NationStates Jolt Archive

So, as we all know, Proposition 8 passed. I want to know why the people that voted for it think gay marriage is bad. How could anyone be so bigoted as to tell people who they can marry?

Abrahamic Religions are the problem, there is nothing wrong with gay marriage.

Not to kill this thread before it gets started but:

You'll get responses referring to "tradition", and several about the Bible, and various religious traditions. Long, long, LONG, story short there's no non-religious reason.

Not to kill this thread before it gets started but:

You'll get responses referring to "tradition", and several about the Bible, and various religious traditions. Long, long, LONG, story short there's no non-religious reason.

But why is gay marriage against the Bible? It doesn't say anything about gay marriage, just gay sex, and if people are anti-gay marriage surely they're anti gay sex as well?

Abrahamic Religions are the problem, there is nothing wrong with gay marriage.

Seconded.

I have no issues with Gay marriage.

You'll get responses referring to "tradition", and several about the Bible, and various religious traditions. Long, long, LONG, story short there's no non-religious reason.

Actually I have heard a neo-nazi proclaim he was against it because "it would allow people that are biologically able to aid the nation through reproduction but refuse to do so to formalise their selfish attitude".

Yes. Quite. Fortunately I do not believe our dear Hitlerloving friend reproduced himself.

Actually I have heard a neo-nazi proclaim he was against it because "it would allow people that are biologically able to aid the nation through reproduction but refuse to do so to formalise their selfish attitude".

Yes. Quite. Fortunately I do not believe our dear Hitlerloving friend reproduced himself.

Amen and thank the gods for that.

Fortunately I do not believe our dear Hitlerloving friend reproduced himself.

How do you know? He could easily have kids.

So, as we all know, Proposition 8 passed. I want to know why the people that voted for it think gay marriage is bad. How could anyone be so bigoted as to tell people who they can marry?

Because someone set up California's constitution so that they COULD. People don't need rational, logical reasons to be bigoted or treat someone unlike themselves like utter shit. It is, as they say, "The Default setting".

Short answer: Nothing.

But then, I guess the question wasn't addressed to me.

Because it was that you have to be married before you have sex which should be without contraception because you have to reproduce and you can't reproduce (yet) if you are homosexual

Actually I have heard a neo-nazi proclaim he was against it because "it would allow people that are biologically able to aid the nation through reproduction but refuse to do so to formalise their selfish attitude".

Except that, you know, being queer doesn't make you sterile. Gays and lesbians can and do reproduce on a regular basis.

His argument is made of phail. Also, straights don't always have children, and it is not an individual's duty to breed for the state. Individuals have children because they want to, because they love them, etc. That it benefits society is a side-effect, and oftentimes unchecked reproduction leads to problems and is not in the best interest of the nation. See China.

Because it was that you have to be married before you have sex which should be without contraception because you have to reproduce and you can't reproduce (yet) if you are homosexual
Failboat, for reasons stated above.

How could anyone be so bigoted as to tell people who they can marry?

People are morons.

Sadly, that's pretty much the only answer.

There's nothing wrong with gay marriage... except it's an oxymoron. Ain't no one ever had a gay marriage.

This pun has been brought to you by the deliberately-misconstruing-words-to-mean-their-original-but-antiquated-definitions fund.

His argument is made of phail.

Of course it is. It is just not religious ;)

Abrahamic Religions are the problem, there is nothing wrong with gay marriage.

I'm in an Abrahamic religion, and see nothing wrong with gay marriage.

But why is gay marriage against the Bible? It doesn't say anything about gay marriage, just gay sex, and if people are anti-gay marriage surely they're anti gay sex as well?

True enough.

I think it's much better if a marriage is gay. It's quite the commitment; I wouldn't want it to be a sad occasion.

it will destroy the world by releasing the demons, more or less

Because it was that you have to be married before you have sex which should be without contraception because you have to reproduce and you can't reproduce (yet) if you are homosexualSo the only function of marriage is reproduction?

it will destroy the world by releasing the demons, more or less
buttsecksing and scissoring demons, for that matter.

it will destroy the world by releasing the demons, more or less
Demons dressed in fabulously fashionable clothes, with trendy haircuts and who likes to savor deliciously decadent food in their awesomely decorated homes.

Clearly, this is an abomination upon the eyes of the Lord, who would rather see humanity remain barbaric and uncivilized.

It wrecked my marriage.

No. Wait. My ex did that. nevermind.

Who do I dance with? :confused:

But teh gayz will pollute our sacred marriages! /snark.

I'm in an Abrahamic religion, and see nothing wrong with gay marriage.

They're not an official Catholic organization. It's outside the Church.


It's interesting...in one thread, you are able to draw a line between individuals and official religious dogma, yet in the other, you can't.

He said Abrahamic religions are a problem. Not the individuals.

I've decided to take the view of an American Republican on this:

"Gay marriage is evil! It is a ploy sent by the devil after his failed attempts to destroy us all with the Soviets! The only way to stop this problem is to nuke every person between Terracota and Rooster on the Dulux color chart!"

Of course, its not wrong, hell marriage means nothing now since that woman married the dolphin.

Who do I dance with? :confused:

The devil.

But teh gayz will pollute our sacred marriages! /snark.

I think Britney and the rest of Hollywood are quite capable of doing this for the rest of heterosexualdom without the need for the gays to get their hands dirty, thank you very much.

/lulz at "sanctity of marriage"

The devil.

by the pale moonlight?

I think it's much better if a marriage is gay. It's quite the commitment; I wouldn't want it to be a sad occasion.
LOL, maybe that's what Schwarzenegger meant when he said he believed in "gay marriage between a man and a woman"

Jesus wasn't able to find a life partner for some man-lovin', so none of you ungodly man-types are allowed to, because that would suggest you're better than Jesus. And thats heresy.

Jesus wasn't able to find a life partner for some man-lovin', so none of you ungodly types are allowed to, because that would suggest you're better than Jesus. And thats heresy.

Jesus spent his time hanging around a dozen of unmarried singles, all of them males. All it says is that if you're into man-lovin', you don't have to limit yourself to just one man to love. Not that you can't choose to keep just one.

Food for thought.

Jesus spent his time hanging around a dozen of unmarried singles, all of them males. All it says is that if you're into man-lovin', you don't have to limit yourself to just one man to love. Not that you can't choose to keep just one.

Food for thought.

Not to mention he never got married.

I'm in an Abrahamic religion, and see nothing wrong with gay marriage.

Well, it seems 90% of your cohorts do. The problem is not individuals, the problem is people, most of those people are Christians, Islamic, or Jewish.

Well, it seems 90% of your cohorts do. The problem is not individuals, the problem is people, most of those people are Christians, Islamic, or Jewish.

I bet that a lot of voters are barely religious. Certainly not as dyed-in-the-wool as you imagine.

Well, it seems 90% of your cohorts do. The problem is not individuals, the problem is people, most of those people are Christians, Islamic, or Jewish.

And thus proof that 90% of statistics are pulled out of someone's ass.

The vast majority of US citizens belong to some Abrahamic religion, yet polls show that, a rather slim majority actually think that same-sex marriage should be banned - a majority that is constantly getting smaller.

Not to mention he never got married.

According to the Bible.

And thus proof that 90% of statistics are pulled out of someone's ass.

The vast majority of US citizens belong to some Abrahamic religion, yet polls show that, a rather slim majority actually think that same-sex marriage should be banned - a majority that is constantly getting smaller.

"Well it seems that 90%" isn't a statistical value.

According to the Bible.

Indeed. According to Judaism, it was a duty (still is, I'm sure) for men to marry.

by the pale moonlight?

Just so long as you never rub another mans rhubarb.

According to the Bible.

Well, no female wife would have bought his story after he rose from the dead.

Let's see - I go partying with my unemployed loser friends (I've been unemployed for three years) on a Friday, and don't come back for three days.

Yeah, I'm sure my wife would buy that :rolleyes:

Well, no female wife would have bought his story after he rose from the dead.

Let's see - I go partying with my unemployed loser friends (I've been unemployed for three years) on a Friday, and don't come back for three days.

Yeah, I'm sure my wife would buy that :rolleyes:

You're basing this entirely on the Bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_of_marriage

just so long as you never rub another mans rhubarb.

<.<

>.>

According to the Bible.

According to the parts of the Bible we have.*

*Unless we read it as though we were a Jew in the First Century.

"Well it seems that 90%" isn't a statistical value.

"it seems like" vs. "it seems that". Slight difference, but one makes it more clear that it is not a statistic.

So, as we all know, Proposition 8 passed. I want to know why the people that voted for it think gay marriage is bad. How could anyone be so bigoted as to tell people who they can marry?

Oh btw, I love your nick.

Nothing. Next question.

Nothing. Next question.

There's been a lot of these lately.

You know, I think I finally figured it out. Those people who are against gay marriages, actually have gay partners themselves, and they don't want to marry them. They're afraid of commitment. So they rally against gay marriage because if gay marriage were to ever become legal, their partner would all the sudden ask the question; "When are we getting married?" over and over until they give in.

*nod*

There's been a lot of these lately.

I know. I feel kinda lame, but this is really all I have to say on some topics. I don't see the need for extended philosophical debate on something so incredibly simple. Most have this right, some do not, some deserve it, and denying it makes no sense. No church that disagrees will be forced to marry anyone they don't wish to. What's the problem?

Oh btw, I love your nick.

Cheers lol.

You know, I think I finally figured it out. Those people who are against gay marriages, actually have gay partners themselves, and they don't want to marry them. They're afraid of commitment. So they rally against gay marriage because if gay marriage were to ever become legal, their partner would all the sudden ask the question; "When are we getting married?" over and over until they give in.

*nod*

You just solved one of the greatest inequalities in the world. *Applauds*

You know, I think I finally figured it out. Those people who are against gay marriages, actually have gay partners themselves, and they don't want to marry them. They're afraid of commitment. So they rally against gay marriage because if gay marriage were to ever become legal, their partner would all the sudden ask the question; "When are we getting married?" over and over until they give in.

*nod*

You may be on to something there. That's right along the same lines as "ALL marriages are same-sex marriages -- once you're married, it's the same sex, all the time." Or, "why shouldn't gay people have the same shot at the failure, misery and hassle of divorce as straight people?"

So, as we all know, Proposition 8 passed. I want to know why the people that voted for it think gay marriage is bad. How could anyone be so bigoted as to tell people who they can marry?

Not directed at me since I didn't vote for prop 8, and wouldn't if I lived in California, but...

Absolutely nothing

Nothing. Next question.

Well.. there is. It is not accepted everywhere yet. That is what is wrong with it...

Remedy that, dammit !

Well.. there is. It is not accepted everywhere yet. That is what is wrong with it...

Remedy that, dammit !

Ban religion. Problem solved.

Well.. there is. It is not accepted everywhere yet. That is what is wrong with it...

Remedy that, dammit !

Quoi?

Not sure what you mean by that in quoting me, but suffice it to say that gays marrying has less to do with me than goats fucking.

Not sure what you mean by that in quoting me

You said "nothing". "Not being accepted by many people and countries" is not "nothing"; though of course that indicates a problem with people instead of the concept of gay marriage.

You said "nothing". "Not being accepted by many people and countries" is not "nothing"; though of course that indicates a problem with people instead of the concept of gay marriage.

I see what you did there. You turned the question around. Well, "not being accepted by many people and countries" is NOT something wrong with gay marriage. It's something wrong with people in groups (and that is a long list).

I know I've just re-stated what you said, but I did so to preserve the integrity of my first answer. What exactly is wrong with gay marriage? Nothing. Next question.

One can't control the gender of the person they fall for. If their hormones are aroused when someone of the same gender is around, then good for them. I find that the ban on gay marriage is kinda sad and a real bad control.

I have to do a little bit of research, since that wasn't an issue in my state, but wouldn't a proposal of such magnitudes go against the "seperation of church and state"? Love is not an emotion controlled by either, and supposedly that is one of the reasons for entering such a bond.

Jesus spent his time hanging around a dozen of unmarried singles, all of them males. All it says is that if you're into man-lovin', you don't have to limit yourself to just one man to love. Not that you can't choose to keep just one.

Food for thought.

But did he discipline his disciples?
*insert last supper bondage photoshop

Well, it seems 90% of your cohorts do. The problem is not individuals, the problem is people, most of those people are Christians, Islamic, or Jewish.

I'd like to see where you got this number. Especially since Prop 8 only passed by 4%.

Not to kill this thread before it gets started but:

You'll get responses referring to "tradition", and several about the Bible, and various religious traditions. Long, long, LONG, story short there's no non-religious reason.

False, I have a friend who is against gay marriage and is also an avowed atheist. I don't know what his reason is I will ask him and let you know. It may just be because he hates gays.

In his own words

"I am the biggest Homophobe you are ever going to meet, and I don't care what people think, I'm proud of it"

False, I have a friend who is against gay marriage and is also an avowed atheist. I don't know what his reason is I will ask him and let you know. It may just be because he hates gays.

In his own words

"I am the biggest Homophobe you are ever going to meet, and I don't care what people think, I'm proud of it"

Thinking gay people are "icky" is not a reason.

Indeed. According to Judaism, it was a duty (still is, I'm sure) for men to marry.

Except Jesus was against the Jewish traditions.

False, I have a friend who is against gay marriage and is also an avowed atheist. I don't know what his reason is I will ask him and let you know. It may just be because he hates gays.

In his own words

"I am the biggest Homophobe you are ever going to meet, and I don't care what people think, I'm proud of it"

That's someone I'd be proud to claim as a friend, all right. :rolleyes:

Thinking gay people are "icky" is not a reason.

But it is his reason, while it may not be valid it is his reason, and if he was living in Cali he would have voted against Prop8 for that reason.

I'm a Christian and I'm for gay marriage. Most Christians, particularly those of more liberal denominations, are as well. Anglicans, if I'm not mistaken, ordain homosexuals.

The opposition to gay marriage comes from conservative Catholics, conservative Protestants, and the other more right-wing congregations. Particularly those that believe in Biblical inerrancy.

I do not believe in Biblical inerrancy, so I believe, from a religious perspective, that the Old Testament taboo against homosexuality is more of a customary provision. From a Humanist perspective, I believe that Humans have the right to live and copulate with a consenting, conscient, partner or partners.

So yes, Abrahamic Religion does, I will admit, serve as the prime barrier towards same-sex marriage. But the adherents of the religions in question are multifarious in their creeds and attitudes toawrd social issues.

That's someone I'd be proud to claim as a friend, all right. :rolleyes:

Never said I agreed with him. I am friends with people who have vastly different stances on many issues to my own.

I'm a Christian and I'm for gay marriage. Most Christians, particularly those of more liberal denominations, are as well. Anglicans, if I'm not mistaken, ordain homosexuals.

The opposition to gay marriage comes from conservative Catholics, conservative Protestants, and the other more right-wing congregations. Particularly those that believe in Biblical inerrancy.

I do not believe in Biblical inerrancy, so I believe, from a religious perspective, that the Old Testament taboo against homosexuality is more of a customary provision. From a Humanist perspective, I believe that Humans have the right to live and copulate with a consenting, conscient, partner or partners.

So yes, Abrahamic Religion does, I will admit, serve as the prime barrier towards same-sex marriage. But the adherents of the religions in question are multifarious in their creeds and attitudes toawrd social issues.

Funny how you think Catholics are right wing congregations. The many I know are quite left wing, hell one is even a lesbian.

False, I have a friend who is against gay marriage and is also an avowed atheist. I don't know what his reason is I will ask him and let you know. It may just be because he hates gays.

In his own words

"I am the biggest Homophobe you are ever going to meet, and I don't care what people think, I'm proud of it"

Hmm. And why does he hate gays? Methinks religion is at least tangentially involved there.

So, as we all know, Proposition 8 passed. I want to know why the people that voted for it think gay marriage is bad. How could anyone be so bigoted as to tell people who they can marry?
I don't think it's so much bigoted as brainwashed. Most of the reasons given for being against gay marriage seem to be rooted in either religion, ignorance, or fear of the unknown.

Hmm. And why does he hate gays? Methinks religion is at least tangentially involved there.

Well the only time I really asked him his response was that it isn't right and not natural and that he just doesn't like them. As I say he is an atheist and has actually ragged on Christians as well so no I don't think there is some religion involved.

Well the only time I really asked him his response was that it isn't right and not natural and that he just doesn't like them. As I say he is an atheist and has actually ragged on Christians as well so no I don't think there is some religion involved.
You might want to ask him in what sense he considers it "un-natural"; my guess is that his answer will fall into the "ignorance" category of the three I mentioned earlier. It's been observed in animals as well as humans, and when you really think about it "natural" is a kinda arbitrary distinction anyway...

Well the only time I really asked him his response was that it isn't right and not natural and that he just doesn't like them. As I say he is an atheist and has actually ragged on Christians as well so no I don't think there is some religion involved.

No, but religious thinking is involved whether he knows it or not.

No, but religious thinking is involved whether he knows it or not.
Well, thinking that's at least similar to religion, though I don't think it necessarily has to be religious, it could be based on ignorance and fear of the unknown which probably aren't exclusive to the religious...

Well, thinking that's at least similar to religion, though I don't think it necessarily has to be religious, it could be based on ignorance and fear of the unknown which probably aren't exclusive to the religious...

True, but a dislike of men touching men does indeed come from religion.

No, but religious thinking is involved whether he knows it or not.

How?

How?

His thinking comes directly from religion, which has had considerable influence on all culture.


No one thought touching the same sex was "icky" until Abrahamic religions.

His thinking comes directly from religion, which has had considerable influence on all culture.

I see your point, but I still wouldn't say that he is against it because of religious reasons.

No one thought touching the same sex was "icky" until Abrahamic religions.

Can you really say that? I'm sure the onus is on me to find one that did but then again I can't be bothered right now.

I see your point, but I still wouldn't say that he is against it because of religious reasons.


No, it is. He may not say its because God says so, but thats certianly were it all comes from.


Can you really say that? I'm sure the onus is on me to find one that did but then again I can't be bothered right now.

Yes, I can. No society (with a few exceptions) before the existance of Abrahamic religions really gave a fuck who you put it in. Especially in places like Greece were it was normal to have young male lovers.

No, it is. He may not say its because God says so, but thats certianly were it all comes from.

Perhaps, it is an interesting way to go about it.

Yes, I can. No society (with a few exceptions) before the existance of Abrahamic religions really gave a fuck who you put it in. Especially in places like Greece were it was normal to have young male lovers.

Yes I knew you would bring up Greece and I won't disagree with that though I seem to remember something from Aesop being against gays by saying they have no shame. Though you say with a few exceptions which means that at least one society did.

Yes I knew you would bring up Greece and I won't disagree with that though I seem to remember something from Aesop being against gays by saying they have no shame. Though you say with a few exceptions which means that at least one society did.

Yeah, societies like polytheist Israel, so it doesnt really count.

Yeah, societies like polytheist Israel, so it doesnt really count.

Why?

Why?

Because pre-monothiest Israel would have, obviously, had similar culture to monothiest Israel. And that culture is what influenced the laws of the OT.

I'd like to see where you got this number. Especially since Prop 8 only passed by 4%.

Do you just dislike me for some reason? I already explained that I was pulling something out of my ass when I said 90% I wasn't trying to be accurate with the numbers. I was however being accurate with my statement that is mostly religion that is the whole problem and not gay marriage.

Not to kill this thread before it gets started but:

You'll get responses referring to "tradition", and several about the Bible, and various religious traditions. Long, long, LONG, story short there's no non-religious reason.

That about sums it all up. (had I lived in Ca, I would have had voted yes. :p)

That about sums it all up. (had I lived in Ca, I would have had voted yes. :p)

So why do you oppose gay marriage?

Because pre-monothiest Israel would have, obviously, had similar culture to monothiest Israel. And that culture is what influenced the laws of the OT.

Yes so before the religion of monothiest Isreal the first Abrahamic religion there was opposition to guys touching other guys.

Yes so before the religion of monothiest Isreal the first Abrahamic religion there was opposition to guys touching other guys.

But only in the place that gave birth to religions of Abraham. Do you see why theyre the exception?

But only in the place that gave birth to religions of Abraham. Do you see why theyre the exception?

Yes I see why they are the exception, but then you can also see why the opposition to homosexual encounters does not then originate in Abrahamic religions.

And if I see another one I will let you know, but I won't go looking for it.

Regardless I do see your point in that this guy has had some religious influence on his decision to hate gays with a passion. Though I don't think it would be the only one.

Homosexuality is a sin.

Homosexuality is a sin.

Thank you for that well supported, thoughtful arguement, professor.

Yes I see why they are the exception, but then you can also see why the opposition to homosexual encounters does not then originate in Abrahamic religions.
You are assuming that polytheistic Israel's religion was not "Abrahamic". You would have to know what Abraham himself believed, in order to know whether that is correct.

You are assuming that polytheistic Israel's religion was not "Abrahamic". You would have to know what Abraham himself believed, in order to know whether that is correct.

That is a good point but if the first Abrahamic religion is Judaism and were the laws were written towards the end of Exodus and in the next book that goes into more detail then, how can a polytheistic Iseral be an Abrahamic religion?

Anyway, isn't an Abrahamic religion only called that because it believe that Abraham is the father of us all?

If so then I suppose that those before the laws of Judism was made then the story of Abraham would have been passed down through the generations before being recorded on paper.

Thank you for that well supported, thoughtful arguement, professor.

*Spouts water across the screen* hahaha

I think his account name is called that for a reason.

*Spouts water across the screen* hahaha

I think his account name is called that for a reason.

I call him "professor" because on one thread he claimed he was a professor of Political Science.


His posts show the absurdity of that claim. So now I just rag on him for it 24/7.

I call him "professor" because on one thread he claimed he was a professor of Political Science.


His posts show the absurdity of that claim. So now I just rag on him for it 24/7.

Oh ok, I missed that bit. Still find it funny.

Homosexuality is a sin.

When I look back upon my life
It's always with a sense of shame
I've always been the one to blame
For everything I long to do
No matter when or where or who
Has one thing in common, too

It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a sin
It's a sin
Everything I've ever done
Everything I ever do
Every place I've ever been
Everywhere I'm going to
It's a sin

At school they taught me how to be
So pure in thought and word and deed
They didn't quite succeed
For everything I long to do
No matter when or where or who
Has one thing in common, too

It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a sin
It's a sin
Everything I've ever done
Everything I ever do
Every place I've ever been
Everywhere I'm going to
It's a sin

Father, forgive me, I tried not to do it
Turned over a new leaf, then tore right through it
Whatever you taught me, I didn't believe it
Father, you fought me, 'cause I didn't care
And I still don't understand

So I look back upon my life
Forever with a sense of shame
I've always been the one to blame
For everything I long to do
No matter when or where or who
Has one thing in common, too

It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a sin
It's a sin
Everything I've ever done
Everything I ever do
Every place I've ever been
Everywhere I'm going to - it's a sin
It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a sin
It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a sin

If so then I suppose that those before the laws of Judism was made then the story of Abraham would have been passed down through the generations before being recorded on paper.Some of it may have been in written form long before the Torah as we know it. Genesis 14 is in an exceedingly archaic Hebrew (more like "Canaanite"), and has "Abram" (the form "Abraham" was not yet in use) being a good friend and ally to the king of Sodom, and giving gifts to the priest of El 'elyon (the "supreme" god; suggesting not the one and only God, but rather one god who outranks the others; the name YHWH was not yet in use). I would certainly disagree with the idea that Judaism-as-we-know-it was the "first" of the Abrahamic religions; it is simply the oldest now surviving.

Some of it may have been in written form long before the Torah as we know it. Genesis 14 is in an exceedingly archaic Hebrew (more like "Canaanite"), and has "Abram" (the form "Abraham" was not yet in use) being a good friend and ally to the king of Sodom, and giving gifts to the priest of El 'elyon (the "supreme" god; suggesting not the one and only God, but rather one god who outranks the others; the name YHWH was not yet in use). I would certainly disagree with the idea that Judaism-as-we-know-it was the "first" of the Abrahamic religions; it is simply the oldest now surviving.

Well yes quite, that is sort of what I meant when I with the bit you quoted that many of these stories were being passed down the line.

Well yes quite, that is sort of what I meant when I with the bit you quoted that many of these stories were being passed down the line.I'm not really arguing with you, just being pedantic because it's one of the things I like to study: you said the stories were probably passed down orally for a long time before being written, but rather, they are likely to have been in written form at surprisingly early dates (although very little of those early writings have been incorporated into what we have now-- unsurprisingly, since the early writings had vastly different religious perspectives).

I'm not really arguing with you, just being pedantic because it's one of the things I like to study: you said the stories were probably passed down orally for a long time before being written, but rather, they are likely to have been in written form at surprisingly early dates (although very little of those early writings have been incorporated into what we have now-- unsurprisingly, since the early writings had vastly different religious perspectives).

Yeah sorry mate didn't mean to come across as arguing with you, more of a discussion.

Mmm,ok yeah for sure. So I suppose when they were making the Torah and these stories we are talking about would really be the ones from Genesis they would have just picked the ones that they felt was significant and relevant to this new way of life. Perhaps?

Homosexuality is a sin.

Except that no it's not.


Hah, easiest argument ever.

So, as we all know, Proposition 8 passed. I want to know why the people that voted for it think gay marriage is bad. How could anyone be so bigoted as to tell people who they can marry?
What's wrong with gay marriage?
Nothing. It's not for me, but then, neither's having kids... either way I wouldn't be so arrogant as to tell someone what they can and can't do.

As long as a homosexual couple's not going to tell me I shouldn't marry a straight guy, why should I get in their business?

Except that no it's not.


Hah, easiest argument ever.

:tongue:

Should we continue this?

Uh, yes it is :p

Homosexuality is a sin.

Both irrational and irrelevant. How many of the other "sins" are you prepared to live your life so vehemently opposing?

I thought so.

Besides, "sin" is an individual thing. You're taught to avoid them and live YOUR life as "sin"-free as you can. I'm not so sure you're taught to go after the mote in your brother's eye whilst a plank floats in yours.

When I look back upon my life
*snip*

NOW look what you did -- you made Soheran quote the Pet Ship Boys, for cryin' out loud.

What's wrong with gay marriage?
Nothing. It's not for me, but then, neither's having kids... either way I wouldn't be so arrogant as to tell someone what they can and can't do.

As long as a homosexual couple's not going to tell me I shouldn't marry a straight guy, why should I get in their business?

This.

I want gay people to force me to marry a gay man. In specific, Fass.

Who do I dance with? :confused:
Whomever you like?

But teh gayz will pollute our sacred marriages! /snark.
How? unless you and/or your spouse cheat with them? How come no one bitches about how divorces cheapen marriage? Adultery?

I want gay people to force me to marry a gay man. In specific, Fass.

I want ringside seats for that wedding.

I want ringside seats for that wedding.

He'd have to be tied and sedated.

Whomever you like?

You can dance, if that is what you would like to do.
In fact, if necessary, your friends can be left behind.
I'm told your friends don't dance, and well, if that is indeed the case, then I cannot, in good conscience, consider them friends of mine.

He'd have to be tied and sedated.

Well now what would be the point of sitting ringside if THAT were the case?

You can dance, if that is what you would like to do.
In fact, if necessary, your friends can be left behind.
I'm told your friends don't dance, and well, if that is indeed the case, then I cannot, in good conscience, consider them friends of mine.

Oh no you didn't (http://dvbf.bloggmaskinen.com/root/dvbf.nsf/resources/Bilder%201/$FILE/SafetyDance.jpg).

Well now what would be the point of sitting ringside if THAT were the case?

I'd bring him to during the consummation.

Oh no you didn't (http://dvbf.bloggmaskinen.com/root/dvbf.nsf/resources/Bilder%201/$FILE/SafetyDance.jpg).

In fact, I did. I have an odd specialty of making pop culture references but re-wording them for comedic(?), and artificially academic, effect. Yeah. Not married.

I'd bring him to during the consummation.

Oh, now that's just brilliantly twisted. Possibly even sprained. And I'd still want to watch.

I want gay people to force me to marry a gay man. In specific, Fass.
Why? Is he heavily insured?

How? unless you and/or your spouse cheat with them? How come no one bitches about how divorces cheapen marriage? Adultery?
Well, uh, DUH, heteros do those things. Seriously, Kat. Think.

In fact, I did. I have an odd specialty of making pop culture references but re-wording them for comedic(?), and artificially academic, effect. Yeah. Not married.

I've got a spot in my polygamous union:) I find it pretty endearing, but I'm deviant.

Oh, now that's just brilliantly twisted. Possibly even sprained. And I'd still want to watch. With a capital D.

Why? Is he heavily insured? It's because I want what I can't have, and nothing would be as twisted as forcing a gay man to marry a woman. No amount of gay marriage could possibly be as wrong as that, regardless of a person's fucked up religious convictions. You'd think.

What is the big deal? What a poppycock issue really. Yes or No on prop 8--either way it does not prevent two loving people from spending their lives together. Gaybashing and job discrimination is a separate and more relevant issue.

What right is given traditional married couples that cannot be conveyed by some other legal instrument? I am not aware of one, although granted, it may involve a bit more work....

The only issue I see is one of semantics. The conservatives would accept civil unions but not 'marriage' and the gay rights activists want to be labeled the same as heterosexual couples (what for?).

This is an issue where the agendas of of both sides are rammed down my throat with little actual relevance to how the future of society will be shaped. Bottom line: way too much importance is given to sexaul activity.

What is the big deal? What a poppycock issue really. Yes or No on prop 8--either way it does not prevent two loving people from spending their lives together. Gaybashing and job discrimination is a separate and more relevant issue.

What right is given traditional married couples that cannot be conveyed by some other legal instrument? I am not aware of one, although granted, it may involve a bit more work....

The only issue I see is one of semantics. The conservatives would accept civil unions but not 'marriage' and the gay rights activists want to be labeled the same as heterosexual couples (what for?).

This is an issue where the agendas of of both sides are rammed down my throat with little actual relevance to how the future of society will be shaped. Bottom line: way too much importance is given to sexaul activity.
Um....no.

There is currently no instrument other than marriage that will allow an adult to name another adult who is not a dependent as a beneficiary on their health insurance. No other instrument -- even health care proxy in some instances -- that will allow an unmarried adult partner to have free access to a person in the hospital. No other instrument that gives two adults the same tax status as marriage. No other instrument that gives the same child custody status to two adults.

For starters.

Um....no.

There is currently no instrument other than marriage that will allow an adult to name another adult who is not a dependent as a beneficiary on their health insurance. No other instrument -- even health care proxy in some instances -- that will allow an unmarried adult partner to have free access to a person in the hospital. No other instrument that gives two adults the same tax status as marriage. No other instrument that gives the same child custody status to two adults.

For starters.Thanks, Mur'v...that last post just made my freaking head hurt. How can people be so ignorant about something so common?

Thanks, Mur'v...that last post just made my freaking head hurt. How can people be so ignorant about something so common?
Yeah, it's pretty amazing to me how, after all these years of debate, some people can be so fucking clueless about the most basic facts connected to it.

It's like some people go their entire lives "not reading the thread," as it were.

Yeah, it's pretty amazing to me how, after all these years of debate, some people can be so fucking clueless about the most basic facts connected to it.

It's like some people go their entire lives "not reading the thread," as it were.

That's because for every person trying to get the facts out, there's at least one other person spreading disinformation. The entire Yes on 8 campaign was based on disinformation.

That's because for every person trying to get the facts out, there's at least one other person spreading disinformation. The entire Yes on 8 campaign was based on disinformation.
True. Plus people are lazy.

I have unrealistic expectations. I expect everyone to use the brains that are inside their skulls to actually observe what's going on around them and figure out how it all works. What the fuck is up with me on that? I must be on something.

Now, unlike many here who are lawyers or wanting to be, I look forward to some substantiation--mainly for my own education:$

There is currently no instrument other than marriage that will allow an adult to name another adult who is not a dependent as a beneficiary on their health insurance..

Since individual companies offer plans, isn't it up to them to determine this and not the state? I know I was able to claim a live-in girlfriend as a beneficialry to both health and life insurances to a previous employer of mine.

No other instrument -- even health care proxy in some instances -- that will allow an unmarried adult partner to have free access to a person in the hospital.

A health care proxy and complete power of attorney of another individual won't give you this access? And how do you define "free access"?

No other instrument that gives two adults the same tax status as marriage.

Isn't that a federal issue and not a state one? Even if Prop 8 would have failed, would this have granted California gay married couples that status? I don't think so.

No other instrument that gives the same child custody status to two adults.

We are talking about adoption correct? I know non-married heterosexual couples that have adopted (granted they may fall in terms of common law marriage).

Edit: Forgive my anecdotal sources--but since they exist, they have some merit.

Yeah, it's pretty amazing to me how, after all these years of debate, some people can be so fucking clueless about the most basic facts connected to it.

It's like some people go their entire lives "not reading the thread," as it were.

Some of us think that there are more improtant issues for the government to focus on, and so the 'years of debate' have not been a priority...

Sooo, it seems to me that it would be much easier to circumvent the entire religious right if the focus was more on securing the individual rights (associated with marriage) for unmarried couples. Once those rights are secured, everything else just becomes a label.

But if the gay activist objective is to shove down the throat of Evangelicals that they are the same as them (why would they want to?) then they will always face fierce opposition.

Who cares if it is four quarters or ten dimes...its still a dollar. Accomplish what is important and leave the rest for the idiots to squabble over.

Do you just dislike me for some reason? I already explained that I was pulling something out of my ass when I said 90% I wasn't trying to be accurate with the numbers. I was however being accurate with my statement that is mostly religion that is the whole problem and not gay marriage.

I wrote the comment before I saw that someone else had asked. I have nothing against you at all. When you use a % sign, though, you have to expect that people will take that to be an actual assertion backed up by facts.

I wrote the comment before I saw that someone else had asked. I have nothing against you at all. When you use a % sign, though, you have to expect that people will take that to be an actual assertion backed up by facts.

Ok, now that we are clear on this.. carry on with your well worded and statistical arguments... I'm sure to make a few more emotionally charged ones in the coming week or so (rough times)

There is currently no instrument other than marriage that will allow an adult to name another adult who is not a dependent as a beneficiary on their health insurance. No other instrument -- even health care proxy in some instances -- that will allow an unmarried adult partner to have free access to a person in the hospital. No other instrument that gives two adults the same tax status as marriage. No other instrument that gives the same child custody status to two adults.

California has domestic partnerships with essentially all of such rights that exist on the state level (there are some very minor legal differences.) The main distinction in legal rights concerns the federal government, which under the Defense of Marriage Act doesn't grant legal rights to any same-sex union, regardless of whether it is marriage.

What right is given traditional married couples that cannot be conveyed by some other legal instrument?

What is not being "conveyed" is equal status. To reserve marriage for opposite-sex couples is inherently to affirm the inferiority of same-sex ones, for the same reason that even separate but materially equal public facilities for Blacks still amounted to a reinforcement of white supremacy.

In the end marriage is a religous and social thing that is defined by the people. Most people dont want gay marriage as they see it against religion. This is not an anti gay vote at all. All it says is that the public believes in marriage as per one man and one woman which is preached by the major religions in America.

This can just as easily be seen as an anti religious vote. Why should we allow some people to act in a way which is clearly against the Christian-Judaic values that America was founded by?

I would always vote against gay marriage in Australia as I see it as an insult to the relgious beliefs that is held by many people in my country of Australia. However if you call it a civil union or simular and give them the same "rights" I wont have a problem at all.

Unless you look at marriage in a religous context you will never understand why people vote against it.

I see it as an insult to the relgious beliefs that is held by many people in my country of Australia. However if you call it a civil union or simular and give them the same "rights" I wont have a problem at all.

Why should a two-tier class of partnership between those in love exist? The fact that you see it as insulting implies that you see same-sex marriage as inferior to opposite-sex marriage.

So, as we all know, Proposition 8 passed. I want to know why the people that voted for it think gay marriage is bad. As I understand it, quite a few people that voted for proposition 8 aren't actually against gay marriage; what decided it for them was not having it taught about at school. Which is unfortunately based on misinformation, since that isn't allowed in California without the parent's permission anyway.



I have some sympathy for proposition 37 (http://www.bunny-comic.com/?id=1264) though ;)

As I understand it, quite a few people that voted for proposition 8 aren't actually against gay marriage; what decided it for them was not having it taught about at school. Which is unfortunately based on misinformation, since that isn't allowed in California without the parent's permission anyway.


Indeed. That whole school argument was such bullshit. I don't remember ever being taught about marriage at school in the first place, at all. The subject isn't part of the curriculum. Not even in "Current Life Issues" (aka Health) class in high school.

Why should a two-tier class of partnership between those in love exist? The fact that you see it as insulting implies that you see same-sex marriage as inferior to opposite-sex marriage.

Marriage in the bible is defined as one man to one woman. Do you respect the religous belief of others in your country?

As I said before I support calling it a civil union. But the only way you could call it marriage is by over riding the beliefs that defined marriage in your country to begin with. Do you see thoes supporting the traditional view of marriage as lesser people because you dont seem to respect their beliefs?

Marriage in the bible is defined as one man to one woman. Source it or it's bullshit.

Marriage in the bible is defined as one man to one woman. Do you respect the religous belief of others in your country?

As I said before I support calling it a civil union. But the only way you could call it marriage is by over riding the beliefs that defined marriage in your country to begin with. Do you see thoes supporting the traditional view of marriage as lesser people because you dont seem to respect their beliefs?

Marriage is a civil institution and as such cannot be subject to religious definition, especially when you're just making up crap that's not actually in the Bible. People are free to believe whatever they want, but they can't impose those beliefs on others.

Marriage in the bible is defined as one man to one woman

I do seem to recall plenty of married men with *multiple* wives being mentioned in the Bible.

That being said - we do not want to take away the right for one man and one woman to marry. We just wish to make it possible for a few others as well. Expand on the rights of others instead of taking yours away.

How horrible of us, isn't it ?

Source it or it's bullshit.

Do you really want me to start quoting from the bible. I would like to avoid that. there are so many verses against gays it is ridiculous but that dosnt stop the christian and jewish faiths from believing it.

Marriage is a civil institution and as such cannot be subject to religious definition. People are free to believe whatever they want, but they can't impose those beliefs on others.

The belief is imposed but so are many other things. The belief of age of consent is imposed against the wishes of some. same with murder, liability, child welfare etc etc. But this seems to stop at religion for you despite the fact that the religous method of marriage is well established in modern society.

Again unless you see marriage in a religous light you will vote against it.

Do you really want me to start quoting from the bible. I would like to avoid that. there are so many verses against gays it is ridiculous but that dosnt stop the christian and jewish faiths from believing it.If you're not willing to defend the religious basis of your claim, then drop it.
The belief is imposed but so are many other things. The belief of age of consent is imposed against the wishes of some. same with murder, liability, child welfare etc etc. But this seems to stop at religion for you despite the fact that the religous method of marriage is well established in modern society. There's something called separation of church and state. Perhaps you've heard of it.

Again unless you see marriage in a religous light you will vote against it.

Certainly, and since non-religious people can be married in non-religious ceremonies by non-religious officiants, this is an absurd light to see marriage in.

In the end marriage is a religous and social thing that is defined by the people. Most people dont want gay marriage as they see it against religion. This is not an anti gay vote at all. All it says is that the public believes in marriage as per one man and one woman which is preached by the major religions in America.

This can just as easily be seen as an anti religious vote. Why should we allow some people to act in a way which is clearly against the Christian-Judaic values that America was founded by?

I would always vote against gay marriage in Australia as I see it as an insult to the relgious beliefs that is held by many people in my country of Australia. However if you call it a civil union or simular and give them the same "rights" I wont have a problem at all.

Unless you look at marriage in a religous context you will never understand why people vote against it.The problem is Marraige isn't exclusive to religion. Religion wants to claim it but in fact it is more of a legal partnership. Marraiges performed by priests still have to be legitamized with a civil marraige license to be legal, and it is possible to get married by a judge, ships captain or justice of the peace and leave the whole religious thing out.

Married people in California have certain privleges and rights. Implied joint ownership of all property, right to survivorship and income tax filing status are a few. There is no alternative option that grants these same rights. These are civil rights that have nothing to do with religion. Denying them to a portion of the population because it doesn't jive with your religious beliefs is wrong and is why the legal challenge agaist the proposition has a real chance.

Marriage in the bible is defined as one man to one woman. Do you respect the religous belief of others in your country?

As I said before I support calling it a civil union. But the only way you could call it marriage is by over riding the beliefs that defined marriage in your country to begin with. Do you see thoes supporting the traditional view of marriage as lesser people because you dont seem to respect their beliefs?

I respect the right for people to have different beliefs - I don't respect the right for groups of people to assert their beliefs upon the lives of other people because they are insulted... do you respect my beliefs?
:]

Do you really want me to start quoting from the bible. I would like to avoid that. there are so many verses against gays it is ridiculous but that dosnt stop the christian and jewish faiths from believing it. I'm puzzled by the statement, seeing as I know it's false. Abraham, for instance, had two wives.

I'm puzzled by the statement, seeing as I know it's false. Abraham, for instance, had two wives.

But Abraham was around before the Jewish faith came to be.

Fine here is a few quotes against homosexuality. I found them on the worst internet encyclopedia (conservapedia)

regards to homosexuality and the Bible, below are some Bible verses that condemn homosexuality:

Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them.
Romans 1:26-27 - For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
I Corinthians 6:9 (NIV) - Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
I Timothy 1:8-11 (NASB) - "But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted."

I think that established the Bible has something against gays.

There's something called separation of church and state. Perhaps you've heard of it.

As for that argument yes I have heard of it. i have also heard the prayed before my parliament. heard the words "on nation under god" said by Americans, viewed the courts bringing out a bible for witness testimony automatically and many other things that are clearly against their being a seperation.

Why because the people of America and Australia are mostly religous for whatever reasons and believe in it. However the gay lobby wants to step on something very important to the nations founding religous faiths. calling it a "civil union" and not marriage shows some respect. As I said the only thing I am against is calling it a marriage as there is a deep religous connection wether you like it or not and prehaps we should show at least a little respect to thoes religous people apposed to any form of "civil union" in the first place as this is still against the religion

I respect the right for people to have different beliefs - I don't respect the right for groups of people to assert their beliefs upon the lives of other people because they are insulted... do you respect my beliefs?
:]

I'm sure he does but then all laws are some one's beliefs being imposed on society.

I'm puzzled by the statement, seeing as I know it's false. Abraham, for instance, had two wives.Just because the bible has many, many, examples of marriages consisting of one man and multiple women, doesn't mean it doesn't also says somewhere that a marriage should be between one man and one woman.
I'd look for it either at the start, with Adam and Eve, or near the end in st. Paul's letters. Consistency is not really a hallmark of the bible, surely you know that.

Why because the people of America and Australia are mostly religous for whatever reasons and believe in it. However the gay lobby wants to step on something very important to the nations founding religous faiths. calling it a "civil union" and not marriage shows some respect. As I said the only thing I am against is calling it a marriage as there is a deep religous connection wether you like it or not and prehaps we should show at least a little respect to thoes religous people apposed to any form of "civil union" in the first place as this is still against the religion

No see they believe that it should be called a marriage and want to push their beliefs on to society.

But Abraham was around before the Jewish faith came to be.Not really relevant, seeing as we're discussing things written in the bible.
Fine here is a few quotes against homosexuality. I want to see a biblical definition of marriage, though...

Not really relevant, seeing as we're discussing things written in the bible.

But we are discussing the beliefs of Judaism and Christianity.

Fine here is a few quotes against homosexuality. I found them on the worst internet encyclopedia (conservapedia)

We are still debating the one man vs ONE woman thingy here ;)
And we could also debate the "woman" part. After all, traditionally the "woman" was around 12, 13, while the man was 30+. The Bible also strongly implies that a marriage is a contract with the *father* and that the woman has very little say in it.

However, as I said: we do not wish to take away your right to perform marriages as you see fit. One man + one woman should remain perfectly acceptable. We just wish to add a few more possibilities without taking away any of your rights.

As I said the only thing I am against is calling it a marriage as there is a deep religous connection wether you like it or not and prehaps we should show at least a little respect to thoes religous people apposed to any form of "civil union" in the first place as this is still against the religion

Oh I'm sorry dude - but fact is I don't actually belong to your religion so why by the Gods should I be forced to respect your religion to the point where it actually offends me, infringes upon my own civil rights and causes a hell of a lot of other people to not want to be anywhere near me?

I think that established the Bible has something against gays.You said the Bible defines marriage as between one man and one woman. No one asked you to paste quotes about homosexuality, which are both debatable and irrelevant.

As for that argument yes I have heard of it. i have also heard the prayed before my parliament. heard the words "on nation under god" said by Americans, viewed the courts bringing out a bible for witness testimony automatically and many other things that are clearly against their being a seperation.Lovely anecdotes. They prove nothing. The separation of church and state is established by law in the United States. "Under God," for example, was only ruled constitutional because it was deemed to have lost its meaning through rote repetition. Separation of church and state is highly important to our civil institutions. Revisionist Christians can't change that.

I encourage opponents of gay marriage to continue making these religious arguments, because the more they make them, the sooner the Supreme Court will strike down their bigoted laws.

Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them. Well, considering a man hasn't got a vagina, I doubt many men "lie with" (in the biblical sense) other men in the way they (don't*) lie with a woman..

*being gay

Also note it says nothing about women sleeping with each other in whatever way pleases them. The authors of the bible lacked a bit of imagination there.

Also note it says nothing about women sleeping with each other in whatever way pleases them. The authors of the bible lacked a bit of imagination there.

The scripture for it probably just hasn't been disocvered yet lol
:rolleyes:

Also note it says nothing about women sleeping with each other in whatever way pleases them. The authors of the bible lacked a bit of imagination there.

That's because they never had visited a certain Greek Island :p

But we are discussing the beliefs of Judaism and Christianity.In the specific context of "Show me where in the Bible it says that marriage is between one man and one woman".

In the specific context of "Show me where in the Bible it says that marriage is between one man and one woman".

Ok, but if it is a law from Judaism or from Christianity talking about people i the Bible before either of these religions cam to be is pretty pointless.

Also note it says nothing about women sleeping with each other in whatever way pleases them. The authors of the bible lacked a bit of imagination there.

Well maybe because it is allowed?

As for that argument yes I have heard of it. i have also heard the prayed before my parliament. heard the words "on nation under god" said by Americans, viewed the courts bringing out a bible for witness testimony automatically and many other things that are clearly against their being a seperation.

^^ I just realized that he refused to acknowledge that there is a separation of church and state and said it's just an "argument." I think that counts as an automatic loss.

<snip>

I think that established the Bible has something against gays. That's not really the issue, the issue is whether religious views should affect law. The US has a long tradition of avoiding that, it goes along with the whole freedom of religion thing. You can't grant that freedom if specific beliefs that might not be aplicable to your religion are imposed upon you as law.



<snip>Why because the people of America and Australia are mostly religous for whatever reasons and believe in it. However the gay lobby wants to step on something very important to the nations founding religous faiths. calling it a "civil union" and not marriage shows some respect. As I said the only thing I am against is calling it a marriage as there is a deep religous connection wether you like it or not and prehaps we should show at least a little respect to thoes religous people apposed to any form of "civil union" in the first place as this is still against the religionThe "Civil Union" arguement is misdirection. That option is simply not available. Unless you first establish such a thing with identical rights and privleges to marraige it is wrong to deny marraige to a portion of the population. The closest thing California has to your mythical "civil union" is domestic partnership which does not carry the same rights as a marraige.

Marriage in the bible is defined as one man to one woman. Do you respect the religous belief of others in your country?

As I said before I support calling it a civil union. But the only way you could call it marriage is by over riding the beliefs that defined marriage in your country to begin with. Do you see thoes supporting the traditional view of marriage as lesser people because you dont seem to respect their beliefs?

Marriage in my religion is defined as one woman and her favourite sex toy. Do you respect my religious beliefs?

Marriage in the bible is defined as one man to one woman. Do you respect the religous belief of others in your country?
?

Except for Jehovahs Burglars.

Marriage in my religion is defined as one woman and her favourite sex toy. Do you respect my religious beliefs?

In practical terms, thats basically what most marriages are already :p

Nothing.

Marriage in the bible is defined as one man to one woman. Do you respect the religous belief of others in your country?

As I said before I support calling it a civil union. But the only way you could call it marriage is by over riding the beliefs that defined marriage in your country to begin with. Do you see thoes supporting the traditional view of marriage as lesser people because you dont seem to respect their beliefs?
The Bible also instructs men to own slaves, rape women and children, beat their wives, abuse their offspring, and kill their family members.

Frankly, no, I do not respect the religious beliefs of anybody who takes the Bible's instructions at face value. I think a person who claims to base their morality on the Bible is either 1) Lying, 2) Ignorant of what the Bible says, 3) Picking and choosing which bits they feel like following and suffering convenient amnesia about the rest, or 4) A dangerous lunatic.

None of those garner much respect from me.

Some of us think that there are more improtant issues for the government to focus on, and so the 'years of debate' have not been a priority...

Well yeah, a lot of straight people feel that way about gay rights.

Lotta white people felt that way about black civil rights, and a fuckton of men feel that way about women's rights.

Funny, that. When you're a member of the class that ISN'T currently getting fucked over, you are more likely to be content with the status quo.


But if the gay activist objective is to shove down the throat of Evangelicals that they are the same as them (why would they want to?) then they will always face fierce opposition.

So?

I'm serious, here. Yeah, gay people will face strong opposition. And black people face racists, women face misogynists, etc. etc. etc. The fact that there are loud assholes in the world is not news.

You seem to be whining because you don't like it when victims of discrimination have the nerve to speak up and make noise. I'm afraid that your poor tender ears are just going to have to adjust. There has never, in the history of my country, been a time when discrimination just quietly went away on its own. Progress has always required that people bitch and yell and make a huge fucking deal out of it in order to get a thimbleful of change.


Who cares if it is four quarters or ten dimes...its still a dollar. Accomplish what is important and leave the rest for the idiots to squabble over.
Allow me to thank you on behalf of the gay community. If only somebody could have told us to shut up and get over it sooner! We might have saved all this time and energy, if only some other self-righteous straight boy would have reminded us that legal equality is unimportant and we should stop making our silly little issues (like "being full citizens of our country") into a big to-do. Your fresh new insights will change our world.

Ass.

Well yeah, a lot of straight people feel that way about gay rights.

Lotta white people felt that way about black civil rights, and a fuckton of men feel that way about women's rights.

Funny, that. When you're a member of the class that ISN'T currently getting fucked over, you are more likely to be content with the status quo.

You have a point. But unfortunately you will need the support of the majority in order to secure the rights you seek.

I'm serious, here. Yeah, gay people will face strong opposition. And black people face racists, women face misogynists, etc. etc. etc. The fact that there are loud assholes in the world is not news.

These groups focus on the equal rights. Blacks aren't trying to be labeled 'white' and women aren't trying to be labeled 'men'. They want the same access not the same label. I fully agree with homosexual couples having the same rights as heterosexual couples. I am simply advocating that if the fight were to be focused on the actual rights rather than the label of 'marriage', progress would come much quicker, as you circumvent the religious nutjobs.

You seem to be whining because you don't like it when victims of discrimination have the nerve to speak up and make noise. I'm afraid that your poor tender ears are just going to have to adjust.
I am not whining. Just trying to offer a practical approach to a sensitive issue. I think you will find that the majority of people in California are reasonable enough to amend a package of rights to their constitution. Do it piece by piece. And when you are 85% there, the last 15% push is going to be much easier.

Allow me to thank you on behalf of the gay community. If only somebody could have told us to shut up and get over it sooner! We might have saved all this time and energy, if only some other self-righteous straight boy would have reminded us that legal equality is unimportant and we should stop making our silly little issues (like "being full citizens of our country") into a big to-do. Your fresh new insights will change our world.

Ass.

I am not telling you to shut up. I am merely offering up an alternative approach. If you want to get something challenging done, you are going to have to examine more than one approach.

But unfortunately you will need the support of the majority in order to secure the rights you seek.

No. Under our constitution, individual rights are not subject to majority approval. Protecting minority groups from majority tyranny is the role of the courts.
WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM?

I fully agree with homosexual couples having the same rights as heterosexual couples.

The name for those legal rights is "marriage".

I am simply advocating that if the fight were to be focused on the actual rights rather than the label of 'marriage', progress would come much quicker, as you circumvent the religious nutjobs.

At one time, I actually believed that, but it turns out not to be true. There are a very few people who sincerely mean it when they say they would support equal rights as long as the word was changed; but most of those who SAY, on Internet boards or to pollsters, that they would support "civil union but not marriage" actually VOTE to ban both.

You have a point. But unfortunately you will need the support of the majority in order to secure the rights you seek.

Not in America we don't.

That's basically the core founding concept in our government, actually: that there are INALIENABLE RIGHTS which the majority cannot take away from the minority.

If you want, I can ask my kid brother's Civics 201 teacher if you can sit in on their lessons.


These groups focus on the equal rights. Blacks aren't trying to be labeled 'white' and women aren't trying to be labeled 'men'. They want the same access not the same label. I fully agree with homosexual couples having the same rights as heterosexual couples. I am simply advocating that if the fight were to be focused on the actual rights rather than the label of 'marriage', progress would come much quicker, as you circumvent the religious nutjobs.

Yeah, cause if history has taught us anything, it's that Separate But Equal works!

Dude, 1967 called, they want their racist apologetics back.


I am not whining. Just trying to offer a practical approach to a sensitive issue.

You're not offering anything. You're victim-blaming and concern-trolling.


I think you will find that the majority of people in California are reasonable enough to amend a package of rights to their constitution. Do it piece by piece. And when you are 85% there, the last 15% push is going to be much easier.

And I think you'll find that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I'm just saying.


I am not telling you to shut up. I am merely offering up an alternative approach. If you want to get something challenging done, you are going to have to examine more than one approach.
I know this probably won't puncture through that charming balloon of arrogance you're living in, but seriously:

Your idea is not new. We've heard it many, many times before. Black people heard it in 1960. Women have heard it since fucking forever. Gay people have been listening to it for at least as long as I've been alive. Atheists will be listening to it for at least two more generations. It's a very, very old song.

"Oh, if only the victims of discrimination would just slow down. Give us time. Things will change eventually. Folks will come around. It would be so much more PRACTICAL to stop demanding equality, and just be nice so that people LIKE you more and CHOOSE to stop treating you like sub-humans and sub-citizens."

Your idea has been considered by countless marginalized groups throughout history. And you know what?

It's never worked. Ever. Not once.

Every single time there has been serious progress, it has been loud. Tense. Profoundly uncomfortable and disruptive. Every single time, it has been fought for. Progress does not HAPPEN. Rights aren't GIVEN. Progress is fought for, and rights are WON, by people who are wise enough to ignore the concern trolling and refuse to accept the pathetic promises that if they'll just quiet down then surely people will like them better.

So you go right on telling gay people to shush and play nice. We'll go right on ignoring you. And, thanks to us, your kids can inherit a better world.

No. Under our constitution, individual rights are not subject to majority approval. Protecting minority groups from majority tyranny is the role of the courts.
WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM?

How do you come to that conclusion?


At one time, I actually believed that, but it turns out not to be true. There are a very few people who sincerely mean it when they say they would support equal rights as long as the word was changed; but most of those who SAY, on Internet boards or to pollsters, that they would support "civil union but not marriage" actually VOTE to ban both.

Then divide up the rights and lobby for them individually rather than as a complete package. Politicians fearing hot button issues are much more likely to pass such bills. It also avoids the whole issue of electorate resentment arising from a court ruling.

How do you come to that conclusion?

You are opposed to the very concept that we should be allowed to make our own decisions about our own private lives, without having to seek majority approval. Our constitutional system is based on the idea that collective decisions are only imposed on individuals when there is a necessity for it; and you are against that.
Then divide up the rights and lobby for them individually rather than as a complete package. Politicians fearing hot button issues are much more likely to pass such bills. It also avoids the whole issue of electorate resentment arising from a court ruling.
No. We have the right to equal freedom. We will not leave it up to politicians. And if the religious resent us: we don't care. It is not like they were ever our friends to begin with. The religious are angry because they are losing the "right" they value the most: the "right" to PUSH OTHER PEOPLE AROUND. A society based on freedom cannot allow them to have that "right", and they will have to learn to live with it.

These groups focus on the equal rights. Blacks aren't trying to be labeled 'white' and women aren't trying to be labeled 'men'. They want the same access not the same label. I fully agree with homosexual couples having the same rights as heterosexual couples. I am simply advocating that if the fight were to be focused on the actual rights rather than the label of 'marriage', progress would come much quicker, as you circumvent the religious nutjobs.


And gays don't want to be labled as 'straight'
Your point ?

Seeing Ellen Degeneres reaction to the vote on prop 8, i think i have the solution: Only married (married married, not civil unioned) people pay tax, singles are exempt.
Let's see how long the silly bigots keep up their bigotry when they get to pick up the tab for everything.

Your idea has been considered by countless marginalized groups throughout history. And you know what?

It's never worked. Ever. Not once.

Every single time there has been serious progress, it has been loud. Tense. Profoundly uncomfortable and disruptive. Every single time, it has been fought for. Progress does not HAPPEN. Rights aren't GIVEN. Progress is fought for, and rights are WON, by people who are wise enough to ignore the concern trolling and refuse to accept the pathetic promises that if they'll just quiet down then surely people will like them better.

Really?

Loud/militant actions are a great way to bring attention to an issue, but all of the progress for minority/women's rights have been done piece by piece. It was 14 years from Brown v Board of Education to the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and that is just the basics. And the women's rights movement has taken even longer and has also addressed the issues right by right. Check your history.

Fear. Fear of "devaluing their marriage" (as though a fifty percent divorce rate doesn't do that already). Fear of "teaching children the wrong thing" (as though homosexuality is learned rather than biological). Fear of "the slippery slope where people marry animals" (as though allowing a thing necessarily and inevitably results in achieving the most extreme/radical result which could possibly arise from that thing.) Fear of "competition" (if women are allowed to marry women then why do they need men?). Finally, fear of their own latent homosexual tendencies.

And gays don't want to be labled as 'straight'
Your point ?

My point is FIGHT FOR THE RIGHTS NOT THE LABEL.

Seeing Ellen Degeneres reaction to the vote on prop 8, i think i have the solution: Only married (married married, not civil unioned) people pay tax, singles are exempt.
Let's see how long the silly bigots keep up their bigotry when they get to pick up the tab for everything.
That would be interesting, although it would probably just result in an increased divorce rate.

Deefiki Ahno States, other posters have already given you the answers I would have, so I'll just ditto what they said and add this:

YOU do not get to control MY life.

You do not get to tell me what's important to me. You do not get to tell me how long to wait for equality. You do not get to tell me to just sit quiet and be good and obedient and if I do everything just right so as not to upset you then someday you'll give me what I need. You do not get to be in charge of the story of other people's civil and human rights, nor dictate the rules or the timeline.

I'm not even gay. Technically, gay rights are not even my issue. But you know what is my issue? Social justice. I want to build and live in and pass on to the future a world in which ALL people are equal before the law. That's my agenda, right there, and in the interest of furthering that agenda, I get to be an advocate for gay rights.

You encourage gays to pipe down because otherwise they'll face strong resistance, as if that's some kind of a threat or deterrant. Well, guess what? It cuts both ways. You also face the exact same unrelenting resistance to your shouts of "marriage belongs to us, not you!" The only question is, who will cave in first?

History shows that my side always wins in the end. And I can personally assure you that I, for one, will never, never give up and never back down, no matter what your side does. I will always be there, haunting you with my agenda for social justice, because I want what I want, and I will get my way, however long it may take.

My point is FIGHT FOR THE RIGHTS NOT THE LABEL.
Your suggestion is noted. As a plan, it is rejected. I have set my sights on that word, "marriage," and I will see it applied equally to all citizens, one way or another.

That would be interesting, although it would probably just result in an increased divorce rate.
Sounds good to me. Let's try it and see how it works out.

You are opposed to the very concept that we should be allowed to make our own decisions about our own private lives, without having to seek majority approval.

Wrong. Be together. Love one another. I hope you get the rights you seek. But if you want to make sure that a Prop 8 doesn't pass, you will need the majority.

No. We have the right to equal freedom. We will not leave it up to politicians.

You might want to reconsider. Much can be done through the courts but your best shot at reform is going to be through politicians.

Wrong. Be together. Love one another. I hope you get the rights you seek. But if you want to make sure that a Prop 8 doesn't pass, you will need the majority.
That's what the political process is for. We will gain the majority by campaigning for them, not by sitting and waiting for them to become aware of us.

You might want to reconsider. Much can be done through the courts but your best shot at reform is going to be through politicians.
Oh, now which is it that we need -- the politicians or the majority? It's nice the way you try to redefine the parameters even as you set them up. I guess you're hoping we achieve equal rights in spite of your interference and obstruction, eh?

My belief:
There is no gay marriage. There is no straight marriage. There is marriage.

When two black people marry, it's not "black marriage." It is marriage.
When two Lutherans marry, it's not "Lutheran marriage." It is marriage.
When two Canadians marry, it's not "Canadian marriage." It is marriage.

When two people marry, no matter what they have in common, or do not have in common, it is simply marriage. Not black marriage, not interracial marriage, not international marriage, not straight marriage, not gay marriage. Marriage.

Deefiki Ahno States, other posters have already given you the answers I would have, so I'll just ditto what they said and add this:

YOU do not get to control MY life.

You do not get to tell me what's important to me. You do not get to tell me how long to wait for equality. You do not get to tell me to just sit quiet and be good and obedient and if I do everything just right so as not to upset you then someday you'll give me what I need. You do not get to be in charge of the story of other people's civil and human rights, nor dictate the rules or the timeline.

I'm not even gay. Technically, gay rights are not even my issue. But you know what is my issue? Social justice. I want to build and live in and pass on to the future a world in which ALL people are equal before the law. That's my agenda, right there, and in the interest of furthering that agenda, I get to be an advocate for gay rights.

You encourage gays to pipe down because otherwise they'll face strong resistance, as if that's some kind of a threat or deterrant. Well, guess what? It cuts both ways. You also face the exact same unrelenting resistance to your shouts of "marriage belongs to us, not you!" The only question is, who will cave in first?

History shows that my side always wins in the end. And I can personally assure you that I, for one, will never, never give up and never back down, no matter what your side does. I will always be there, haunting you with my agenda for social justice, because I want what I want, and I will get my way, however long it may take.

I am not sure how I have been misinterpreted, but I am not advocating withholding rights from gay couples, much less wanting to control anyone's life.

I am merely saying that if the state of California cannot uphold gay marriage, then perhaps the approach for securing those rights need to be re-evaluated (not given up). Examine the priorities, evaluate the reasons for opposition, find alternate work arounds and set forth a plan towards achieving your goal step by step. It seems to me that the current game plan is to try and keep throwing hail Mary passes into the end zone rather than trying to just gain 10 yards at a time to get there. (apologizes in advance for the football reference :rolleyes:)

This can just as easily be seen as an anti religious vote. Why should we allow some people to act in a way which is clearly against the Christian-Judaic values that America was founded by?


To quote Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, unanimously ratified by the Senate on June 7, 1797: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

Oh, now which is it that we need -- the politicians or the majority? It's nice the way you try to redefine the parameters even as you set them up.

Read the post--I am not redefining anything. A majority would be needed for a proposition and politicians would be needed to enact laws to convey rights to same sex couples. Pretty simple actually.

I am not sure how I have been misinterpreted, but I am not advocating withholding rights from gay couples, much less wanting to control anyone's life.

I am merely saying that if the state of California cannot uphold gay marriage, then perhaps the approach for securing those rights need to be re-evaluated (not given up). Examine the priorities, evaluate the reasons for opposition, find alternate work arounds and set forth a plan towards achieving your goal step by step. It seems to me that the current game plan is to try and keep throwing hail Mary passes into the end zone rather than trying to just gain 10 yards at a time to get there. (apologizes in advance for the football reference :rolleyes:)
As already stated, your suggestion is noted. As a plan, it is rejected. Thanks for your input.

Read the post--I am not redefining anything. A majority would be needed for a proposition and politicians would be needed to enact laws to convey rights to same sex couples. Pretty simple actually.
Apparently, you hit submit prematurely, but I'll jump in anyway, and point out -- as others already have, though you ignored this point -- rights are not subject to majority vote. The majority don't get to vote to deny equality to some people. I would like very much to gain majority opinion, but I will use the existing law, which (a) guarantees equal protection under the law, and (b) is already supported by the majority, to get what I want in the meantime. Your suggestion is still rejected.

Marriage in the bible is defined as one man to one woman. Do you respect the religous belief of others in your country?If my religion defined marriage as a union between a rhinoceros and a penguin, would you respect that? Would you change laws and dictionaries accordingly?
Of course not; religion has no business defining what words mean to a society. What they want to believe themselves is one thing, but they shouldn't be given the means to force that on the rest of society.

I am not sure how I have been misinterpreted, but I am not advocating withholding rights from gay couples, much less wanting to control anyone's life.

I am merely saying that if the state of California cannot uphold gay marriage, then perhaps the approach for securing those rights need to be re-evaluated (not given up). Examine the priorities, evaluate the reasons for opposition, find alternate work arounds and set forth a plan towards achieving your goal step by step. It seems to me that the current game plan is to try and keep throwing hail Mary passes into the end zone rather than trying to just gain 10 yards at a time to get there. (apologizes in advance for the football reference :rolleyes:)

Indeed, we done it over here just by playing semantic games. Civil union is marriage in disguse.

As already stated, your suggestion is noted. As a plan, it is rejected. Thanks for your input.

Thank you for your time. But you do know what they say about repeating the same actions and expecting a different result?

Thank you for your time. But you do know what they say about repeating the same actions and expecting a different result?
You know what they say about how people who ignore history are doomed to repeat it?

History shows that strong direct advocacy for rights, even in the face of stiff opposition, succeeds, while sitting around waiting for one's oppressors to feel comfortable enough to give up on oppressing you fails.

I pay attention to history, and I choose to do what, traditionally, works. You can ignore history if you like -- as your comments indicate that you are doing -- and you will be surprised when change happens before you are ready for it.

Thank you for your time. But you do know what they say about repeating the same actions and expecting a different result?

Right. It's not as if circumstances are changing. It's not as if bigotry is slowly losing, falling away, to be replaced by tolerance. :rolleyes:


To be quite frank, bigots are dying off in their old age, and the new generation is somewhat less bigoted.

Besides, there's an equally common saying about what to do if at first you do not succeed. ;)

To be quite frank, bigots are dying off in their old age, and the new generation is somewhat less bigoted.

But not all of them huh, still there do seem to be less and less around.

Your suggestion is noted. As a plan, it is rejected. I have set my sights on that word, "marriage," and I will see it applied equally to all citizens, one way or another.

To be fair - his suggestion IS how the first legally recognised gay marriage came to be. The Netherlands first instituted a "geregistreerd partnerschap" (registered partnership) and a few years later marriage followed.

It basically comes down to the long standing tradition that marriage is a life long commitment between two people of the opposite sex in front of witnesses. (and God if you're religious)

If we go in to the realms of religion, the bible is just a bit anti-homosexualism.

Yes and there's the marriage is for procreation opinion to. Yes I know many homosexual couples have gone on to have children by various means but all these means involve an extra party in one capacity or another and they do not include sexual intercourse between each other magically creating a sproglet.

In addition to this, there is a stereotype about homosexual people that shows them as promiscuous(forgive the spelling) and therefore unable to stay in one relationship without straying for the rest of their days. Don't shoot the messenger, I am only illustrating possible answers to your question!

Other than the above you have a lot of people who didn't bother to vote because they didn't feel it was an important enough issue to bother putting themselves out for or they just have no opinion on the subject.

I don't believe that any body has the right to tell any body else who they can and can't marry and I also don't believe that there is anything wrong with two people of the same sex publicly and legally commiting themselves to each other for the rest of their lives.

To be fair - his suggestion IS how the first legally recognised gay marriage came to be. The Netherlands first instituted a "geregistreerd partnerschap" (registered partnership) and a few years later marriage followed.
The Netherlands is not the US (perhaps unfortunately). Also, he may choose to softsoap his suggestions now and cast them in a more reasonable light, but if you read his original posts, his position was clearly along the lines of what I have rejected.

...(forgive the spelling)...
Spelling errors and typos tend to be ignored here, unless they present something that can be laughed at (and even then the piss-taking is generally well-meant). In any case, with the exception of a single "to" instead of "too", your spelling ("promiscuous" included) looks fine to me, for whatever that is worth. :)

In the end marriage is a religous and social thing that is defined by the people. Most people dont want gay marriage as they see it against religion. This is not an anti gay vote at all. All it says is that the public believes in marriage as per one man and one woman which is preached by the major religions in America.

....which is irrelevant to the concept of equal protection.

This can just as easily be seen as an anti religious vote.

No, it can't.

Why should we allow some people to act in a way which is clearly against the Christian-Judaic values that America was founded by?

Freedom of religion, for starters.

I would always vote against gay marriage in Australia as I see it as an insult to the relgious beliefs that is held by many people in my country of Australia. However if you call it a civil union or simular and give them the same "rights" I wont have a problem at all.

So as long as we don't actually make those gay people actually equal, it's ok with you?

Forgive me if I don't really put much stock in your opinion, then.

Unless you look at marriage in a religous context you will never understand why people vote against it.

When discussing civil marriage, there is no reason to look at it in a religious context.

Lots of people don’t like homosexuality, as it is abnormal. That’s why it got through. You can be an atheist and still dislike teh gays. Most people I know fall into both those categories.

Marriage in the bible is defined as one man to one woman. Do you respect the religous belief of others in your country?

I respect all sorts of religious beliefs. Some would restrict marriage to one man and one woman. Some would allow polygamy. Some would allow same-sex unions.

I think all of these viewpoints are fine for religious marriage and that a member of any religion can enter into a marriage based upon their own religious beliefs.

I also think that none of those religious beliefs should be the basis for legal marriage laws.

As I said before I support calling it a civil union. But the only way you could call it marriage is by over riding the beliefs that defined marriage in your country to begin with.

Not at all. The fact that religions happen to have a religious construct called marriage does not mean that the government cannot have a legal construct called marriage that is not the same.

Do you see thoes supporting the traditional view of marriage as lesser people because you dont seem to respect their beliefs?

No, I see them as people who are misusing the law to try and enforce their own religious beliefs on others and, in the process, infringing upon the rights of those others to both religious freedom and equal protection under the law.

Lots of people don’t like homosexuality, as it is abnormal.

Sure. But is "disliking something because it is abnormal" really a good basis for laws ?
After all, being Jewish is abnormal in a country dominated by Christians. Being lefthanded is abnormal in this world. Being a genius, supermodel or topathlete is abnormal. Hell -posting on NSG is abnormal.

Should we restrict the rights of all those abnormal people ?

My point is FIGHT FOR THE RIGHTS NOT THE LABEL.


That would be interesting, although it would probably just result in an increased divorce rate.

child, we don't want the label of being heterosexual, we want the RIGHT to marriage and all the secular, LEGAL benefits that go with it.

Thank you for your time. But you do know what they say about repeating the same actions and expecting a different result?

Yeah, I know. All of those civil rights marchers should have stopped marching after they were beaten and jailed. After all, there's no way keeping it up could ever work...


Yes and there's the marriage is for procreation opinion to.

As soon as opponents of same-sex marriage start lobbying for fertility tests before marriage and a requirement that a married couple has children, this opinion will have a place in this discussion.

In addition to this, there is a stereotype about homosexual people that shows them as promiscuous(forgive the spelling) and therefore unable to stay in one relationship without straying for the rest of their days. Don't shoot the messenger, I am only illustrating possible answers to your question!

That's an interesting one. "Gays can't form long-term relationships, so we won't recognize them when they do...."

Hmmmm....

I don't believe that any body has the right to tell any body else who they can and can't marry and I also don't believe that there is anything wrong with two people of the same sex publicly and legally commiting themselves to each other for the rest of their lives.

=)

In the end marriage is a religous and social thing that is defined by the people. Most people dont want gay marriage as they see it against religion. This is not an anti gay vote at all.

It is entirely an anti gay vote. Besides, why are you interfearing with MY freedom of religion by preventing me from officiating over gay marriages?

This can just as easily be seen as an anti religious vote. Why should we allow some people to act in a way which is clearly against the Christian-Judaic values that America was founded by?

For one thing, America wasn't.

I would always vote against gay marriage in Australia as I see it as an insult to the relgious beliefs that is held by many people in my country of Australia.

But again, insulting my religious beliefs seems to be fine.

However if you call it a civil union or simular and give them the same "rights" I wont have a problem at all.

Absolutely, we must protect bigots by giving gay people something that is separate from but equal to marriage.

Wait, there's no reason to protect bigots from anything. So let's just say "fuck them" and legalize gay marriage just like when we said "fuck them" and integrated the schools, or when we said "fuck them" and legalized interracial marriage.

In the end marriage is a religous and social thing that is defined by the people. Most people dont want gay marriage as they see it against religion. This is not an anti gay vote at all. All it says is that the public believes in marriage as per one man and one woman which is preached by the major religions in America.

Despite the fact that both religions and societies have a vested interest in marriage, the reason we are having this debate is because this is primarily a legal issue. Denying a select group of people the rights and privileges that are extended, under law, to everyone else in the country just happens to strike many citizens as a blatant violation of that group's civil rights. Just because "many people don't want gay marriage" doesn't mean that it is legal to deny gay people those rights. And so, despite whatever objections people might offer on the basis of religion, if they are unable to defend their position successfully in court, laws will begin to change. It happened eventually with race laws, I have no doubt that it will happen eventually here.



This can just as easily be seen as an anti religious vote. Why should we allow some people to act in a way which is clearly against the Christian-Judaic values that America was founded by?

Because of the separation of church and state. Our laws should not be determined by any particular religion. What about the fact that this country was founded on the principle that all people be treated equally? (In principle, obviously in practice we have always fallen well short of this) Why should we allow some people to be treated unequally when that is clearly against the egalitarian values tht America was founded upon?

I would always vote against gay marriage in Australia as I see it as an insult to the relgious beliefs that is held by many people in my country of Australia. However if you call it a civil union or simular and give them the same "rights" I wont have a problem at all.
So it's an issue of semantics for you? You don't care if gay people get married, just don't call it "marriage"? It doesn't sound like to me that this is a religious issue for you at all. If it were, I suspect you would find any union between homosexuals to be unacceptable.

Marriage in the bible is defined as one man to one woman. Do you respect the religous belief of others in your country?

Source it or it's bullshit.

Forget that, SS keeps talking about respecting the religious beliefs of others but refuses to respect the religious beliefs of those who's religions allow gay marriage.

Forget that, SS keeps talking about respecting the religious beliefs of others but refuses to respect the religious beliefs of those who's religions allow gay marriage.

And also refuses to accept the fact that respecting religious beliefs does not necessitate enshrining them in law.

Lots of people don’t like homosexuality, as it is abnormal.

How is it abnormal? If people are born that way then surely it's normal?

how is it abnormal? If people are born that way then surely it's normal?

Ssh! That's a liberal lie!

I am not sure how I have been misinterpreted, but I am not advocating withholding rights from gay couples, much less wanting to control anyone's life.

You are continually arguing in favor of withholding the right of marriage from them.

How is it abnormal? If people are born that way then surely it's normal?

Shush. We must all be exact clones of eachother. Being different is evil. Call in the handicapper general - so we can finally ALL be equal !

Indeed, we done it over here just by playing semantic games. Civil union is marriage in disguse.

Anyone else get the 80's cartoon "Transformers" theme song running through your head?

How is it abnormal? If people are born that way then surely it's normal?

It is a statistical deviation from the norm, much like being left handed or speaking Esperanto.

How is it abnormal? If people are born that way then surely it's normal?

And what basis do you base that claim on.

And what basis do you base that claim on.

People all use different definitions of "normal" in debates such as this.
In general however the people who yell "it is not normal" flee as soon as someone points out that abnormal and bad are far from the same - for instance with the left handed or the genius example.

People all use different definitions of "normal" in debates such as this.
In general however the people who yell "it is not normal" flee as soon as someone points out that abnormal and bad are far from the same - for instance with the left handed or the genius example.

There's a large difference between prefering your left hand over your right and prefering men over women.

People all use different definitions of "normal" in debates such as this.
In general however the people who yell "it is not normal" flee as soon as someone points out that abnormal and bad are far from the same - for instance with the left handed or the genius example.

Or being blond. :D

PS: Blonds, dont get offended, I'm blond 2!

There's a large difference between prefering your left hand over your right and prefering men over women.

Uh-huh.

There's a large difference between prefering your left hand over your right and prefering men over women.

Norm = majority
Majority= right handed
left handed = abnormal

Uh-huh.

Yup.

Norm = majority
Majority= right handed
left handed = abnormal

Sexuality = Complicated Life Decision that requires deep consideration
Hand Preference = You don't really think about this. You just pick up that crayon.

And what basis do you base that claim on.
Which claim, that they're born that way? If so, I'm not the person you were asking but let me suggest a couple answers anyway: Perhaps based on psychology professors who claim that homosexuality is genetic, and that we soon might be able to identify genetic indicators of homosexuality in the fetus? Perhaps based on the reasoning that gays wouldn't likely choose to have a sexual orientation that they're looked down upon for?

There's a large difference between prefering your left hand over your right and prefering men over women.

Is there ? Until about fifty years ago churches were convinced that left handed people were possessed by Satan. Kids that wrote with left were beaten to force them to write with the "right" hand. Even the latin word for left - sinister - still has a negative sound to it.

However, if you believe homosexuality is BAD, feel free to explain your reasoning. Just do not present that "abnormal" bullcrap - because getting rid of everything which is abnormal is about the stupidest thing humanity can do.

I personally don't agree with gay marriage basically because I was raised to believe it isn't right. If that makes me a bad ignorant person, well then, so be it. It's in my nature to not agree with it. And if some of you think badly of this statement, you'll be okay. Just make sure you don't discriminate those who disagree with what you believe. That's the beauty of free speech.

However, if you believe homosexuality is BAD, feel free to explain your reasoning. Just do not present that "abnormal" bullcrap - because getting rid of everything which is abnormal is about the stupidest thing humanity can do.

Ergh, I just find it disgusting, the general idea of Homosexuality, full stop. I won't prejudice on it, and you may as well declare yourself to be together if you are, just that churches are within their rights to deny homosexuals. And it shouldn't be encouraged.

Ergh, I just find it disgusting, the general idea of Homosexuality, full stop. I won't prejudice on it, and you may as well declare yourself to be together if you are, just that churches are within their rights to deny homosexuals. And it shouldn't be encouraged.

*looks at global population trends* I disagree.

*looks at global population trends* I disagree.

With which point?

*looks at global population trends* I disagree.

Theres no global population trend. Africa is 180 degrees different from Eastern Europe. Canada is different than India.

Theres no global population trend. Africa is 180 degrees different from Eastern Europe. Canada is different than India.

The planet is the same as the planet.

Sexuality = Complicated Life Decision that requires deep consideration

Peter always wanted to be a dairy farmer, ever since he was young. Should we forbid him to fullfill his desire because he did not have normal wishes, like wanting to be a jetpilot, astronaut or fireman ?
Your reasoning says yes. Mine says no.

Ergh, I just find it disgusting, the general idea of Homosexuality, full stop. I won't prejudice on it, and you may as well declare yourself to be together if you are, just that churches are within their rights to deny homosexuals. And it shouldn't be encouraged.

Churches can indeed deny it. But this thread is of course about LEGAL marriages.
Aside from that, there are many things I personally find disgusting. Praying for instance - it devalues human beings to grovel for favours in my eyes. But that does not mean I will forbid you to do it, I in fact will even fight for you to keep that right.

With which point?

That homosexuality shouldn't be encouraged. I think it should. It's a very effective form of birth control. *nod*

That homosexuality shouldn't be encouraged. I think it should. It's a very effective form of birth control. *nod*

Of course, the idea that it can be encouraged implies that it is a choice. Which, well, it isn't.

Of course, the idea that it can be encouraged implies that it is a choice. Which, well, it isn't.

Who cares if it's a choice or not? Being blue-eyed or brown-eyed isn't a choice. Being a christian or a buddhist is a choice. None of these people deserve to be treated any differently do they?

I personally don't agree with gay marriage basically because I was raised to believe it isn't right.

Should your belief dictate the law that governs others?

Does something being "not right" necessarily mean that it should not be legal?

If that makes me a bad ignorant person, well then, so be it. It's in my nature to not agree with it.

You can disagree with it and still agree that it should be legal.

And if some of you think badly of this statement, you'll be okay. Just make sure you don't discriminate those who disagree with what you believe. That's the beauty of free speech.

And the beauty of equality is that people - even those you disagree with or might see as "bad" receive equal protection under the law.

If you are opposed to discrimination, you should be in favor of legal same-sex marriage, even if you wouldn't personally condone engaging in one.

Peter always wanted to be a dairy farmer, ever since he was young. Should we forbid him to fullfill his desire because he did not have normal wishes, like wanting to be a jetpilot, astronaut or fireman ?
Your reasoning says yes. Mine says no.

That post was illustrating the fundamental difference between which hand you prefer and which sex you prefer. I could have been more specific, if you really want.

Besides, what's so radical about being a Dairy Farmer? I live on a Dairy Farm, after all.

I fail to see really how Hand Preference and Sexuality are so similar. You've citing the thing about beating children for being lefties (though the cynic in me asks how widespread was that really), but one is a decision made when you pick up a crayon for the first time, and the other isn't. If you treat someone the same way for different things, it doesn't make both of them right/wrong.

The only choice is deciding if you want to be yourself and face the possibility of prejudice and harassment (or worse) or deny it and live a life of self destruction. Beyond that, there is not any choice in who you are attracted to.

Ergh, I just find it disgusting, the general idea of Homosexuality, full stop. I won't prejudice on it, and you may as well declare yourself to be together if you are, just that churches are within their rights to deny homosexuals. And it shouldn't be encouraged.

Why? I find the idea of gay sex rather 'icky,' too. But you know what? They find the idea of straight sex just as 'icky' (being from the Bay Area, this fact has actually been discussed amongst my friends, some of whom are gay). So it's really not much different.

The marriage we're talking about is a secular, state institution. Not a religious one.

And even if we were talking about religious marriage, you'd be a fool to think that all churches oppose gay marriage. There are plenty that don't, or even strongly support it, like mine does.

That post was illustrating the fundamental difference between which hand you prefer and which sex you prefer. I could have been more specific, if you really want.

Besides, what's so radical about being a Dairy Farmer? I live on a Dairy Farm, after all.

I fail to see really how Hand Preference and Sexuality are so similar. You've citing the thing about beating children for being lefties (though the cynic in me asks how widespread was that really), but one is a decision made when you pick up a crayon for the first time, and the other isn't. If you treat someone the same way for different things, it doesn't make both of them right/wrong.

People are born homosexual. It is not something they choose.

Why anyone would choose to be hated for who they are attracted to, to chance getting the crap beaten out of them for no reason, to be possibly even murdered simply for dating people of the same gender, and legally discriminated against, is beyond me. Gay people didn't choose to be gay any more than I chose to be straight.

Who cares if it's a choice or not? Being blue-eyed or brown-eyed isn't a choice. Being a christian or a buddhist is a choice. None of these people deserve to be treated any differently do they?

Oh, were it a choice, then I would have no problem with people encouraging homosexuality. It's just that that which cannot be chosen cannot really be encouraged either.

Oh, were it a choice, then I would have no problem with people encouraging homosexuality. It's just that that which cannot be chosen cannot really be encouraged either.

If it were a choice, it would still be fine with me.

It's not, so discrimination is doubly unfair.

Oh, were it a choice, then I would have no problem with people encouraging homosexuality. It's just that that which cannot be chosen cannot really be encouraged either.

Or discouraged.

If it were a choice, it would still be fine with me.

It's not, so discrimination is doubly unfair.

Indeed.

Incidentally, were it a choice, I think I might possibly choose to be bisexual. More possible partners, after all. :D

Indeed.

Incidentally, were it a choice, I think I might possibly choose to be bisexual. More possible partners, after all. :D

True, bisexuals get the biggest pool of possible partners.

That is another reason, besides the discrimination and bigotry, that I'm glad I'm not gay. The possibilities in finding a partner are a bit more limited.

Marriage was intended by G-d to be between a man and a woman. It defeats the whole purpose to have it between two men or two women.

That said, America does not make legal decisions based on religion, so if a gay marriage bill comes up in my state, I will vote in favor of gay marriage.

I encourage lesbianism. More guys for me. And chicks if I get bored with the same old thing. But homosexuality in hot guys is just wrong. And makes me feel deprived.

Marriage was intended by G-d to be between a man and a woman. It defeats the whole purpose to have it between two men or two women.

What purpose is that?

(Not really arguing here - your religious views are your own. I'm just wondering what the purpose of marriage that you're referring to is)

That said, America does not make legal decisions based on religion, so if a gay marriage bill comes up in my state, I will vote in favor of gay marriage.

=)

I encourage lesbianism. More guys for me. And chicks if I get bored with the same old thing. But homosexuality in hot guys is just wrong. And makes me feel deprived.

Ah, you see, but I rejoice when I find out that guys that women think are hot turn out to be gay. Less competition for me. San Francisco is a great place for a straight man to live.

What purpose is that?

(Not really arguing here - your religious views are your own. I'm just wondering what the purpose of marriage that you're referring to is)



=)Doubtless the whole procreation bullshit. I suppose since I never intend to do so, I shouldn't have been allowed to marry.