that it also means "intolerance or aversion for" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phobia).

We get your etymologically challenged lot a lot. Get educated.

So you think that gays can't love each other or commit to each other? Seriously?

(Love and companionship is, after all, the divine purpose of marriage--God says so very clearly in Genesis.)

Saying gays can't love is like saying that just because someone is of another faith, they don't have the ability to believe in a god.

Mairrage should be a private ritual for everyone, gay or straight, and it should be done in any place that they desire, whether it's a church, secular mairrage chapel, or something else.

Government should have no part in mairrage except enforcement of contracts.

Gay marriage is heresy and blasphemy against the Lord Most High.
Purge the heretic from His sight!

Call me close-minded and such if you want. I know I am and I'm proud of it.

"An open mind is a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded."
- Imperial Proverb

"A closed mind is a tool shack with rusty hinges." - me

"An open mind is a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded."
- Imperial Proverb[/QUOTE]

Warhammer 40K fan?

I've always wondered if the Imperium persecuted gays or not.

Hello,

Now Should Gays, and Bisexuals get married. A big question.

Practically speaking, yes, I believe they should have that right, no question. Ideally speaking, I would tend to agree with lesbian political philosopher Claudia Card who pointed out that legal marriage in the US (as opposed to say, common-law unions) is a trap for abused spouses. If I had my way, we would not have legal marriage, and we would not attach the benefits to it from which queers are currently excluded.

And also, no, it isn't a big question. It's a pretty obvious case of discrimination and humiliating a minority at best, and a failure to expect human rights at worst.


Me being a fellow bisexual

Yay! Hi, fellow nonexistent being!


If 2 straight people who don't love each other can get married, why can't 2 gay or Bisexual who love each other get married.

I agree that us queers deserve the same protections of the law, but I don't think this is a very good argument for it. Why should you have to love each other to enjoy the benefits of a common-law union?


There is nothing that says EXACTLY, states in the BIBLE{I am atheist though} that the same gender can get married.

But there is something in the Bible which says that we males should be murdered for having sex with other men. At least you queer women get off easy on that one. :rolleyes:

"An open mind is a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded."
- Imperial Proverb

Warhammer 40K fan?

I've always wondered if the Imperium persecuted gays or not.[/QUOTE]

Yep - Black Templars

It depends on what planet you are on. They are persecuted on Ecclesiarchy worlds, but on most Imperial worlds, people = resources, so it doesn't matter what your sexual orientation is.
Still, Imperial quotes work quite well for the Crusade.

Now Should Gays, and Bisexuals get married. A big question.

Not really. The big question is: Why shouldn't they?

I see no reason why they shouldn't.

Not really. The big question is: Why shouldn't they?

I see no reason why they shouldn't.

Because the Church says they shouldn't - duh.

Now Should Gays, and Bisexuals get married.

I don't see any reason why not.

If 2 straight people who don't love each other can get married, why can't 2 gay or Bisexual who love each other get married. Because love doesn't have anything to do with legislation?

Now Should Gays, and Bisexuals get married.They should be allowed to, in my opinion. But it should by no means be an obligation. Should they? No. Should they not? No. May they? Yes.

Because the Church says they shouldn't - duh.

Invalid argument ;)

Has this thread become

Gays should marry, gays should marry!
Oh, no, the homophobes are a'comin!
Faggots faggots faggots!
Church says no
Gays should marry, gays should marry!
No business of the states
Faggo...gays should marry!

yet?

Because the Church says they shouldn't - duh.

My church says they should. Yours is clearly wrong.

Has this thread become

Gays should marry, gays should marry!
Oh, no, the homophobes are a'comin!
Faggots faggots faggots!
Church says no
Gays should marry, gays should marry!
No business of the states
Faggo...gays should marry!

yet?

Yes it has.

Yes it has.

Oh, thank you. I thought. I don't know if I like you. Hmmm

My church says they should. Yours is clearly wrong.

What is your church? Did you just make it up, or do I actually have to expend energy and tell my armies to destroy something?
Burn the heretic!
NO FEAR! NO REMORSE! NO MERCY!

Oh, thank you. I thought. I don't know if I like you. Hmmm

"Let them hate so long as they fear."
-Caligula

What is your church? Did you just make it up, or do I actually have to expend energy and tell my armies to destroy something?
Burn the heretic!
NO FEAR! NO REMORSE! NO MERCY!

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Also, obvious troll reveals himself with reference to his armies

"Let them hate so long as they fear."
-Caligula

"You're a dumbass"
-God

"You're a dumbass"
-God

"NO U"
-Satan

First off, wrong forum. However, I am very pro gay marriage and such. There is not one excuse that I cannot shoot down. Try me.

Its Illegal in most states...Shoot down that one, lol...

But, im pro gay marriage, if they want to get married, why not...

Honestly, the only people who are against it are the Bible Nuts...and they should stay out of politics anyway...

On the other hand though, the Government cant force those religions to recognize them, thats for the Church to decide, Politicians have no place in Religion either...

Gay marriage is heresy and blasphemy against the Lord Most High.
Purge the heretic from His sight!

Call me close-minded and such if you want. I know I am and I'm proud of it.

"An open mind is a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded."
- Imperial Proverb

OK, you're close-minded and such.

Strangely enough, I'm proud, too. :p

"You're a dumbass"
-God

Pretending to know God's thoughts is heresy. Are you a heretic?

Some may question your right to destroy ten million people. Those who understand realise that you have no right to let them live!
- In Exterminatus Extremis (doctrine of the Inquisition)

Pretending to know God's thoughts is heresy. Are you a heretic?

Some may question your right to destroy ten million people. Those who understand realise that you have no right to let them live!
- In Exterminatus Extremis (doctrine of the Inquisition)

Go make like James Dean and go CRASSSSSSSSSSSSSHBOZZZZZZZZZUGBOOOOOOOM!

Rights yes, but not marriage. Marriage is a meaningless heterosexual institution, that homosexuals should not want to imitate. And why get married before a fucking god who does not want them?

Plenty of religions that do not mind. The problem the religious always face when playing the "sanctity" card is that theirs is not the only religion - and that other religions might allow things they dislike. The recent mormon controversy is a good example.

So - marriage should be a state issue. And if your religions idea happens to fit into the states idea - rejoice. If the state allows more than your religion - keep rejoicing. If the state allows less.. ask for reforms.

Go make like James Dean and go CRASSSSSSSSSSSSSHBOZZZZZZZZZUGBOOOOOOOM!

Was James Dean an actor or something? Actually, I don't honestly care who he is, so don't waste time answering this.

By the Lord, he was a sycophantic weasel! If ever a windpipe cried out for a brisk half-hitch, his was it.

+++ Inquisitor Gregor Eisenhorn

Was James Dean an actor or something? Actually, I don't honestly care who he is, so don't waste time answering this.

So why did you ask?

So why did you ask?

I think Killy is still in the closet. Poor lad.

So why did you ask?

So I could use that awesome quote!

So I could use that awesome quote!

"A witty saying proves nothing"
-Voltaire

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Also, obvious troll reveals himself with reference to his armies

I almost didn't notice that white text...almost.

What foetid corner of the world breeds these fawning idiots?
+++ Inquisitor Gregor Eisenhorn +++

I almost didn't notice that white text...almost.
Good for you :)

To the darkness I bring fire. To the ignorant I bring faith. Those who welcome these gifts may live, but I will visit naught but death and eternal damnation on those who refuse them.

+++ Chaplain Grimaldus of the Black Templars, hero of Helsreach +++

To the darkness I bring fire. To the ignorant I bring faith. Those who welcome these gifts may live, but I will visit naught but death and eternal damnation on those who refuse them.

+++ Chaplain Grimaldus of the Black Templars, hero of Helsreach +++

So do you ever say anything yourself, or do you just quote people?

So, give me your thoughts, and don't get all Homophobic on me, or gays.

Interesting. You want my thoughts, but if you don't like what I'm saying you are going to call me homophobic. :rolleyes: Well, at least you were up front about that.

So do you ever say anything yourself, or do you just quote people?

Why fight when you can get others to fight for you (unless you are in the mood for some fun)? - Inquisitor Lord Galbatross (me)

4-4;13666561']Instead of just not allowing gay people to marry in case their children get harassed, why not educate children at school on how there's nothing wrong with it?

Possibly because a lot of people don't believe "there is nothing wrong with it?" :rolleyes:

Possibly because a lot of people don't believe "there is nothing wrong with it?" :rolleyes:

And hence the need for education ;)

Hell yes! And this is coming from the straight, American, Christian! Yes, that one's me. See there on the Right?

If a particular church wants to omit homosexual marriages, fine by me. But in the eyes of the law, they should be married just like everyone else.

I'm a tad shaky on adoption rights, but everything else should be equal.

(If my posts in the past contradict this, and I'm sure that some do, this is my position now.)

I think Killy is still in the closet. Poor lad.


"Killy' was never in the closet to begin with.
I have a sneaking suspicion that you, Neo Kervoskia, are in fact, gay yourself.
I wait for the day that God will smite you. There will be much celebration.
:);):D:p


Blessed are they that reap the sinners from the sight of the God.
Damned are those that consort with Satan!
+++ Inquisitor Silas Hand +++

"Killy' was never in the closet to begin with.
I have a sneaking suspicion that you, Neo Kervoskia, are in fact, gay yourself.
I wait for the day that God will smite you. There will be much celebration.
:);):D:p


Blessed are they that reap the sinners from the sight of the God.
Damned are those that consort with Satan!
+++ Inquisitor Silas Hand +++

Thank you Fidget Lovers. Finally someone with some sense. Together may we cleanse the heretic from the face of the earth.

And hence the need for education ;)

Many people who feel homosexuality can not and will not be convinced that is is OK and they don't want the school system trying to teach their children that it is OK. For a lot of people this belief that homosexuality is wrong is based on a religious belief and it is not the job of the school to teach that a religious belief is wrong.

Why fight when you can get others to fight for you (unless you are in the mood for some fun)? - Inquisitor Lord Galbatross (me)

Problem with that is you aren't fighting. To stick with your analogy, you're waving your sword around on your own while the battle is 50 miles away.
Many people who feel women's rights can not and will not be convinced that is is OK and they don't want the school system trying to teach their children that it is OK. For a lot of people this belief that women's rights is wrong is based on a religious belief and it is not the job of the school to teach that a religious belief is wrong.

'My religion doesn't like it' is no basis for denying anyone rights.

You will atone for your sins, and when you die you will thank me for allowing you to!

— Colonel Schaeffer to his Last Chancers +++

:mp5::mp5::mp5:

Problem with that is you aren't fighting. To stick with your analogy, you're waving your sword around on your own while the battle is 50 miles away.

Correction. I am in orbit on a large battleship with the capacity to annihilate all the heretics on this pathetic planet.:upyours:

<snip>
<snip>
Obvious puppetry is obvious.
Correction. I am in orbit on a large battleship with the capacity to annihilate all the heretics on this pathetic planet.:upyours:

For someone so mighty and fearsome you've done little more than prove an amusing distraction from the topic at hand.

'My religion doesn't like it' is no basis for denying anyone rights.[/QUOTE]

Yes it is. God is the Master of All, and the Church is the enforcer of His will. What better basis do you need?

No, they shouldn't.

Obvious puppetry is obvious.


For someone so mighty and fearsome you've done little more than prove an amusing distraction from the topic at hand.


So what.

By the way, I am not copying the Kilogramm, merely agreeing with him



"Ad Meioram Dei Gloriam."
-St. Igantious of Loyola

Yes it is. God is the Master of All, and the Church is the enforcer of His will. What better basis do you need?
My god disagrees.
No, they shouldn't.

Because......?

For someone so mighty and fearsome you've done little more than prove an amusing distraction from the topic at hand.

We were using an analogy, remember? Or is your brain to small to grasp this concept?
And distractions are often a useful part of fighting a war. When your enemy is distracted, he is easier to attack.

We were using an analogy, remember? Or is your brain to small to grasp this concept?
No, I understood it. You were suggesting that you could easily win the debate. I disagreed. I continue to.
And distractions are often a useful part of fighting a war. When your enemy is distracted, he is easier to attack.

This isn't a war. It's an internet forum.

My god disagrees.

There is only one God, and He is the God of all. So you have no god who can disagree with the Lord Most High.

No, I understood it. You were suggesting that you could easily win the debate. I disagreed. I continue to.


This isn't a war. It's an internet forum.


My nation's at war with yours, on the internet forum.

This isn't a war. It's an internet forum.

This day shall be our day of reckoning. Look not to the shame of the past, but to the glory of the future. We shall wash away the stain of our dishonour in the hot blood of our enemies.
+++ Sword Brethren Lorenzo's address to the warriors of the Varl Crusade +++

My nation's at war with yours, on the internet forum.

Roleplay forums are that way (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1220)

Roleplay forums are that way (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1220)

I know.

I'm leaving this topic with the stance that gay marriage should be banned.
Dispute it all you want, worms.:)

A shall laugh as I watch your souls suffer in eternal torment, heretics.

Hello,

Now Should Gays, and Bisexuals get married. A big question.

I think gays and bisexuals should be able to get married. Me being a fellow bisexual think that if you love each other then they can get married. If 2 straight people who don't love each other can get married, why can't 2 gay or Bisexual who love each other get married. There is nothing that says EXACTLY, states in the BIBLE{I am atheist though} that the same gender can get married. So, give me your thoughts, and don't get all Homophobic on me, or gays.

Since it is a question of whether they should marry, or the implied, be allowed to marry; the next question would be why do they wish to marry?

If that can be validly answered within the context of why people recognize marriage as an institution for what it is, then I say go for it.

Hello,

Now Should Gays, and Bisexuals get married. A big question.

It's not that big a question. I would be in strong opposition of their civil rights to force them to marry.

Note, that the above is a comment on the grammar, 'should they have the ability to..." would be more accurate.

To answer the question you meant, I cannot oppose state-recognized matrimony of homo/bi's.

Ok, thats a lie, I very well could... but don't.

Gay marriage is heresy and blasphemy against the Lord Most High.
Purge the heretic from His sight!

Call me close-minded and such if you want. I know I am and I'm proud of it.

"An open mind is a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded."
- Imperial Proverb
is this guy serious or just playing us?????

anyway not only are you close minded and homophobic your also a hypocrite

There is only one God
Ye.s The Flying Spaghetti Monster
is this guy serious or just playing us?????

anyway not only are you close minded and homophobic your also a hypocrite

Probably playing with us.

Gay marriage is heresy and blasphemy against the Lord Most High.
God's a stoner?
Call me close-minded and such if you want. I know I am and I'm proud of it.
OK, you are a close-minded intolerant bigot.

I'm all for civil marriage (or however you call unreligious marriage), but the very definitions of marriage within each religion is clear enough on the point that it is a man with a woman and nothing else.

If you want to get married in such a religion, well, you can't, because that's not what marriage IS in that religion. You would first have to change the definition of it in said religion, until which anything you could do would not be marriage. And there are so many religions out there I don't understand why anyone would be in one that refuses to acknowledge them.

And why does being gay automagically mean you can't be a homophobe? Not that I'm saying you suffer from self-hate, but that does exist....

I agree

God's a stoner?
What did you think all the burning of incense in churches was good for?

God's a stoner?

OK, you are a close-minded intolerant bigot.

Seconded

There is only one God.Prove it.

I dont mind them marrying. As long as it is not a catholic/protestant/etc. kind of marriage. Just as some people refer to it as "establishing a bond"

Prove it.
Everyone says what he or she believes. As Einstein said, there is too little to say a God does excist and too much that He doesn't. It's all about what you believe.

Everyone says what he or she believes. As Einstein said, there is too little to say a God does excist and too much that He doesn't. It's all about what you believe.

I don't believe that you exist.

A shall laugh as I watch your souls suffer in eternal torment, heretics.

How very Christian of you. Isn't your God most high a god of compassion? Wouldn't he like you to show such compassion on earth? Wouldn't such compassion extend to your fellow human beings?

Here's what we should do: Make civil unions the societally acceptable form for two people to join under the state. So, when you and your partner go to get a license, you get a civil union license, not a marriage license. Marriage gets the religious uptight? Fine, let them have it. It's only a word, and an antiquated one at that.

Everybody wins.

I agree. The government and religion need to stay away from each other, unless it's a theocracy, of which there are few nowadays.

All people should be allowed the same legal benefits. Either civil unions that are 100% equivalent to what is currently known as marriage should be used across the board (gay or straight), with the same legalities and such, or there should be no legal bindings of any couples whatsoever, and it should be strictly a religious thing. There are straight couples who go to a courthouse and get married without a priest or minister or anything, so why can't others of non-Christian (or even modified Christian) faiths do the same?

Can someone please close this duplicate thread??

I don't believe that you exist.

I don't excist? "Prove it" ;)

Hello,

Now Should Gays, and Bisexuals get married. A big question.

I have no problem with gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders getting married.

It would be discrimination to stop consenting adults marrying purely on the basis of their sexuality or gender.

I have no problem with them adopting kids either.

The main argument people have against the adoption is "Ohhh..think of the children! They'll be scarred for life!"

"Ummm..no."

Having two parents of the same, or of different genders does not screw up a child's development.

Yes, the children might get bullied for having same sex parents, but our society is growing more and more tolerant, and children can get bullied for their parents' skin colour, job, single-parentage etc, and we don't say that those people shouldn't adopt because their children might get bullied.

I've only joined on this thread - have we got any flaming homophobes yet?

How very Christian of you. Isn't your God most high a god of compassion? Wouldn't he like you to show such compassion on earth? Wouldn't such compassion extend to your fellow human beings?

Here's what we should do: Make civil unions the societally acceptable form for two people to join under the state. So, when you and your partner go to get a license, you get a civil union license, not a marriage license. Marriage gets the religious uptight? Fine, let them have it. It's only a word, and an antiquated one at that.

Everybody wins.

Excatly what i thought. I'm for civil unions. But against marriages. Simple as that. And I think it should stay that way. As same-sex marriages are definetly( I dont think anyone would deny me here) non-christian. Not to mention other religions.

Excatly what i thought. I'm for civil unions. But against marriages. Simple as that. And I think it should stay that way. As same-sex marriages are definetly( I dont think anyone would deny me here) non-christian. Not to mention other religions.

Against marriages?

I'm curious if there is anyone in this forum who objects to homosexual marriage outside of his/her religious convictions because, quite honestly, that's the most boring/porous argument ever. Truly, if you're going to make a case, couch it in logic (or at least pretend). Here's an example:

- A child needs a mother and a father to be properly reared. If one of the elements of the nuclear family (an institution that has been around since the dawn of civilization) is missing, the child risks losing out on important socialization mechanisms that establish gender roles and other important (albeit intangible) characteristics. While a child COULD be theoretically be raised without any issues, establishing gay marriage as an institution would, by virtue of probability, disadvantage some or even most children.

Of course, I don't believe this at all. I've just been waiting for someone to post it so I could tear into it. Oh well...next time maybe!

Until then, bigotry is really all that keeps gays from marrying, because the argument I gave above usually is founded upon an irrational fear of gays. A MUCH more intriguing question, perhaps, is whether or not society needs defined gender/sexuality roles. I read an article in Scientific American that basically supposed sexual orientation at birth is best described as a spectrum. There are people on one side who are actually born, let's say, VERY heterosexual. On the other end, people are born who are very homosexual (these are probably the vast majority of homosexuals, who insist, despite often trying, that they can't change who they are attracted to). Most of us, the article goes on, are born in the middle (which explains bisexuals) and are SOCIALIZED towards being heterosexual (which also elucidates how certain cultures in the past had much greater tendencies towards sexual orientation than ours).

For the sake of full disclosure, by the way, I consider myself heterosexual.

So...fellow NS forum-members, let's read your thoughts!

Regards,

Jonas DeVry of Ronenbau

As same-sex marriages are definetly( I dont think anyone would deny me here) non-christian.

Um, I think plenty of Christians would deny you there, actually. Perhaps they remember that Jesus talked a lot about love (even for social outcasts) and not at all about the sinfulness of homosexuality.

Not to mention other religions.

What about them?

Possibly because a lot of people don't believe "there is nothing wrong with it?" :rolleyes:And hence the need for education ;)



Exactly.

Thank you Fidget Lovers. Finally someone with some sense. Together may we cleanse the heretic from the face of the earth.

Complimenting your puppet (or complimenting yourself with your puppet) just makes you look like an idiot.

too many gays and bisexuals

not enough bullets to solve the problem:mad:

too many homophobes

not enough bullets to solve the problem:mad:

fixed :D

too many gays and bisexuals

not enough bullets to solve the problem:mad:

Which problem?

Fine with me, let them get married. But should they be allowed to adopt children?

I have been involved in both types of relationships. I have two children from one. NO ONE WILL TAKE THEM FROM ME (grrrr, snarlll). Besides, I have been both, a mother and a father to them and have enjoyed every minute.

OH, post script. yes. adopt adopt adopt.

But should they be allowed to adopt children?

Why shouldn't they?

Why shouldn't they?

Simple. There are some people in this world who can only be happy by finding ways to make others miserable... Like 'rights' are only worth having if you can be sure someone else gets deprived of them.

Rights yes, but not marriage. Marriage is a meaningless heterosexual institution, that homosexuals should not want to imitate. And why get married before a fucking god who does not want them?

Um, you do realize that one can be married by a priest of any religion, or have a completely non-religious ceremony that involves no gods at all, right?

Show me a right that I have, which gays do not.


The right to marry a willing adult of your choice.

That as well, as long as they are public schools. (Private is another matter entirely)


No, it isn't. Discrimination base on sexual orientation is wrong regardless of if the school is public or private.

What is your church? Did you just make it up, or do I actually have to expend energy and tell my armies to destroy something?
Burn the heretic!
NO FEAR! NO REMORSE! NO MERCY!

You do realize this isn't an RP forum, yes?

Its Illegal in most states...Shoot down that one, lol...


That violates several portions of the constitution. There, shot down.

Possibly because a lot of people don't believe "there is nothing wrong with it?" :rolleyes:

Much like those who believe that there is something wrong with (or inferior about) having the wrong skin color those people would be wrong.

As a matter of fact there is a word for those people, "bigots".

The right to marry a willing adult of your choice.

Or the right to have your chosen partner have the process streamlined to live in this country with you.

Or the right to visit your partner in hospital.

Or the right to claim a couple status for income tax deductions.

Or numerous other benefits such as insurances, pensions and medical benefits.

Or the right to claim whatever special exceptions to legal precedent are granted implicitly in the term 'spouse'.

Or the right to custody of children from a previous marriage.

Or the right to adopt.

Or the right to claim your partner, or partner's dependents on your taxes.

Or the rights implicit in heterosexual marriage with regarding to things like savings plans - like transferring a retirement savings plan to a surviving partner.

Or the right to not be compelled to testify against your partner - like the special exception allowed for straight couples.


Or - most or least important, depending how you look at it... the right to call your union "marriage". Actually equal, not 'separate but equal'.

"Killy' was never in the closet to begin with.
I have a sneaking suspicion that you, Neo Kervoskia, are in fact, gay yourself.
I wait for the day that God will smite you. There will be much celebration.
:);):D:p


Blessed are they that reap the sinners from the sight of the God.
Damned are those that consort with Satan!
+++ Inquisitor Silas Hand +++

Oh noes, it's the mighty Imperium Sock Puppet brigade!

No, they shouldn't.

What a well thought out argument.

The right to marry a willing adult of your choice.Legally speaking, we heteros don't get to choose to marry people of our sex either.

I don't excist? "Prove it" ;)

Fail. You don't fool me. Thats exactly what someone who didn't exist would say:)

I'm all for civil marriage (or however you call unreligious marriage), but the very definitions of marriage within each religion is clear enough on the point that it is a man with a woman and nothing else.

Um, no it isn't? It's clear in some religions, in others it's either not specifically brought up or it's outright allowed.

Legally speaking, we heteros don't get to choose to marry people of our sex either.

No, but we do get to marry the person of our preference - if we conform to the 'hetero' norm.

The idea that it is about marrying 'the same sex' is an evasion... all of us are allowed to marry the people we love IF they are of the 'opposite sex', and forbidden from marrying the people we love IF they are of the 'same sex'.

Which is, of course, a legal situation that intrinsically discriminates against those who are not attracted to a partner according to heteronormative patterns. That is - it specifically discriminates against people who want to marry a 'gay' partner.

Excatly what i thought. I'm for civil unions. But against marriages. Simple as that. And I think it should stay that way. As same-sex marriages are definetly( I dont think anyone would deny me here) non-christian. Not to mention other religions.

Except for the Christian sects that have no problem with gay marriage . . .

What about other religions?

No, but we do get to marry the person of our preference - if we conform to the 'hetero' norm.I was merely pointing out the fallacy of the original statement. Quite frankly, it's a rather obnoxious argument. I deserve the right to marry men, even though the thought makes me retch!

We should just get rid of legal marriage altogether anyway. We only have laws regarding marriage because everybody used to be religious. Atheists don't need marriage anyway, but they might think they do because we all grow up in a somewhat chritian influenced environment. No marriage would make tax laws and such a lot more simple.

Possibly because a lot of people don't believe "there is nothing wrong with it?" :rolleyes:

Interesting. I didn't realize you were a homophobe and against gay marriage Celtlung. I thought you were one of the more reasonable right-wingers around here. That's a shame.

sense there was a little "quotes" thing going I figure I should have a go at it.:D

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
"in as much as you have done to the least of these, So have you done to me"
Jesus

"all things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made"

John the appostle or at least attributed to him

at least my quotes are from people who actually existed

We should just get rid of legal marriage altogether anyway. We only have laws regarding marriage because everybody used to be religious. Atheists don't need marriage anyway, but they might think they do because we all grow up in a somewhat chritian influenced environment. No marriage would make tax laws and such a lot more simple.

Marriage involves more than taxes. There's health insurance, life assurance, pensions, joint bank accounts, and a host of rights and responsibilities involved in being someone's next of kin. Removing marriage would seriously fuck shit up.

Oh noes, it's the mighty Imperium Sock Puppet brigade!

I'd like you to say that staring down the barrel of a boltgun.'
Death to the enemies of Mankind!

I'd like you to say that staring down the barrel of a boltgun.'
Death to the enemies of Mankind!

*stares down barrel of boltgun*
Go away troll, and take your puppets with you.

The right to marry a willing adult of your choice.

Or the right to have your chosen partner have the process streamlined to live in this country with you.

Or the right to visit your partner in hospital.

Or the right to claim a couple status for income tax deductions.

Or numerous other benefits such as insurances, pensions and medical benefits.

Or the right to claim whatever special exceptions to legal precedent are granted implicitly in the term 'spouse'.

Or the right to custody of children from a previous marriage.

Or the right to adopt.

Or the right to claim your partner, or partner's dependents on your taxes.

Or the rights implicit in heterosexual marriage with regarding to things like savings plans - like transferring a retirement savings plan to a surviving partner.

Or the right to not be compelled to testify against your partner - like the special exception allowed for straight couples.


Or - most or least important, depending how you look at it... the right to call your union "marriage". Actually equal, not 'separate but equal'.

Bann-ed is an ally. Don't bash other allies.

The right to marry a willing adult of your choice.
Say I choose to marry a willing man. Uhm.. oh wait, I can't do that either, despite the fact that I am not gay. Technically, gays have the same rights I do in that regard. We can all marry willing women.
No, it isn't. Discrimination base on sexual orientation is wrong regardless of if the school is public or private.
Correct me if this isn't the same, but I am sure I can not allow whomever I want from entering my house for whatever reason I want to. (unless the police have a warrant and are knocking at my door) Is the house as a private institution different than a private school?
*snip*
Right. Still the same rights I have/don't have.
Bann-ed is an ally. Don't bash other allies.
Thanks, but to be fair, I asked a question and got an answer. It only looks like bashing because of the sheer barrage of statements.

"Killy' was never in the closet to begin with.
I have a sneaking suspicion that you, Neo Kervoskia, are in fact, gay yourself.
I wait for the day that God will smite you. There will be much celebration.
:);):D:p


Blessed are they that reap the sinners from the sight of the God.
Damned are those that consort with Satan!
+++ Inquisitor Silas Hand +++

Thank you Fidget Lovers. Finally someone with some sense. Together may we cleanse the heretic from the face of the earth.

If, as seems likely, you are the same person posting under two names, STOP DOING THIS.

One of your puppets replying to the other is known as PUPPET WANKING, and it is frowned apon.

I'm not reporting it at this stage, since your moronic quotes are somewhat entertaining. Just don't go any further with that, into faking debate between your puppets.

Correct me if this isn't the same, but I am sure I can not allow whomever I want from entering my house for whatever reason I want to. (unless the police have a warrant and are knocking at my door) Is the house as a private institution different than a private school?

Yes it is actually.

Should gays and bisexuals marry? I, as a bisexual woman, would love to marry a gay man, against his will. I think the state should make this happen. Get over here, Fass.

Yes it is actually.

Ah. Well, if you don't mind, could you point out a few of the major ways.

You don't need to overtax yourself. :p Or even reply to this post for that matter.

Ah. Well, if you don't mind, could you point out a few of the major ways.

You don't need to overtax yourself. :p Or even reply to this post for that matter.

I just think you could make the point without relying on an analogy to the rights of private property.

The most relevant difference is that you can discriminate on the basis of race in who you let into your house. Private schools can't do that, at least not explicitly.

I feel there is no need for them to get married, since they cant have kids, and isnt that the only real reason why we have marriage?

I feel there is no need for them to get married, since they cant have kids,

Same-sex couples can adopt. Why shouldn't that count?

and isnt that the only real reason why we have marriage?

No.

For one, this is certainly not true legally. There are plenty of childless married heterosexual couples. Should we deny them marriage rights, too?

For another, this is not true culturally either. Marriage is at least as much tied to love and commitment.

I just think you could make the point without relying on an analogy to the rights of private property.

I couldn't think of another private institution that I was sure about the right to discriminate.
The most relevant difference is that you can discriminate on the basis of race or sex in who you let into your house. Private schools can't do that, at least not explicitly.
This is what I was unsure of. Thanks.

I feel there is no need for them to get married, since they cant have kids, and isnt that the only real reason why we have marriage?

I smell felt, and googly eyes.

Who's puppet are you?

This is what I was unsure of. Thanks.

Errr ... read it more closely. I made a fairly big blunder there. Lol.

Errr ... read it more closely. I made a fairly big blunder there. Lol.

You can't discrimate on the basis of sex in who you let into your house?

You can't discrimate on the basis of sex in who you let into your house?

The fucking fashists won't let me send my boy to the girl's school! It's discrimination I tells ya!

Actually, I think you could get into trouble putting a sign on your front door refusing entry to blacks or whatever. But you could refuse them entry without having to give any reason, and I don't think schools can do that.

The fucking fashists won't let me send my boy to the girl's school! It's discrimination I tells ya!
That is what I assumed you meant by the edit, but you never know...

Actually, I think you could get into trouble putting a sign on your front door refusing entry to blacks or whatever. But you could refuse them entry without having to give any reason, and I don't think schools can do that.
They could simply make up some ridiculous answer: "We really can't accept someone with toenails like that into our establishment. It would be suicide."

Say I choose to marry a willing man. Uhm.. oh wait, I can't do that either, despite the fact that I am not gay. Technically, gays have the same rights I do in that regard. We can all marry willing women.

You were just farting around here, right?

'cos I got a pumpkin-sized rebuttal for that point!

A ban on gay marriage is SEXIST. Without gay marriage, a man and a woman have different (in fact mutually exclusive) rights. Only a man can marry the willing woman, and only a woman can marry the willing man.

Neat, huh?

You were just farting around here, right?

'cos I got a pumpkin-sized rebuttal for that point!

A ban on gay marriage is SEXIST. Without gay marriage, a man and a woman have different (in fact mutually exclusive) rights. Only a man can marry the willing woman, and only a woman can marry the willing man.

Neat, huh?

Either you just blew my mind, or I have no idea how that is sexist.

Wait.. no.. I think I understand.. no..? yes..

No.
No, I don't get it.

Wait. Alright, so yes they have different rights, aha! Men can only marry women, and women can only marry men. Which is a different right entirely. Woo!

I have no idea why that was so hard to understand. But it is late-ish.

Anyway, that still doesn't rebut my point that gay men have the same rights as heterosexual men and lesbians have the same rights as straight women. It just proves that the current laws are wrong for another reason as well.:p

Gay marriage? Yes. And before anyone says no, I'd ask them to consider if straight marriage was the weird, alien concept and was banned in most areas. How would you feel then?

Gay marriage? Yes. And before anyone says no, I'd ask them to consider if straight marriage was the weird, alien concept and was banned in most areas. How would you feel then?

That straight marriage was a weird, alien concept, and also banned.
However, I would still be accepting towards it and probably push for the rights of those its banned status affected.

[QUOTE=Wundertat;13666254]Hello, This is the president of the Holy Empire of Adeleke, I say no to gay marriages. As a country we base our rules on the Word of God. We say no because the bible says "all liars, thieves, murderes and homosexuals shall have a portion in Hell" . Let's not allow the devil to blindfold us. The idea of gay itself comes from the pit of hell, and it's one of those ways the devil wins more soul to his destructive agenda. He knows how good Heaven is, and He's doing all His best to stop people from going there. As for us "the Holy Empire of Adeleke" we would yield to the word of God, and resist any wiles of the Devil".

Wait.. no.. I think I understand.. no..? yes..

Second gear is there somewhere. Careful you don't slam 'er into reverse ... :p


I have no idea why that was so hard to understand. But it is late-ish.

It's hard to understand because it's sophistry. It's a fatuous rebuttal of what I take was a fatuous argument of equal rights existing already.

Anyway, that still doesn't rebut my point that gay men have the same rights as heterosexual men and lesbians have the same rights as straight women. It just proves that the current laws are wrong for another reason as well.:p

My real argument is that there are two rights there, one which is granted by gay marriage and another which is granted by straight marriage. They are equivalent, but the very fact that one is denied and the other granted shows that in some way, they are not the same right.

Straights don't need the first right, gays don't need the second. So it really is discrimination on the basis of sexuality to grant one but not the other.

The big advantage of calling these two rights instead of one is this: to change the law, gays demand a right they are denied. The only argument against the granting of a right is that it infringes some other person (or group's) rights.

So, to deny a right to gay marriage, the opposition must show how it infringes on their own rights. I don't think they can do that ... when they try, it becomes painfully apparent that they are claiming as their business, what existing laws say is not their business, ie what consenting adults do in private.

Gay marriage? Yes. And before anyone says no, I'd ask them to consider if straight marriage was the weird, alien concept and was banned in most areas. How would you feel then?

It depends. I go to the extreme to illustrate this: a genocidal tyrant tells a Western citizen, you guys think genocide is a weird, alien concept and bans it from the West.

Of course I do not say gay marriage is anywhere equivalent to genocide. My point is that the point isn't about banning or not banning something in relation to another, or the opposite, but about banning something in its own right.

There might be a severe flaw in the above argument...

Gay marriage? Yes. And before anyone says no, I'd ask them to consider if straight marriage was the weird, alien concept and was banned in most areas. How would you feel then?

Like a criminal! We'd have to get the priest around, disguised as a plumber, and search all the guests for bugs. And bury the remains of the cake so the garbage collectors don't turn us in to the Marriage Bureau.

It's a gateway crime! Who knows what it could lead to. Book clubs. Slide nights. Chore rosters. Friends visiting each other for dinner!

No no no. These perverts must be exposed to the harsh glare of public scrutiny. Marriage is public humiliation, that's how it's meant to be.

Second gear is there somewhere. Careful you don't slam 'er into reverse ... :p
If only you knew how many times I've done that...
It's hard to understand because it's sophistry. It's a fatuous rebuttal of what I take was a fatuous argument of equal rights existing already.
I was being serious, but I don't seriously consider it when I derive my opinion on the matter.
My real argument is that there are two rights there, one which is granted by gay marriage and another which is granted by straight marriage. They are equivalent, but the very fact that one is denied and the other granted shows that in some way, they are not the same right.

Straights don't need the first right, gays don't need the second. So it really is discrimination on the basis of sexuality to grant one but not the other.

The big advantage of calling these two rights instead of one is this: to change the law, gays demand a right they are denied. The only argument against the granting of a right is that it infringes some other person (or group's) rights.

So, to deny a right to gay marriage, the opposition must show how it infringes on their own rights. I don't think they can do that ... when they try, it becomes painfully apparent that they are claiming as their business, what existing laws say is not their business, ie what consenting adults do in private.
Sweet sweet resolution.

Not that anything has just been resolved on a grand scale, but.. one step at a time.

Hello,

Now Should Gays, and Bisexuals get married. A big question.

I think gays and bisexuals should be able to get married. Me being a fellow bisexual think that if you love each other then they can get married. If 2 straight people who don't love each other can get married, why can't 2 gay or Bisexual who love each other get married. There is nothing that says EXACTLY, states in the BIBLE{I am atheist though} that the same gender can get married. So, give me your thoughts, and don't get all Homophobic on me, or gays.


Actually if you would read the bible more often then you can see that in the bible it says that any man who sleeps with another man, and any woman that sleeps with another women, or an animal. then they are sinners, and if they don't repent then they are doomed! this is what the bible says about homosexuals.

Actually if you would read the bible more often then you can see that in the bible it says that any man who sleeps with another man, and any woman that sleeps with another women, or an animal. then they are sinners, and if they don't repent then they are doomed! this is what the bible says about homosexuals.

No, it doesn't say that. But have fun in your little world.

Actually if you would read the bible more often then you can see that in the bible it says that any man who sleeps with another man, and any woman that sleeps with another women, or an animal. then they are sinners, and if they don't repent then they are doomed! this is what the bible says about homosexuals.

What now?

The more times you read something, new, clear, everpresent, and unambiquous values are revealed?

It's like reading some sort of cereal box with 3d glasses!
Exciting.

Hello, This is the president of the Holy Empire of Adeleke, I say no to gay marriages. As a country we base our rules on the Word of God. We say no because the bible says "all liars, thieves, murderes and homosexuals shall have a portion in Hell" . Let's not allow the devil to blindfold us. The idea of gay itself comes from the pit of hell, and it's one of those ways the devil wins more soul to his destructive agenda. He knows how good Heaven is, and He's doing all His best to stop people from going there. As for us "the Holy Empire of Adeleke" we would yield to the word of God, and resist any wiles of the Devil".

Once more, you aren't in the RP forum here . . .

what is wrong with you people????

where have all the morals gone?

what is wrong with you people????

where have all the morals gone?

With the flowers. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhlOJm9nkwM)

what is wrong with you people????

where have all the morals gone?

You mean the passage at the end of a fairy tale, just before "and then they all lived happily ever after" ...?

Oh, I think they're still there, if you want to go read a fairy tale.

It is not one's opinion to form law. A nation for everyone, without discrimination, should follow a way of the denominator, not adhere to the strict numerator.

It is not one's opinion to form law. A nation for everyone, without discrimination, should follow a way of the denominator, not adhere to the strict numerator.

That's mighty verbose for a first post.

Are you using "denominator" and "numerator" in some special sense ? "Lowest common denominator" in a social sense is a very loose analogy with the mathematical sense. I don't use it myself.

It is not one's opinion to form law. A nation for everyone, without discrimination, should follow a way of the denominator, not adhere to the strict numerator.
Birgirkagirk?

That's mighty verbose for a first post.

Are you using "denominator" and "numerator" in some special sense ? "Lowest common denominator" in a social sense is a very loose analogy with the mathematical sense. I don't use it myself.

As in, the numerator, 2/157th, a small selection of the people who want their way, and the denominator - all of the people.
Or rather, laws shouldn't restrict any one part of the population to appease the few, and should only be formed when all of a population agrees.

Birgirkagirk?

You speak Gibberish? I'll let you handle this then ...

You speak Gibberish? I'll let you handle this then ...
No. But it's fun to make up stuff. :D

Or rather, laws shouldn't restrict any one part of the population, and should only be formed when all of a population agrees.

That's clearer I guess.

In a representational-democratic society, we are already accustomed to being divided into two camps of roughly equal size. These two camps jockey for position on an issue, and when one outnumbers the other, law is made. Or modified, or retracted.

What you are suggesting is quite a different matter, and if implemented right now would result in NO NEW LAWS BEING FORMED. Whatever the issue, it is very difficult to get even a 2/3 majority with our current thinking.

The reason for this, I believe, is that the laws which we would overwhelmingly agree on EXIST ALREADY. It makes no sense to look at an existing law, pretend it isn't there, and make it over ... only living without it for a while would show if it is necessary or desirable, or should be framed differently.

That's clearer I guess.

In a representational-democratic society, we are already accustomed to being divided into two camps of roughly equal size. These two camps jockey for position on an issue, and when one outnumbers the other, law is made. Or modified, or retracted.

What you are suggesting is quite a different matter, and if implemented right now would result in NO NEW LAWS BEING FORMED. Whatever the issue, it is very difficult to get even a 2/3 majority with our current thinking.

The reason for this, I believe, is that the laws which we would overwhelmingly agree on EXIST ALREADY. It makes no sense to look at an existing law, pretend it isn't there, and make it over ... only living without it for a while would show if it is necessary or desirable, or should be framed differently.

Not bad for one who believes in minimal legislation, eh? In this case, we could greatly strip back the size of the government, using less resources. The extra resources could put to work bettering the enforcement of current laws and other duties the government - or just lowering our taxes.

Instead, we just get more and more restrictions put on us day by day.

In our current way of thinking, too many people get screwed over.

What should be done is: let the GLBT community become unrestricted, the rest can just go on with life - we can stop wasting time (time = money) arguing about it.

But of course, a few Bigoted Christians(and a few other groups) think it's their nation, and would cry and cry about it. :]

With the flowers. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhlOJm9nkwM)

And the cowboys.

What other reason is there to oppose it?

I am sure that they are others, not because you are afraid of them. The term Homophobe is stupid you may not be afarid of them but you may still oppose some things from them.

Yes to everything, partially because the only counter-arguement is drawn from religion, which really doesn't have a place in the law books.

This argument fails, just because some people claim they are opposed to something because of their religion, doesn't mean all oppose due to religion.

It's an irrational action, and the vast majority of irrational actions taken by whole groups of people are motivated at some level by fear.

Why it is irrational?

It doesn't. It would depend on the reason(s) why you don't want gays to marry. That/those might mean you're afraid of gays.

I was just pointing out that just because you're gay doesn't mean you can be (self-)homophobic. Just look at the string of Republican politicians, etc. caught in gay-sex scandals for what appears to be prima facie evidence of that!

Maybe so but it is not always the case.

As for the few republicans which have been caught in gay acts, I also find it laughable when people say they shouldn't be against gay marriage because they have engaged in homosexual acts. You can still be gay and opposed to gay marriage

Oh, yay, another person that doesn't know that the suffix -phobia doesn't only mean "exaggerated fear of", but that it also means "intolerance or aversion for" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phobia).

We get your etymologically challenged lot a lot. Get educated.

I am sorry Fass but I clicked on that link you gave me and this is what it said
"An exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation"

But I see your point as Phobe is both fear or averse to, it still doesn’t make sense how is not wanting gays to marry make someone either afraid of or have an aversion to gays?

But I see your point as Phobe is both fear or averse to, it still doesn’t make sense how is not wanting gays to marry make someone either afraid of or have an aversion to gays?
What arguments have we seen?

In real life, the most common form of this I've seen (and my boss is gay, so I get exposed to a lot of talk on the topic from my co-workers) is some form of "it's icky".
Some form of religious argument is probably the second-most frequent argument I've seen.
A marriage is between a man and a woman, and changing that would open the floodgates and destroy basic societal structures. That's a conservative argument that sees tradition as correct and changes to it as bad.
What if they adopt kids? Apart from that being a different issue, this is usually another traditionalist argument, though sometimes you get people who genuinely believe that children with two same-sex parents will be damaged somehow.
Gay people themselves who are opposed to the idea of a traditional family and think it's the wrong path for gay couples to go down.

I can't actually think of any more. So let me see: the first one is irrational, no argument there. The second is obviously religious. The third is based on fear (not necessarily of gays themselves, but of change), and an irrational one at that. The fourth is basically the same as the third - and of course it doesn't apply to the question of same-sex marriage anyways. And the final one is also one based on irrational fear - hell, one might even argue that it is a traditionalist one, considering that traditions in the GLBT community are different from mainstream ones.

I have never heard an argument against allowing same-sex couples the right to marriage or some non-church marriage equivalent that was based on reason. In fact, even the arguments mentioned above are seldomly put forward in such a coherent way - usually you have to decipher basically non-sensical rants to get to them.

Given this, I'm sure you can appreciate that people (rationalists in particular) don't have a whole lot of respect for arguments against gay marriage.

*snip*

Yes but that still dosen't justify calling someone a homophope because they don't think someone can marry someone else of the same gender.

Maybe if you called them homomarriagephobes or something.

On another topic how is not always wanting change irrational, it is just as bad as a lot of people who think things should change just for the sake of it not there is some irrational thought.

It depends if the opposition to the change is irrational or not.

It depends if the opposition to the change is irrational or not.

Good point and while I would like to argue this matter, I can't be bothered (which is why i deleted it from my post) maybe if someone started up a thread on it I would.

Well some people want change because they just think that any change is good and change must just be implemented, to oppose that sort of illogical reasoning is not being irrational nor is it being against change.

Yes I know I said I would argue it and then I went and did oh well

Maybe if you called them homomarriagephobes or something.
That might be more inclusive. Nonetheless, you'll find that a significant proportion (probably a majority, from personal experience) of homomarriagephobes are also homophobes, in that their concerns are not with the institution of marriage as such, but the presence and "granting" of rights to homosexuals.

On another topic how is not always wanting change irrational, it is just as bad as a lot of people who think things should change just for the sake of it not there is some irrational thought.
I don't think whether or not something constitutes change is a valid thing to be considering. Either something (a policy, for example) is good, or it is not. That is intrinsic to the matter at hand - whether this thing already exists or it would be a change if it were to be created is basically irrelevant.

In practice, because almost everything is so crap, you will find me advocating change more often than not. But that's not because I am a particular fan of change (indeed, my ideal government basically revolves around an unchangable, since perfect, constitution), but because what is good pretty much always requires change.

That might be more inclusive. Nonetheless, you'll find that a significant proportion (probably a majority, from personal experience) of homomarriagephobes are also homophobes, in that their concerns are not with the institution of marriage as such, but the presence and "granting" of rights to homosexuals.

Yes, what about those that are quite good friends with gay people, but are averse to allowing them to marry each other? How can you then call them homophobes, they don't fear them nor are they averse to them.

Yes, what about those that are quite good friends with gay people, but are averse to allowing them to marry each other? How can you then call them homophobes, they don't fear them nor are they averse to them.

Do you think that people with black friends can't be racist? Or that men in relationships with women can't be sexist?

Do you think that people with black friends can't be racist? Or that men in relationships with women can't be sexist?

No I don't, but being racist doesn't mean you fear them either, it could just mean that you seem them as some sort of inferior being.

I am sorry Fass but I clicked on that link you gave me and this is what it said
"An exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation"

But I see your point as Phobe is both fear or averse to, it still doesn’t make sense how is not wanting gays to marry make someone either afraid of or have an aversion to gays?

Try harder next time...
-phobia
1 : exaggerated fear of <acrophobia>
2 : intolerance or aversion for <photophobia>

If, as seems likely, you are the same person posting under two names, STOP DOING THIS.

One of your puppets replying to the other is known as PUPPET WANKING, and it is frowned apon.

I'm not reporting it at this stage, since your moronic quotes are somewhat entertaining. Just don't go any further with that, into faking debate between your puppets.

I am not posting under two names. (I just happen to be the friend of the ruler of the Fidget Lovers.) You gave me a good idea though. In addition to this, I don't care enough about NationStates to be bothered if you did report me.

And, on top of that, you should go shoot yourself.:upyours:

*stares down barrel of boltgun*
Go away troll, and take your puppets with you.

1. I don't care what you think anymore than you care what I think.
2. If you had stared down the barrel of a boltgun (or any gun held by an Imperial) you would not have been able to post.

1. I don't care what you think anymore than you care what I think.
2. If you had stared down the barrel of a boltgun (or any gun held by an Imperial) you would not have been able to post.

Yes I could, since it is make believe...

Yes I could, since it is make believe...

Perhaps he's saying that staring down the barrel of a pretend gun would mean you yourself are not real, and therefore make you unable to post.

Perhaps he's saying that staring down the barrel of a pretend gun would mean you yourself are not real, and therefore make you unable to post.

That I'll buy...

More likely the troll still hasn't figured out that this isn't a rp forum.

Yes, what about those that are quite good friends with gay people, but are averse to allowing them to marry each other? How can you then call them homophobes, they don't fear them nor are they averse to them.

Those people wish to treat homosexuals as second-class citizens.

It's like going back in time 50 years and asking, "What about those who are quite good friends with black people, but still think they should be required to sit at the back of the bus? They're not racist, right?"

That I'll buy...

More likely the troll still hasn't figured out that this isn't a rp forum.

All the world's a stage.

-Shakespeare

Yes, what about those that are quite good friends with gay people, but are averse to allowing them to marry each other?
Those are not friends.

Perhaps he's saying that staring down the barrel of a pretend gun would mean you yourself are not real, and therefore make you unable to post.

Yes, that works for me.

Those are not friends.

You mean that you don't advocate treating your friends as second-class citizens?

You mean that you don't advocate treating your friends as second-class citizens?

What if your friends are second-class citizens?

I'm bisexual (so is my wife) and we're married :p

I'm bisexual (so is my wife) and we're married :p

Oooh, M/M/F threesomes are my favorite! :D

Oooh, M/M/F threesomes are my favorite! :D

ohhhhh, tell me more ;):cool:


There's another bi couple in our town that recently expressed interest in meeting with us. *horny dance*

ohhhhh, tell me more ;):cool:


There's another bi couple in our town that recently expressed interest in meeting with us. *horny dance*

How much are you charging for video? :D

How much are you charging for video? :D

:p

video gets traded for video and pics for pics.

You send first :D

:p

video gets traded for video and pics for pics.

You send first :D

The videos we made stay in the closet, n'est pas? At least until I have political aspirations...you can then use the to save me from myself.

I'm bisexual (so is my wife) and we're married :p
O kewl!

*wants a bisexual wife*

I support gays right to marry, I'm currently helping out my lesbian friend with her marriage with support and doing the math of the bill for her lol!

I'm helping where athiests wouldn't. Because apathy is just as bad as opposition...


I've never understood any moral reason to be against sodomy. Homosexuality is no more a sin then being born black or retarded. People are different.

I'm not particularly fond of government sponsored marriages however. Such as marriage liscences, etc. It actually restricts the freedom to love by turning it into an emotionless document of you got married on such and such date.

It also limits who can marry whom. Hypocritical to say the least how the same people who are ussally for gay marriage, don't mind the government stepping in to stop polygamus communes and child with adult sexual relationships... Suddenly all that consent they whine about is irrelevant. Because oh, a child cannot consent, or a woman raised in such an enviorment is brainwashed...


You can't just pick and choose. Either something is right, wrong, or has too little relevance to care about. I believe sexuality falls somewhere inbetween right, and occassionaly too irrelevant to care about. Any kind of sexuality. Sex with same gender, sex with children, sex with animals, sex with dead people. I really don't care what you do as long as you're not killing, robbing, or beating the crap out of people for no reason.

The videos we made stay in the closet, n'est pas? At least until I have political aspirations...you can then use the to save me from myself.

How much is it worth to you? :P


Of course I would never trade video without the consent of all involved, you hotass beeyotch.

All the world's a stage.

-Shakespeare

As you like it.

JACQUES:
All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school...
Act 2 Scene 7.

JACQUES:
A worthy fool! Motley's the only wear.
Act 2 Scene 7.

Sometimes something just seems wrong. It just does not seem right. It might be hard to say why it is wrong and it may be difficult to come up with a logical reason why it seems wrong. Gay marriage is one of those topics for me. I respect the opinions but it just seems wrong to me.

I am trying to think of an analogy. Ok, it seems wrong to purposely alter the course of a stream or river. There are lots of smart arguments that can be made for moving the course of a stream or river such as flood control and irrigation. However, it just does not seem right that human should have the power to alter the course of a river. Now I do not have anything against canals, I really do not. However, I do not like the idea of changing the course of a natural body of water, It just seems wrong.

If women want to have sex with each other, my religion and I are ok with it. If guys want to do it, my religion is opposed to it. Maybe this is why gay marriage seems wrong to me. If there was somebody whose religion was ok with men marrying men, it would be bigotted of me to try to deny them this. However, I guess there is really nothing stopping them from moving to a country whose family law policies are based on that religios teaching.

I think that every faith should have a piece of ground where they are free to live out their religious teachings. The patriotic American in me would be proud if that place could be the USA. Maybe I would be ok for it if a real legitimate religion existed that supported gays marrying in particular or man-man sex in general.

The prohibition on gay sex is followed by a prohibition on allowing the joys of gay sex to fluorish in any country. Perhaps this should be a matter for the various states. I think that states should be able to experiment in new social policies. I think people should be able to vote with their feet by moving to a state that allows gay men to marry each other.

The problem though lies in our full faith and credit clause of our Federal constitution. If a Constitutional amendment permitted states to refuse to recognize foreign state marriages of homosexuals, this would make me a lot more willing to accept the practice. If I was free to vote against it in my state and not have my state recognize the other state's gay marriages, I might be able to avoid sinning by being soft on gaiety. I do not know. This is a difficult question. It is so much easier to say no to it than try to justify it. I guess in the end I am opposed to it completely if for no other reason than to have the opportunity of maybe bringing some holiness into my life by opposing it.

Maybe I would be ok for it if a real legitimate religion existed that supported gays marrying in particular or man-man sex in general.

So you would only be in favor of gay marriage being legal in the U.S. if there was I religion that you approved that endorsed it?

*sniffs*
I smell closet bigot

So you would only be in favor of gay marriage being legal in the U.S. if there was I religion that you approved that endorsed it?

*sniffs*
I smell closet bigot

I am not sure. Like many modern Jews I struggle with the tension between being a modern man who believes in religious freedoms to all and on the other hand I struggle with the biblical prohibition against being soft on gays. I do not care if this makes me a bigot or not, in fact I think that the true duty to the Lord lies not in coming up with the right answer to the ethical question but in actually wrestling with the problem.

If women want to have sex with each other, my religion and I are ok with it. If guys want to do it, my religion is opposed to it.

Seriously? I've never heard this particular odd exception. I have a hard time imagining a justification for why lesbianism is all fine and good, but male homosexuality is bad (besides the obvious "lol, lesbian porn rawks," anyway...).

Maybe this is why gay marriage seems wrong to me. If there was somebody whose religion was ok with men marrying men, it would be bigotted of me to try to deny them this.

There are quite a few such "somebodies." I'm glad you realize that it is bigoted to enforce your religion's morality on them.

However, I guess there is really nothing stopping them from moving to a country whose family law policies are based on that religios teaching.

Nor is there anything stopping you.

The patriotic American in me would be proud if that place could be the USA. Maybe I would be ok for it if a real legitimate religion existed that supported gays marrying in particular or man-man sex in general.

There are quite a few such religions. Why do you not consider them "legitimate"?

Seriously? I've never heard this particular odd exception. I have a hard time imagining a justification for why lesbianism is all fine and good, but male homosexuality is bad (besides the obvious "lol, lesbian porn rawks," anyway...).



There are quite a few such "somebodies." I'm glad you realize that it is bigoted to enforce your religion's morality on them.



Nor is there anything stopping you.



There are quite a few such religions. Why do you not consider them "legitimate"?

It all boils down to he is a bigot who uses his religion as an excuse.

Sometimes something just seems wrong. It just does not seem right. It might be hard to say why it is wrong and it may be difficult to come up with a logical reason why it seems wrong.

This is a phenomenon we call "prejudice."

If women want to have sex with each other, my religion and I are ok with it. If guys want to do it, my religion is opposed to it.

What religion are you? I can't think of one where that's true.

Maybe this is why gay marriage seems wrong to me. If there was somebody whose religion was ok with men marrying men, it would be bigotted of me to try to deny them this. However, I guess there is really nothing stopping them from moving to a country whose family law policies are based on that religios teaching.

No, nothing except the various extensive social and economic costs involved in moving to another country.

Free societies don't use "You can always leave" as an excuse for mistreating people.

I think that every faith should have a piece of ground where they are free to live out their religious teachings.

Whatever those religious teachings are? Really? What if my religion were to say that straight people should be hanged en masse?

The patriotic American in me would be proud if that place could be the USA.

The patriotic American in you should shudder at the thought. This country was founded on religious freedom.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...."

Maybe I would be ok for it if a real legitimate religion existed that supported gays marrying in particular or man-man sex in general.

What is a "real legitimate religion"? It seems to me that this is a case of No True Scotsman.

I mean, homophobia was exported worldwide by Western imperialism... but plenty of ancient, "legitimate" cultures had no problem with homosexuality. Imperial China, medieval Japan, ancient Greece... socially legitimate same-sex relationships have also been observed among African and Native American peoples. For that matter, during the golden age of the Islamic empires there was a massive outpouring of homoerotic literature, especially love poetry--though, admittedly, technically it wasn't ever supposed to be expressed physically.

When it comes to virulent homophobia, the Christian West is the exception, not the norm.

Perhaps this should be a matter for the various states. I think that states should be able to experiment in new social policies.

I agree. But they should not be able to violate equality under law. If straight people can marry, gay people must be able to marry as well.

I guess in the end I am opposed to it completely if for no other reason than to have the opportunity of maybe bringing some holiness into my life by opposing it.

So opposing people who want to honor their love for and commitment to each other brings "holiness" into your life?

I think you need to consider your interpretation of that concept.

I was merely pointing out the fallacy of the original statement. Quite frankly, it's a rather obnoxious argument. I deserve the right to marry men, even though the thought makes me retch!

Absolutely. You shouldn't be discriminated against because of your orintation, any more than you should be discriminated against for, for example, the colour of your skin.

Bann-ed is an ally. Don't bash other allies.

If pointing out a dozen of the many, many differences currently allowed is 'bashing an ally', then I'm afraid allies will have to be 'bashed'. Me - I didn't see anyone getting 'bashed'.

We should just get rid of legal marriage altogether anyway. We only have laws regarding marriage because everybody used to be religious. Atheists don't need marriage anyway, but they might think they do because we all grow up in a somewhat chritian influenced environment. No marriage would make tax laws and such a lot more simple.

Cute.

Wrong, though. Marriage existed long before Christianity, and has existed (in some form) with religion, or without it. For the most part, our western cultures have maintained the institutions not for spiritual reasons, but for purposes of the transferrence of titles and property.

Whatever those religious teachings are? Really? What if my religion were to say that straight people should be hanged en masse?

I respect your ability to get angry and violent quickly, but if your hypothetical religion was to have its way, the human race would die out pretty quickly.

Sometimes something just seems wrong. It just does not seem right. It might be hard to say why it is wrong and it may be difficult to come up with a logical reason why it seems wrong. Gay marriage is one of those topics for me. I respect the opinions but it just seems wrong to me.

I am trying to think of an analogy. Ok, it seems wrong to purposely alter the course of a stream or river. There are lots of smart arguments that can be made for moving the course of a stream or river such as flood control and irrigation. However, it just does not seem right that human should have the power to alter the course of a river. Now I do not have anything against canals, I really do not. However, I do not like the idea of changing the course of a natural body of water, It just seems wrong.

This analogy suggests that you see man/woman marriage as akin to a river. Water flowing downhill in a natural way, forming a river in its interaction with the land.

The same could be said for any social institution -- hereditary poverty and privelege, jails, war, the gender-division of labour, or any traditions of government.

This is an argument of "the way things are are the natural way, we should not interfere with how time has made things."

Leading me to think, that while you might see law as a human device, which we are entitled to change over time, that you see marriage as God's work and not ours to change.

Needless to say, I completely disagree. Marriage is an institution of law, and we are entitled to change it whether we believe in God or not.

If women want to have sex with each other, my religion and I are ok with it. If guys want to do it, my religion is opposed to it.

Does your religion provide you with any reasons for that? I mean, can you argue why lesbianism is OK but gayness not, without resorting to the authority of a book or church which many of us here give no special weight?

Maybe this is why gay marriage seems wrong to me. If there was somebody whose religion was ok with men marrying men, it would be bigotted of me to try to deny them this. However, I guess there is really nothing stopping them from moving to a country whose family law policies are based on that religios teaching.

No. Perhaps YOU should move to "some country" where the law is based on religious teaching. The US is a secular country.

I think that every faith should have a piece of ground where they are free to live out their religious teachings.

Weirdly enough, I agree. But only under the circumstances that people are free to move from any country to any other. There should be real diversity of different political systems (including theocracy) but not imposed by a majority on whoever is essentially trapped in that country by their birth.

The patriotic American in me would be proud if that place could be the USA. Maybe I would be ok for it if a real legitimate religion existed that supported gays marrying in particular or man-man sex in general.

I utterly reject that. If people don't have the freedom of their own bodies, they have no freedom worth speaking of. The idea that their rights depend apon having a church to speak for them is quite creepy.

The prohibition on gay sex is followed by a prohibition on allowing the joys of gay sex to fluorish in any country.

There you have it. Fun is bad. Let's have a Crusade against fun.

Here is where we part ways. Forgive me for barely skimming the rest of your post.

Like many modern Jews

Okay, for starters, the Talmud quite explicitly prohibits female homosexuality. According to the most traditional interpretations of Jewish law, neither male same-sex relations nor female same-sex relations are legitimate.

(Of course, the Conservative Movement in the US is rather ambivalent on this question... they have issued contradictory responsa on the topic and left the matter to individual institutions, if I recall correctly. So in modern times there is some support for a more tolerant position, even from a fairly traditional perspective.)

I struggle with the tension between being a modern man who believes in religious freedoms to all and on the other hand I struggle with the biblical prohibition against being soft on gays.

I have a better struggle for you: what about the countless teachings in the Jewish tradition that emphasize the value and dignity of all human beings? Doesn't Rabbi Hillel say that the whole Law can be boiled down to "Don't do to others what is hateful to yourself"?

How can you reconcile that with the fact that you apparently seek to deny sexual and romantic happiness to millions of people?

Perhaps Christianity can handle this, since in many varieties celibacy is something of a holy ideal, but Judaism has never understood sex that way. Some of this is from the commandment to "give fruit and multiply," true, but people forget Genesis 2:18 too often:

"And the LORD God said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.'"

No mention of procreation there, though apparently (see Gen. 2:24) this story is the Biblical origin of marriage. Surely same-sex relationships can fit within this ideal?

I do not care if this makes me a bigot or not,

Considering that Judaism demands that you pursue justice, you should.

Hello,

Now Should Gays, and Bisexuals get married. A big question.

I think gays and bisexuals should be able to get married. Me being a fellow bisexual think that if you love each other then they can get married. If 2 straight people who don't love each other can get married, why can't 2 gay or Bisexual who love each other get married. There is nothing that says EXACTLY, states in the BIBLE{I am atheist though} that the same gender can get married. So, give me your thoughts, and don't get all Homophobic on me, or gays.

Yeah, let them marry and be happy. They´re human too.

I respect your ability to get angry and violent quickly, but if your hypothetical religion was to have its way, the human race would die out pretty quickly.

Why? Gay people of opposed genders could still have sex with each other... they just don't want to.

I respect your ability to get angry and violent quickly,

I am neither angry nor violent. I am pointing out the fact that his argument is absurd without rather rigorous restrictions on the content of such religions.

but if your hypothetical religion was to have its way, the human race would die out pretty quickly.

I don't think we should kill straight people, and never have. That (obviously) wasn't my point at all.