PDA

View Full Version : Same-sex Marriages


Seven
03-07-2004, 12:40 PM
What is your opinion on this currently hot topic?
My opinion:
I think gays should be able to get married just like a hetero-sexual couple. This should be in the law IMO. Of course, when I say marry, I mean marry for the law, not in church. Not that I'm against that or something, but I don't think that a goverment should force churches to marry people they don't want to.

So uhm, you're thoughts?

JohtoTrainer
03-07-2004, 01:29 PM
well my opinion is Christian based, I don't think that gay's should have the right to marry because the Bible says that a man shall not lay with another man. Marriage should be between a man and a woman. That's just my opinion.

plasmaball3000
03-07-2004, 02:52 PM
I think that homosexual couples should have every right to marry that heterosexual couples do. Why restrict certain groups of people from fairly simple rights when they have done nothing wrong and don't even have any control over his or her nature.

Black Sabbath
03-07-2004, 03:02 PM
I think that homosexual couples should have every right to marry that heterosexual couples do. Why restrict certain groups of people from fairly simple rights when they have done nothing wrong and don't even have any control over his or her nature.So you're saying a man can marry a female dog?:lol:

And this nation was based on the Foundation of God, right?

plasmaball3000
03-07-2004, 03:10 PM
So you're saying a man can marry a female dog?:lol:
Interspecies relations are a completely different story.

And this nation was based on the Foundation of God, right?
That doesn't mean that this is a Christian state, and it certainly doesn't mean everyone in it is Christian. If everyone (Christian or not) believed that it went against his or her religion for two homosexuals to marry, why do so many people want to?

Black Sabbath
03-07-2004, 03:25 PM
Interspecies relations are a completely different story.

Well, you did say, "Why restrict certain groups of people from fairly simple rights when they have done nothing wrong and don't even have any control over his or her nature.":lol:


That doesn't mean that this is a Christian state, and it certainly doesn't mean everyone in it is Christian. If everyone (Christian or not) believed that it went against his or her religion for two homosexuals to marry, why do so many people want to?

It goes against the foundation of this country, but the predecessors of the hippie movement and the socialists decided to pervert this country into Hell. The reason so many people are doing this is because one: they are friggin hippies, or two: no one is perfect, so they sin.

plasmaball3000
03-07-2004, 03:37 PM
The reason people are doing this is because they are gay, not because they are trying to change the foundation of this country (except maybe the parts thet say they are not as everyone else and so should be kept down and not allowed to live in a way that expresses themselves).

Would you feel the same way if this was a world where more people are gay than straight, and they were saying that you are different, so you can't live like us?

silverfrost
03-07-2004, 03:38 PM
In my opinion, gay marriage should be allowed.

I've heard a lot of people saying that homosexuals are "making a big deal" out of getting married and that they should just live together and be content. The argument is that not every straight couple gets married, so "why do gays need those rights?" Well, a lot of straight couples get married, so why can't homosexuals have that option too?

I've discussed this a lot with my best friend, who happens to be gay. He claims that all he really wants is to be able to get married, like the majority of people are allowed to do. Essentially, he wants unity.

So this is what most people are saying: Gays can't have the same rights only because of their sexual preference and in my opinion, that is wrong.

The End
03-07-2004, 03:40 PM
Well, I am not very religious in no manner of the word, so I really dont care if they get married, marriage should be the union of two beings that love eachother, and yay for you rosie o' donald.

Black Sabbath
03-07-2004, 04:01 PM
The reason people are doing this is because they are gay, not because they are trying to change the foundation of this country (except maybe the parts thet say they are not as everyone else and so should be kept down and not allowed to live in a way that expresses themselves).

They may not be trying to change the foundation, but they are, along with this other socialist sh!t that's out there.

Would you feel the same way if this was a world where more people are straight and gay, and they were saying that you are different, so you can't live like us?

Before I go on, aren't gay and straight the only two choices?

So this is what most people are saying: Gays can't have the same rights only because of their sexual preference and in my opinion, that is wrong.

Marriage is SUPPOSED to be between a man and a woman, but it's been perverted into faggotry (and soon beistiality) as well. That's why most poeple are against it, besides the fact that most people think it's disgusting.

Well, I'm off, so good day.:pray:

silverfrost
03-07-2004, 04:05 PM
Maybe you should watch your language before posting here. Try being politically correct, too

Marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman? Interesting, because I thought that marriage was for two people that loved each other, as Alex said.

plasmaball3000
03-07-2004, 04:09 PM
They may not be trying to change the foundation, but they are, along with this other socialist that's out there.
That's what happens in life: culture, traditions, people, change. In most cases I like to think it's for the better.

The End
03-07-2004, 04:12 PM
Yes, as Alex said. :cool:

And anyway, what problem do you have with it? It is disgusting? That is only because you make it to be that way. Plus gays and lesbiands need the same marriage rights as straight people do, and who cares about sexual preference? Not the people with brains. And I would love to see gays overpopulate the straights so that you may know how hard it is to have no marriage rights and such.

So try not to be a liar.:hand:

Tamer Marco
03-07-2004, 04:19 PM
I feel very strongly about things like these because my mothers brother is gay. But the marragies won't last because there won't be anyone caring for each other. And once you get married usually you have kid's. You can't have kids in same sex marraiges.

plasmaball3000
03-07-2004, 04:25 PM
Many straight couples don't have kids. Besides, you can adopt and still provide a loving environment for a child.

Tamer Marco
03-07-2004, 04:28 PM
Many straight couples don't have kids. Besides, you can adopt and still provide a loving environment for a child. So it's okay for same sex marrages?:rolleyes:

plasmaball3000
03-07-2004, 04:33 PM
Why wouldn't it be?

The End
03-07-2004, 05:31 PM
Yes, why wouldnt it be, I dont see why not, let them love eachother and get marriage rights that they deserve.:idea: mm...now there is an idea, and by not letting them marry, you are lettting christianity get into government, which violates seperation of religion and government.

Joe Moma
03-07-2004, 05:31 PM
I dont think gays should be abble to get married it's not right yea let them be gay but dont let tham get married

The End
03-07-2004, 05:37 PM
Thats all good and stuff, but what about the rights? Even if yo udont let them get married, just let them get the rights that they need.

Seven
03-07-2004, 06:03 PM
I dont think gays should be abble to get married it's not right yea let them be gay but dont let tham get married How generous of you to let them be gay :rolleyes:. Why is it "not right" to let them marry? You can hardly call that an argument at all. Is it not right because it's different from the majority of people? Just look at the world history and see how many times thing like this have happened before. It's pure discrimination not to let them get married.
Also, what does it matter to people who are now against the gay marriage? Nobody's life would have a lesser quality because gays can marry, so why be against it?

JohtoTrainer
03-07-2004, 06:08 PM
Some guy really did want to marry his dog.....and they couldn't refuse it because it would be discrimination.....so u guys think that THAT'S right?? I'm sorry but that man is a perv.......and gay marriage is also a form of perversion......I have no problem with gay people I just don't think they should be married.....Just my opinion but I guess I'm out numbered lol :think:

The End
03-07-2004, 06:21 PM
NOt really, considering the fact that only one state lets them marr.y

Seven
03-07-2004, 06:30 PM
Some guy really did want to marry his dog.....and they couldn't refuse it because it would be discrimination.....so u guys think that THAT'S right?? I'm sorry but that man is a perv.......and gay marriage is also a form of perversion......I have no problem with gay people I just don't think they should be married.....Just my opinion but I guess I'm out numbered lol :think:
You are not seriously comparing a dog to a human are you? A dog is an animal, whose feelings are at a totally different level than the feelings from humans.
Also, I don't really believe this story. You're saying that a man can marry a dog, but gays can't get married? What state do you live in for God's sake?!
Is homosexuality a form of perversion? It's as perverted as heterosexuality. You decide wether it's perverted or not.
If you have no problem with gay people, why deny them the right to get married and be happy? It doesn't hurt you, and it makes them happy. Perfect solution, not?

For people who have given, or will give religious arguments:
http://www.godlovesfags.com/bible/bible_on.html


Offtopic >>
Is it 'I denie' or 'I deny'? ^_^;; And what about 'to denie' or 'to deny'?

JohtoTrainer
03-07-2004, 06:30 PM
And that's one to many......and even the states that don't allow them....they're still getting married like in California they're not allowed to be married but they still have been.

Raddstealth316
03-07-2004, 06:34 PM
Well I'm christian so i believe that Bush made a good stand banning gay marriages. IMO man can only be married to a woman it is written in the bible so i beleive and feel that it is true. I dont know exactly how to keep argueing but i just feel gay marriages are...wrong..

The End
03-07-2004, 06:39 PM
Maybe you feel this way because the bible makes you feel this way, maybe.

Seven
03-07-2004, 06:39 PM
Well I'm christian so i believe that Bush made a good stand banning gay marriages. IMO man can only be married to a woman it is written in the bible so i beleive and feel that it is true. I dont know exactly how to keep argueing but i just feel gay marriages are...wrong..
It's the way you red and interprete (sp?) the Bible that makes you form opinions. There isn't a verse that says: "And then God said that gays were wrong and should not be able to get married" or anything like that.
Also, read this
http://www.godlovesfags.com/bible/bible_on.html

JohtoTrainer
03-07-2004, 06:50 PM
ok dude look at the title of that website "Godlovesfags" um if it was real it would be more like god loves homosexuals.....since well *** is an insult to gay men...and in that site "A man shall not lie with a man as a woman it's an abomination" there ya go I realise that not everyone is a Christian but this country was built on Christianity. So heh I can't change ur opinion but hey...I'll think what I wanna think and u think what u wanna think.

Seven
03-07-2004, 06:58 PM
ok dude look at the title of that website "Godlovesfags" um if it was real it would be more like god loves homosexuals.....since well *** is an insult to gay men...and in that site "A man shall not lie with a man as a woman it's an abomination" there ya go I realise that not everyone is a Christian but this country was built on Christianity. So heh I can't change ur opinion but hey...I'll think what I wanna think and u think what u wanna think.
Meh, I do think the site's real, *** is a lot shorter than homosexual, I think that's the reason.
-_-;; I won't go against the Bible, the site was just to show that the Bible isn't as negative as alot of people say about homosexuality.
I don't think that the US is built on Christianty. Yes, the Founding fathers were Christians, and yes the laws were made similair to the Ten Commandments, but that doesn't mean anything. Most of the Ten Commandments are just basic rules for a society to function normally, so no wonder they were "baed" on those.
I can't change you're opinion either, and I'm not trying to ^^;. I'm just debating on why I think my view is the correct one, it's nothing personal XD.

Crimson Spider
03-07-2004, 07:02 PM
Same sex Marriages seriously messed up the Netherlands when they allowed it. Seriously messed up Rome, too.

O.K. You see, Homosexual people have the same right as hetero. A homosexual man can marry any women they please, and vice versa while getting all the same legal rights.

They aren't arguing for "Equal Rights" (an illusion in itself that has been brought on by the flower-children of the early days). They want special rights. Whether they've convinced themselves of the illusion of being homosexual or not isn't our problem. It's their choice, and their problem.

You see, the American Constitution doesn't give equal rights. When George Washington and all the other early presidents wrote "All men are created equal", what was refered to as a man was a middle aged white landowner. Women weren't men. Negro's weren't men. Native Americans weren't men either. This very "All men are created equal" is in fact a mere illusion brought upon by the changing definition of the word "Man".

Even to this day, women don't have equal rights. Yeah, they have the right to vote and stuff granted by the 18th amendment, but no where does it say they have the same rights as men.

There are scholarships for people of certain heritage exclusivly. That isn't equal rights. There are even scholarships for left-handed people. That is special rights, despite what they claim. There is no "Eye for an Eye". No justification outside of a judges ruling due to a felony or mistomeiner.

Due to the Unfortunate ruling in the constitution, it is unconstitutional for homosexuals to wed. End of Story. If you don't like it, don't live here. Equal-Rights activists argue against it, whilst the same arguement can be used to not allow someone to stay in prison indefinatly due to him/her seriously violating the rights of the constitution. While they argue for an exclusion for one's own breaking of the law, they stand hard against what they dis-agree with to argue against something that isn't against the law at all, but is only infact a slight descrimination of choice. Seems as if people only use the constitution of America to suit their own personal preferances while they ignore it when they dis-agree with it.

While Life, Liberty, And the persuit of happyness are inaliable rights, but the breaking of multiple laws to suit ones own personal preferance when there is a clear alternative is not an inaliable right, nor a right at all in actuallity. This is the same purpose of why murder, rape, and burglery are illegal. One can argue for hours on end of which why these may be justifiable, but ultimatly the American constitution has the final word. Which, once again, would mean the end of story for the gay marrages.

Another widely accepted mis-interpretation is that gays will refuse to have sex with a woman. That is utterly false. Not only is this true from personal studies, but is sometimes even pointed out in modern media. To put it in a simple form: It isn't love. It's sex, which is once again a choice.

The reason why there are so many acts against homosexuals? Simply put: Actions and choices. Whether you believe being homosexual is a choice or not, that does not in any way shape or form justify many of the actions of which would cause them to have limited rights. The reason why homsexuals cannot adopt children is because of the acts of NAMBLA (North American Men Boy Lover's Association). Such as one with extream homocidal intentions cannot have the same rights as your every-day man, gays cannot have the same rights.

The reason why homosexuals have a 30,000 times higher chance of contracting Aids (dis-regarding other sexually transmitted diseases) is because they give no regard to the notion of which you are to only have sex with one person, which is the very same ideal that marriage enforces. Condoms, pills. They do not work. They have been known to fail time and time again. So often it is as if they don't exist, nor do people use them. The permiscuocity of the homosexual stereotype and vast majority would give no consideration to the ideals of Marriage other than it's legal benifits, truly ruining the concept of marriage as a whole.

For this fact, there is little to no good that could actually come from allowing marriages of homosexuals. Analogy to letting a bunch of Jerks into a bar. Free rights, bad outcome.

Kenny_C.002
03-07-2004, 07:39 PM
Well it's not really about same-sex marriage, but more like if we allow this, would people take it further?

Okay. It's this issue that the governements are hesitating on "yes" or "no". See if they say "no", then it's "against human rights". If they say "yes", then people will definitely take it further and use the same arguments to get the "yes".

The question is, where do we stop? If we stop right here, we can prevent furthering the extremists, tho angering many. If we don't stop here, we can never stop until the extremes are allowed. This is the problem right here: we can't have a middle "line". It's either no to everything or yes to everything.

Seven
03-07-2004, 07:52 PM
Same sex Marriages seriously messed up the Netherlands when they allowed it. Seriously messed up Rome, too. No it didn't. o_O;; where did you get that? I live in the Netherlands, and I can assure you this isn't true. Don't know about Rome though.

O.K. You see, Homosexual people have the same right as hetero. A homosexual man can marry any women they please, and vice versa while getting all the same legal rights.

They aren't arguing for "Equal Rights" (an illusion in itself that has been brought on by the flower-children of the early days). They want special rights. Never looked at it that way. you are right that they want special rights, but it isn't very fair to say. They don't care if they can marry a woman. Heterosexuals do care for this right.


Whether they've convinced themselves of the illusion of being homosexual or not isn't our problem. It's their choice, and their problem.
It isn't an illusion and it isn't a choice -.-;;


You see, the American Constitution doesn't give equal rights. When George Washington and all the other early presidents wrote "All men are created equal", what was refered to as a man was a middle aged white landowner. Women weren't men. Negro's weren't men. Native Americans weren't men either. This very "All men are created equal" is in fact a mere illusion brought upon by the changing definition of the word "Man".

Even to this day, women don't have equal rights. Yeah, they have the right to vote and stuff granted by the 18th amendment, but no where does it say they have the same rights as men.

There are scholarships for people of certain heritage exclusivly. That isn't equal rights. There are even scholarships for left-handed people. That is special rights, despite what they claim. There is no "Eye for an Eye". No justification outside of a judges ruling due to a felony or mistomeiner.
I don't get what you're saying. You're saying that there are really stupid thing in the law and that we should continue to have them? Change the law if it doesn't fit in this time anymore -.-;; simple as that.



Due to the Unfortunate ruling in the constitution, it is unconstitutional for homosexuals to wed. End of Story. If you don't like it, don't live here. Equal-Rights activists argue against it, whilst the same arguement can be used to not allow someone to stay in prison indefinatly due to him/her seriously violating the rights of the constitution. While they argue for an exclusion for one's own breaking of the law, they stand hard against what they dis-agree with to argue against something that isn't against the law at all, but is only infact a slight descrimination of choice. Seems as if people only use the constitution of America to suit their own personal preferances while they ignore it when they dis-agree with it.
They feel that they're are mistreated by the law, and that it should change. Not that I think about it, if it was in the law that gays can't marry, than why would Bush want to change the Constitution to forbid these gaymarriages? I mean, when I read this I understand that it's already forbidden.
ANd what is against changing the laws anyways?


While Life, Liberty, And the persuit of happyness are inaliable rights, but the breaking of multiple laws to suit ones own personal preferance when there is a clear alternative is not an inaliable right, nor a right at all in actuallity. This is the same purpose of why murder, rape, and burglery are illegal. One can argue for hours on end of which why these may be justifiable, but ultimatly the American constitution has the final word. Which, once again, would mean the end of story for the gay marrages.
Murder, rape and burglary are things that immediately harm others. Gaymarriage wouldn't harm anybody else. So...I don't see the comparison.


Another widely accepted mis-interpretation is that gays will refuse to have sex with a woman. That is utterly false. Not only is this true from personal studies, but is sometimes even pointed out in modern media. To put it in a simple form: It isn't love. It's sex, which is once again a choice.
They won't refuse to have sex with a woman. Well uhm...in what situation? When their lives depend on it? When they are doubting they're sexual preference? Also, don't forget the possibility of being bisexual.


The reason why there are so many acts against homosexuals? Simply put: Actions and choices. Whether you believe being homosexual is a choice or not, that does not in any way shape or form justify many of the actions of which would cause them to have limited rights. The reason why homsexuals cannot adopt children is because of the acts of NAMBLA (North American Men Boy Lover's Association). Such as one with extream homocidal intentions cannot have the same rights as your every-day man, gays cannot have the same rights.
-.-;; Homsexuals aren't all pedosexuals. That's a stereotype that is totally wrong. Sure, it does happen, but with the same numbers as heterosexual men. Just look at Dutroux.


The reason why homosexuals have a 30,000 times higher chance of contracting Aids (dis-regarding other sexually transmitted diseases) is because they give no regard to the notion of which you are to only have sex with one person, which is the very same ideal that marriage enforces. Condoms, pills. They do not work. They have been known to fail time and time again. So often it is as if they don't exist, nor do people use them. The permiscuocity of the homosexual stereotype and vast majority would give no consideration to the ideals of Marriage other than it's legal benifits, truly ruining the concept of marriage as a whole.
A lot of gays live with the same man/woman for the rest of their lives, and would like to marry. There are a lot of monogamous (? you know what I mean right?) gays out there. But the media don't show them, they only show the dragqueen type of gay.
Also, there are secial gaycondoms that do work - it all depends on the responsility-feeling of the person. Marriage includes that you sleep with one person alone, so this would be good for AIDS and other deceases --> they wouldn't spread so widely.


For this fact, there is little to no good that could actually come from allowing marriages of homosexuals. Analogy to letting a bunch of Jerks into a bar. Free rights, bad outcome. Uhm, eveything that comes out of gaymarriage is good. Everybody'll be happy, nobody is hurt.
<<Analogy to letting a bunch of Jerks into a bar>> I don't get that sentence :confused:>> *feels dumb*

Tamer Marco
03-07-2004, 08:29 PM
The reason why I don't approve of this is because it's wrong! Haven't you people ever heard of Sodom and Gumoro?!

plasmaball3000
03-07-2004, 08:34 PM
Actually, I can't say I have.

Seven
03-07-2004, 08:39 PM
The reason why I don't approve of this is because it's wrong! Haven't you people ever heard of Sodom and Gumoro?! Have you heard about:
- Thinking for yourself, and not believing a 2000 year old book without questioning it?
- Not being a Christian?
- Not believing the Bible?


ost people assume Sodom was destroyed due to God's judgments upon the the homosexual lusts of the inhabitants. Yet many now argue that the sin of Sodom was lack of hospitality to the angelic visitors who stayed with Lot. How does the rest of the Bible explain the 'sin of Sodom'? It is clear from Ezekiel 16:49-50 that Sodom's sin was primarily pride, wealth, and indifference to the needy; it is also evident from Luke 10:10-12 that Jesus explicitly stated that many sins would be punished more severely on the day of Judgment than the sins of Sodom. Even if the sins of Sodom were in part sexual, it is important to note that it is the violence of the treatment of the strangers that is condemned -- something that hardly applies to acts performed between *consenting* adults.
Gosh! The Bible can be interpreted in different ways! What news! Let the world celebrate -.-;;

Oh, and BTW, doesn't the Bible say something about loving everybody? Or is that just me --

Tamer Marco
03-07-2004, 09:44 PM
Have you heard about_:
- Thinking for yourself, and not believing a 2000 year old book without questioning it?
- Not being a Christian?
- Not believing the Bible?

Gosh! The Bible can be interpreted in different ways! What news! Let the world celebrate -.-;;

Oh, and BTW, doesn't the Bible say something about loving everybody? Or is that just me --
[/size][/font] It does say that. I'm just talking about gay marrages not loving everyone.:rolleyes:

sdp
03-07-2004, 10:42 PM
There is a reson state and religion are separated.

Why can't homosexual couples have the same rights to get married and get the benefits of marriage?

Tamer Marco
03-07-2004, 11:27 PM
There is a reson state and religion are separated.

Why can't homosexual couples have the same rights to get married and get the benefits of marriage? They can do what ever they want but it won't do them any good.

plasmaball3000
03-07-2004, 11:33 PM
Actually, they can't do whatever they want, especially if the constitutional ban pulls through.

Crimson Spider
03-08-2004, 12:35 AM
No it didn't. o_O;; where did you get that? I live in the Netherlands, and I can assure you this isn't true. Don't know about Rome though.
I got that from the radio. Seeing as you live in the Netherlands, you could easily use that as a medium to the well-being of a country and paradigms would easily allow you to miss the little figures. And actually, yeah. It was on of the things that killed Rome, aside from being devided up into multiple groups.

Never looked at it that way. you are right that they want special rights, but it isn't very fair to say. They don't care if they can marry a woman. Heterosexuals do care for this right. Actually, I believe I've heard of a homosexual man or two that married a woman for the legal rights, and to go bump in the night. Not from modern media, but by actually meeting them.


It isn't an illusion and it isn't a choice -.-;;

O.K. Do you HONESTLY want me to pull out my 10 page report on why being homosexual is biologically impossible? On how a person becomes homosexual in the first place? Just give the word, and I'll put it up.


I don't get what you're saying. You're saying that there are really stupid thing in the law and that we should continue to have them? Change the law if it doesn't fit in this time anymore -.-;; simple as that.
What I'm saying is that 9/10 arguments for Homosexual weddings is based on a falacy.

They feel that they're are mistreated by the law, and that it should change. Not that I think about it, if it was in the law that gays can't marry, than why would Bush want to change the Constitution to forbid these gaymarriages? I mean, when I read this I understand that it's already forbidden.
Do you know how many serial killers feel mistreated by the law? And BTW, it is in the law that it is illegal for gays to marry, to marry homosexuals, and even very recently Clinton passed an act that forbid them from wedding. Bush is just standing on the opposite side if legalizing it.


ANd what is against changing the laws anyways?
A lot of things. For one, changing the laws has caused a lot of problems in the US I.E. the patriot act. The changing of law is almost always to give special rights to a single group I.E. the rich. These amending of the law means that it infact holds no ground on actual authority and can be dis-regarded as a mere preferance, and one can easily argue that murder isn't illegal with this basis.

Murder, rape and burglary are things that immediately harm others. Gaymarriage wouldn't harm anybody else. So...I don't see the comparison. The comparison lies in the fact that it is ILLEGAL. And FYI: Gay marriage could very easily harm someone else. Such as 2/3rds of abuse cases are strictly verbal, actual physical damage isn't the only kind of damage out there.

They won't refuse to have sex with a woman. Well uhm...in what situation? When their lives depend on it? When they are doubting they're sexual preference? Also, don't forget the possibility of being bisexual.
If a decent-looking girl just simply offered herself. Simple as that. Let me tell you the little study that was conducted:

My sister's friend decided (due to other circumstances) that she would examine this gayness a little closely (she's in college. UNLV to be exact). She offered to have sex with 6 Flaming Homosexuals who had publicly swore that they were completely gay. And guess what? They all Happily agreed. Each time they agreed, she denied herself from them and moved on. Now either they were all A)lying about being gay. B)Were Bisexual and didn't know it. Or C)Pure Gayness is an illusion. Pick one. They all bring gayness into question of actuality.

-.-;; Homsexuals aren't all pedosexuals. That's a stereotype that is totally wrong. Sure, it does happen, but with the same numbers as heterosexual men. Just look at Dutroux. Look at the ratio's of homosexual molesters to non homosexual molesters to strait molesters to strait non-molesters. They are WAY off.

A lot of gays live with the same man/woman for the rest of their lives, and would like to marry. There are a lot of monogamous (? you know what I mean right?) gays out there. But the media don't show them, they only show the dragqueen type of gay.
I beg to differ. You see, in the US, the democratic party almost exclusivly controlls the media. The Democratic party is as pro-gay marriage as you can possibly get, so they show gays in the best light possible. But regardless, 30,000:1 isn't a healthy ratio. Homosexuals also have themselves an expected life of 35 years. The actions of the few do not give reason to dis-regard the actions of the many.
Also, there are secial gaycondoms that do work - it all depends on the responsility-feeling of the person. Marriage includes that you sleep with one person alone, so this would be good for AIDS and other deceases --> they wouldn't spread so widely. How many men cheat on their wives, and vice versa? For what I've seen, gays only wed for one reason, and 7/10 times heteros have the same reason: Legal Benifits. That is the whole basis of which the democratic party argues. That they should get the same legal benifits for marriage. Not that they would be joined together in holy matrimony.

This has been told in many health classes and on the news: There is only 1 sure-fire way to prevent sexual disease and pregnancy: Don't have sex. Everything else has had multiple accounts of failing, even when stack on eachother. If homosexuals are dying between the age of 35 and 40, then there is certainly a reason why. Take a guess.


Uhm, eveything that comes out of gaymarriage is good. Everybody'll be happy, nobody is hurt.
<<Analogy to letting a bunch of Jerks into a bar>> I don't get that sentence :confused:>> *feels dumb*
Nobody hurt? You definatly don't know the US too well. Emotional damage and scaring is just one of the*"hurt' that can come out of it. Want me to list more? Just give the word.

BTW: An analogy is the relation of two objects, or circumstances through other objects or circumstances. Basically, I'm relating a bunch of Jerks into a bar to allowing homosexuals to marry.

Have you heard about_:
- Thinking for yourself, and not believing a 2000 year old book without questioning it?
- Not being a Christian?
- Not believing the Bible?

And I actually considered you something close to the relation of intelligence for awhile.
Have you heard about_:
- Not supporting gay marriage?
- Gays going strait?
- Being a Christian?

Obviously not. Do you know why we don't question the Bible? Because we are a seldomly talked about issue of being something called Born Again. This is what happens when your Soul & Spirit are cleansed in the blood of Jesus. When you are born again, trust me. You know it. You feel it. And how can this immense rush if understanding and peace and wisdom come sheerly from a lie? Simply put: It doesn't.

You can't change what you believe. That is the reason why most gays never try to go strait, while the small amount that do often times end up being strait. Then they tell their stories to all the little boys and girls about being gay, and what they thought and did at that time.

Oh, and BTW, doesn't the Bible say something about loving everybody? Or is that just me --

Yes, it does say that. And? Whether we love them or not does not let us agree with them, just as I do not agree with murder.

(reads through other posts)
What I said is also covered.

Mizu
03-08-2004, 01:40 AM
DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDES! What's up with you people? I'm personally Catholic, but I don't believe in that...Of course there's GOTTA be something after this torture called ¨Life¨, but, why can't people get the idea that if two people that love each other (regardless of their gender) they have the right to decide if they stay together all their life. AND, why can´t the church see that too? I mean, you gotta accept, most priests (catholic) were gay, but were afraid of ¨coming out¨ and could'nt haver a relationship with a woman, so, VOILA! Instant devotion to god. Oh, and, if god, or whoever you belived in, really loved us, he would have accpeted it all along...:confused:

Crimson Spider
03-08-2004, 02:09 AM
DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDES! What's up with you people? I'm personally Catholic, but I don't believe in that...
Aww crap. A catholic. Nothing personal... but I've had some bad experiences with catholics.

Of course there's GOTTA be something after this torture called ¨Life¨, but, why can't people get the idea that if two people that love each other (regardless of their gender) they have the right to decide if they stay together all their life. Most Catholics believe in Purgatory.
They do have the right to stay together for all their life.
AND, why can´t the church see that too?Because the bible specifically mentions that a man shall not sleep with another man, and that those who do shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.
I mean, you gotta accept, most priests (catholic) were gay, but were afraid of ¨coming out¨ and could'nt haver a relationship with a woman, so, VOILA! Instant devotion to god. Oh, and, if god, or whoever you belived in, really loved us, he would have accpeted it all along...:confused:

God loves us. He hates our sins, but he loves us.

If I remember correctly, the only thing you need to do to become a Catholic priest is to take a class on it. One can Claim devotion to god, but there are quite the convincing liars out there I.E. the child Molesters.

I mean, no where in the Bible (the original, and not the re-made versioin) does it say that a priest cannot wed.

plasmaball3000
03-08-2004, 11:29 AM
A lot of things. For one, changing the laws has caused a lot of problems in the US I.E. the patriot act. The changing of law is almost always to give special rights to a single group I.E. the rich.
Are you saying that all gays are rich, or am I missing the point of this?


The comparison lies in the fact that it is ILLEGAL. And FYI: Gay marriage could very easily harm someone else. Such as 2/3rds of abuse cases are strictly verbal, actual physical damage isn't the only kind of damage out there.
Do you mind telling us how gay marriage could harm someone else, and why they couldn't raise a child?

Yes, it does say that. And? Whether we love them or not does not let us agree with them, just as I do not agree with murder.
Again, how are you getting this always-true statistic that you say all gays are murderers?

Seven
03-08-2004, 03:40 PM
I got that from the radio. Seeing as you live in the Netherlands, you could easily use that as a medium to the well-being of a country and paradigms would easily allow you to miss the little figures. And actually, yeah. It was on of the things that killed Rome, aside from being devided up into multiple groups.
--; I'll say it again - nothing went wrong here. And what is 'seriously messed up' anyway? Taht's not very clear. And if I should look in the little figures, how serious can it be?
Also, I don't think Rome was killed by homosexuality. It isn't a decease spreading, it was there anyway.


Actually, I believe I've heard of a homosexual man or two that married a woman for the legal rights, and to go bump in the night. Not from modern media, but by actually meeting them.
Sure some gays will do these things. Are they truly gay? Who knows? But maybe hey did this because they don't wnat to expose themself. The less something is accepetd by society, the more likely it is that people will do these things.


O.K. Do you HONESTLY want me to pull out my 10 page report on why being homosexual is biologically impossible? On how a person becomes homosexual in the first place? Just give the word, and I'll put it up.
I know it's not a choice, though I don't know why it happens. I now this because of my own experiences.


What I'm saying is that 9/10 arguments for Homosexual weddings is based on a fallacy. I wish I knew every gaycouple as personal as you seem to know them --;.


Do you know how many serial killers feel mistreated by the law? And BTW, it is in the law that it is illegal for gays to marry, to marry homosexuals, and even very recently Clinton passed an act that forbid them from wedding. Bush is just standing on the opposite side if legalizing it. Serial killer kill people, gays don't. That's the difference. I don't lik eyellow cars. still, it isn't forbidden by the law. Should it be? Most argument against gay marriage are religious (not all, but most), and religion and state are, and should be seperated.


A lot of things. For one, changing the laws has caused a lot of problems in the US I.E. the patriot act. The changing of law is almost always to give special rights to a single group I.E. the rich. These amending of the law means that it infact holds no ground on actual authority and can be dis-regarded as a mere preferance, and one can easily argue that murder isn't illegal with this basis.
Everybody gets the right to marry the same sex, so it isn't a specail right. Everybody gains a right.


The comparison lies in the fact that it is ILLEGAL. And FYI: Gay marriage could very easily harm someone else. Such as 2/3rds of abuse cases are strictly verbal, actual physical damage isn't the only kind of damage out there.
Gay marriage could only hurt people who meddle in other people's affaird. Someone's life doens't have a lesser value because of gaymarriage. Also, when there would be a huge group, with reasonable arguments who think murder should be legal, it probably would be. But murder makes a society not function well, gaymarriage has no influence on everyday life for non-gays.


If a decent-looking girl just simply offered herself. Simple as that. Let me tell you the little study that was conducted:

My sister's friend decided (due to other circumstances) that she would examine this gayness a little closely (she's in college. UNLV to be exact). She offered to have sex with 6 Flaming Homosexuals who had publicly swore that they were completely gay. And guess what? They all Happily agreed. Each time they agreed, she denied herself from them and moved on. Now either they were all A)lying about being gay. B)Were Bisexual and didn't know it. Or C)Pure Gayness is an illusion. Pick one. They all bring gayness into question of actuality. I'd go for B. Or for what I said earlier: desperatly trying to be straight. Ans does this mean every gay will do this? No. Sure, there'll be people who think it's hip to be gay, or think that they're gay and aren't.


Look at the ratio's of homosexual molesters to non homosexual molesters to strait molesters to strait non-molesters. They are WAY off.
That doesn't concern the marriage, it concerns the homosexuality in itself. Plus, I don't know these figures.


I beg to differ. You see, in the US, the democratic party almost exclusivly controlls the media. The Democratic party is as pro-gay marriage as you can possibly get, so they show gays in the best light possible. But regardless, 30,000:1 isn't a healthy ratio. Homosexuals also have themselves an expected life of 35 years. The actions of the few do not give reason to dis-regard the actions of the many. When I was watching MTV, there was a program about gays. Now, MTV is pretty pro-gay right. All of the gays in the program were dragqueens. They all waved their hand, and they all were just so...female. But it's not just in the US...here, still all the gays on TV are dragqueens --; Stupid, really.
Life eptence: I honestly have no idea, but it isn't a reason not to let them get married.


How many men cheat on their wives, and vice versa? For what I've seen, gays only wed for one reason, and 7/10 times heteros have the same reason: Legal Benifits. That is the whole basis of which the democratic party argues. That they should get the same legal benifits for marriage. Not that they would be joined together in holy matrimony.
You're right. Most marriages are for the legal benefits. If you marry legally, not in church that is. But that doesn't mean there isn't true love. Gays'll never get to marry in church - so they won't reach for it. My parents only married because of the financial befeits, but they love eachother more than anything. And they lived together for 10 years before they got married. Why? They didn't feel like arranging it.
Why deny gays these financial benefits? Discrimination, nothing more.


This has been told in many health classes and on the news: There is only 1 sure-fire way to prevent sexual disease and pregnancy: Don't have sex. Everything else has had multiple accounts of failing, even when stack on eachother. If homosexuals are dying between the age of 35 and 40, then there is certainly a reason why. Take a guess.
Yeah, and best way to not get in a car accident is not to drive in a car. That's not the way the world goes. And BTW, there are condoms and stuff, that are made for gays. Wether they use them, they should know for themselves.


Nobody hurt? You definatly don't know the US too well. Emotional damage and scaring is just one of the*"hurt' that can come out of it. Want me to list more? Just give the word.
Because two people who already lived together, now can marry can lead to emotional damage? Please tell me you're kidding.


And I actually considered you something close to the relation of intelligence for awhile.
Have you heard about_:
- Not supporting gay marriage?
- Gays going strait?
- Being a Christian?
Yes I have, but Marco was acting like everyone believes the Bible, and everything in the Bible is a fact. I was merely making a statement. Though I am honored that you consider me close to the relation of intelligence ^_^.


Obviously not. Do you know why we don't question the Bible? Because we are a seldomly talked about issue of being something called Born Again. This is what happens when your Soul & Spirit are cleansed in the blood of Jesus. When you are born again, trust me. You know it. You feel it. And how can this immense rush if understanding and peace and wisdom come sheerly from a lie? Simply put: It doesn't.
You chose to believe the Bible, I chose not to. I thin kit's a beautiful book, but certainly not meant for the purposes it's used for.
The second part isn't true, in my eyes anyway. All those people who are in sects believe the same thing. All the people who are muslim believe the same thing. All the hindus believe the same thing. It's not as simple as you put it.


You can't change what you believe. That is the reason why most gays never try to go strait, while the small amount that do often times end up being strait. Then they tell their stories to all the little boys and girls about being gay, and what they thought and did at that time.
Same goes for people who are truely gay and think they're heterosexual. And maybe gays don't want to be gay (don't accept themselves), and "go straight", just to feel good.


Yes, it does say that. And? Whether we love them or not does not let us agree with them, just as I do not agree with murder.
But still you deny them a great deal of happiness. Something I'll never understand.

BTW: Gays going with women in the end >> don't you think that's it's possible that you love someone's personality more than physical appearance? Heterosexuality/Homosexuality just covers the sexual attraction, not the personalities.

Crimson Spider
03-08-2004, 10:37 PM
Are you saying that all gays are rich, or am I missing the point of this?

The point is that abiding the constitution would be making special rights for a single group of people which can be defined as choice.

Is it just me, or do people act stupid on purpose?

Do you mind telling us how gay marriage could harm someone else, and why they couldn't raise a child?
You bring in the child now? I thought I already gave the point of which why homosexuals cannot adopt children. I'll give it again: NAMBLA. And even if they didn't, which would be a very hard thing to resist because the urge for a feminine body would still exist, what about the children as they grow up? They'll be picked on and beat up in school. The child would go crazy from the circumstances of which they exist. This answers both your questions at the same time.

Again, how are you getting this always-true statistic that you say all gays are murderers?
I never said that they were. Are you being stupid on purpose? It seems like that. The point was that beside the fact that I care for them, I do not agree with the actions of which that they take.

--; I'll say it again - nothing went wrong here. And what is 'seriously messed up' anyway? Taht's not very clear. And if I should look in the little figures, how serious can it be?
Also, I don't think Rome was killed by homosexuality. It isn't a decease spreading, it was there anyway.
I re-looked over the report, it said that the netherlands was seriously messed up, and not gay marriages fault. Kinda like how if the doctor wills it so, he can execute his patient if he or she dubs them unfit to live.
Rome was killed by constant wars on multiple fronts. Homosexuality was just one of the breaking-down factors of the Roman government and way of life that caused the in-efficiance of the Roman way of ruling which led to the inability of the procreation of the Roman populace and a lack of organizing priorities.

Sure some gays will do these things. Are they truly gay? Who knows? But maybe hey did this because they don't wnat to expose themself. The less something is accepetd by society, the more likely it is that people will do these things.
That is, of course, assuming that they are hiding their homosexuality from the world completely, and not finding themselves a partner of the same gender and going with them while still being married to the woman who may or may not approve of it.

I know it's not a choice, though I don't know why it happens. I now this because of my own experiences.
You would be suprised. It is 100% possible and actually quite easy for one to believe that they are gay. Since a person's belief is a very powerful thing, they actually DO like people of the same gender, and prefer that to the opposite gender. It's the process that is more difficult.

I wish I knew every gaycouple as personal as you seem to know them --;.

Hello? It is not always the homosexuals who are arguing for legalization of Gay Marriage. In my other board, that is what ALL the arguements (which are much more complicated to counter-debate than here) are based on. That board has itself a population 3 times higher than this boards peak. Not to mention there are about a half-dozen openly gay people there, and THEY use the "All men are created equal" in their statements, and rely on little else.

Serial killer kill people, gays don't. That's the difference. I don't like yellow cars. still, it isn't forbidden by the law. Should it be? Most argument against gay marriage are religious (not all, but most), and religion and state are, and should be seperated.
The point of the statement was the fact that how a person feels about the law treating them is an inane ideal. BTW: I'm not bringing religion into this. I've tried very hard to stay away from that. I debate on the grounds set. Not by adding new ones. Whether someone wants to bring religion into it is their problem. But I'm not going to do that.

While there are many things that aren't forbidden by the law "such as animated child pornography", it does not give the right to try to amend the laws for something else "such as the legalization of actual child pornograph" Now, this is an analogy. I'm stating this, because quite the population of this debate seem to miss that.


Everybody gets the right to marry the same sex, so it isn't a specail right. Everybody gains a right.
It's a right that is being made specifically for the benifit of a severe minority with no regard to to the rest of the nation.

Gay marriage could only hurt people who meddle in other people's affaird. Someone's life doens't have a lesser value because of gaymarriage. Also, when there would be a huge group, with reasonable arguments who think murder should be legal, it probably would be. But murder makes a society not function well, gaymarriage has no influence on everyday life for non-gays.
I'm walking down the street. I see two men kiss eachother blatenly in public. I am not meddeling in another person's affairs, yet I see this. For there are many things that people dub only observable by meddeling in someone's affiars while in actually one often just stumbles upon these actions.
I never said that a person's life has a lesser value. For the point lies in the fact that mere sight or hearing could damage someone. If you saw someone get brutally beaton in the street, you probably wouldn't take it too well.



I'd go for B. Or for what I said earlier: desperatly trying to be straight. Ans does this mean every gay will do this? No. Sure, there'll be people who think it's hip to be gay, or think that they're gay and aren't.
That is assuming that a gay person tries to be strait. I've seen and known a few who don't. A good some of homosexuals have the "I'm gay and I'm proud of it" mentality. These guys obviously followed this mentality, because not only did they blatenly state in public that they were strictly homosexual, but they were "Flaming" and they Happily Agreed. Not an "Oh.. al right." But a "Of course! You're such a doll!" matter.

That doesn't concern the marriage, it concerns the homosexuality in itself. Plus, I don't know these figures.
You said the ratio to strait molesters to gay molestars are the same, correct? Well, if only 2% of the worlds populace is gay, compared to the EXACT same numbers with a 98% of the worlds pupulation... now their way off.

The point lies in the fact of the actions of homosexuals having a consequence on their rights.



When I was watching MTV, there was a program about gays. Now, MTV is pretty pro-gay right. All of the gays in the program were dragqueens. They all waved their hand, and they all were just so...female. But it's not just in the US...here, still all the gays on TV are dragqueens --; Stupid, really.
The homosexuals have their own channel on Bravo network, which satellite network has on their included set of channels. There, they have every kind of homosexual out there. From the drag queens, to the kind that you can only tell their gay by their word of mouth.

Life eptence: I honestly have no idea, but it isn't a reason not to let them get married.
Are you forgetting the original statements I make, or are you purposly trying to lead me off of the point. The point is this: The actions of the few do not give reason to allow the actions of the many. I believe I covered how allowing homosexuals to marry would not only ruin the concept of marriage, but put law into question itself, have I not?

You're right. Most marriages are for the legal benefits. If you marry legally, not in church that is. But that doesn't mean there isn't true love. Gays'll never get to marry in church - so they won't reach for it. My parents only married because of the financial befeits, but they love eachother more than anything. And they lived together for 10 years before they got married. Why? They didn't feel like arranging it.
So your parents dis-regarded the whole notion of marriage for 10 years. Did they concieve you before they got married? That also abases the purpose of marriage.

Crimson Spider
03-08-2004, 10:38 PM
You brought up an very jaded arguement which I have heard pressed over and over. This is "Love". I actually devoted a paragraph or two on my large report to "Love". Let me give you the definition of "love"

A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.
Sexual passion.
Sexual intercourse.
A love affair.
An intense emotional attachment, as for a pet or treasured object.
A person who is the object of deep or intense affection or attraction; beloved. Often used as a term of endearment.
An expression of one's affection: Send him my love.
A strong predilection or enthusiasm: a love of language.
The object of such an enthusiasm: The outdoors is her greatest love.

That's a lot, huh? Well, the word "Love" defines go's with all of these, and isn't exclusive to sexual activities. You see, I love my best friend. I love my guy friends, my girl friends (not ones i"m in a relationship with), my sister, my brother. I, however, do not want to have sex with them, nor do I get turned on by them. The very definition of love isn't solid to which one claims, and also the love for something can be negated by sheer will alone.

Another point of "Love". The centers in the brain that control friendship and compassion are two seperate areas. However, infatuation and sexual attraction do not occure in the brain, but actually is a mere sequence of chemical reactions that starts out in the reproductive organs. Ever heard of random wood?


Why deny gays these financial benefits? Discrimination, nothing more. Why deny an extreamly homocidal person the benifits of owning a firearm? That's discrimination mister!
They aren't denied the finacial benifits. They can marry any woman they please, remember? Whether or not they want to do that determins if they get the finacial benifits or not. They want to change the law to suit their personal needs.


Yeah, and best way to not get in a car accident is not to drive in a car. That's not the way the world goes. And BTW, there are condoms and stuff, that are made for gays. Wether they use them, they should know for themselves. So you agree that an obvious solution and alternative is there, and whether a person happens to use that alternative or not is their fault? FYI: the majority of people in New York don't own a car. A car is only a convience item, not a necessity.


Because two people who already lived together, now can marry can lead to emotional damage? Please tell me you're kidding.
Hello? Third-person.

Yes I have, but Marco was acting like everyone believes the Bible, and everything in the Bible is a fact. I was merely making a statement. Though I am honored that you consider me close to the relation of intelligence ^_^.
It was an odious statement.

You chose to believe the Bible, I chose not to. I thin kit's a beautiful book, but certainly not meant for the purposes it's used for.
Nowhere on any grounds does that allow you the right to in any way shape or form give effort to try to question, insult, lower in rank, or stand in judgement of anyone who considers that a fact.

FYI: the Bible is basically 3 things: History, ways of living life, and how to obtain salvation.

The second part isn't true, in my eyes anyway. All those people who are in sects believe the same thing. All the people who are muslim believe the same thing. All the hindus believe the same thing. It's not as simple as you put it.
For once I don't understand where your getting from. Define "Same thing" please. But going on, this experience, which you often use to define your facts, is to us a defining fact. Denying this falls under hypocrisy.

Same goes for people who are truely gay and think they're heterosexual. And maybe gays don't want to be gay (don't accept themselves), and "go straight", just to feel good.
Or maybe they actually are strait and were just confused. That happens.

There is only 2 things that defiine a person as homosexual: Actions and word of mouth. Under relativity, nothing in homosexuality has been proven or found to be as a solid fact, but rather a choice. One can go back on their promises very easily, you know.

But still you deny them a great deal of happiness. Something I'll never understand.
Many falsely consider the notion of marriage to be denying of happiness, too. Take your previous statements: They love eachother (as you claim), they already live together. Happyness from marriage is merely only from a days worth of satisfaction, or other legal benifits. Such things cannot be considered a great deal of happiness, as for any rich man will tell you: worldly possessions don't give you content.
BTW: Gays going with women in the end >> don't you think that's it's possible that you love someone's personality more than physical appearance? Heterosexuality/Homosexuality just covers the sexual attraction, not the personalities.

Another over-used arguement. Firstly, you are talking only of man going with women. Just to point that out.

Second: physical appearance does a great deal of attraction. I covered this in the Romance thread in otherchat once. First judgements go on appearance. Personality goes quickly second in most occasions. In other, fewer occasions, personality goes first. This is extreamly rare, and seeing as how homosexuality seems to be almost completely restricted to the physical act of sex itself (the gays at my other board admitted to this themselves), personality has almost nothing to do with sexuality.

Third: Sexual attraction often times doesn't involve the brain, for the mere infatuation and turn-on comes from a set of chemical reactions that can only be undergone with the assistance of the opposite gender. Basically saying, sexual attraction to the other gender is as basic as mixing baking soda and vineger.

Fourth: I've seen women that look like men and vice versa that are strait. Rather nice personalities, too.

plasmaball3000
03-08-2004, 11:33 PM
Why deny an extreamly homocidal person the benifits of owning a firearm? That's discrimination mister!
Becasue an extreamly homocidal person has previously shown that he or she might do physical harm to another individual (though he or she would still be allowed to marry). If a gay has shown no such tendencies to impose a physical threat to another, why can't they get married.

Many falsely consider the notion of marriage to be denying of happiness, too. Take your previous statements: They love eachother (as you claim), they already live together. Happyness from marriage is merely only from a days worth of satisfaction, or other legal benifits. Such things cannot be considered a great deal of happiness, as for any rich man will tell you: worldly possessions don't give you content.
If that's true, than why not spare everyone of the horrible prospect of marriage. Maybe if we just ban marriage all together, than money wouldn't be wasted, and straight people would not have the pressure of being unfairly descriminated against by being allowed to have the mediocre thing that is a wedding. If gays don't need weddings, why do straights?

Third: Sexual attraction often times doesn't involve the brain, for the mere infatuation and turn-on comes from a set of chemical reactions that can only be undergone with the assistance of the opposite gender. Basically saying, sexual attraction to the other gender is as basic as mixing baking soda and vineger.
Some people's brains and body's do not work in the same way as others. Take mental illnesses for example. Are you saying that everyone with turrets is just pretending, and could act normal if they just tried?

Tamer Marco
03-09-2004, 01:05 AM
Some people's brains and body's do not work in the same way as others. Take mental illnesses for example. Are you saying that everyone with turrets is just pretending, and could act normal if they just tried? Yes my mother has postamostic stress disorder that leads to break downs and well, stress. And she's a published author CS.

Kenny_C.002
03-09-2004, 01:31 AM
Becasue an extreamly homocidal person has previously shown that he or she might do physical harm to another individual (though he or she would still be allowed to marry). If a gay has shown no such tendencies to impose a physical threat to another, why can't they get married.

If that's true, than why not spare everyone of the horrible prospect of marriage. Maybe if we just ban marriage all together, than money wouldn't be wasted, and straight people would not have the pressure of being unfairly descriminated against by being allowed to have the mediocre thing that is a wedding. If gays don't need weddings, why do straights?

Some people's brains and body's do not work in the same way as others. Take mental illnesses for example. Are you saying that everyone with turrets is just pretending, and could act normal if they just tried?
I feel that from the persepective of a half-biased neutral, the argument is whether gays will take this further. Once they get "equal rights", they want "special rights". It's too easy to find arguments that will sink anything. Now if we give them the "equal" rights, can one garantee whether the gays will continue to go further or not? Likely, because this world is run by extremists.

Now the question is whether you want people to give them absolutely more power than the general population (as in the 1 having more power than the 30000, stated from CS's previous posts). Should we, as the general population, give them benefits such as the ones the Natives are getting (I'm talking Canadians here)? To what extent would this continue if we let the first step go through? I get the feeling that it's these that some policitians are hesitating on this topic. It is- not because it's "unfair" to whomever is affected (and life is unfair, btw. It's run by the powerful and nothing the average man can do to stop it)- because people are extremists. Of course, if anyone has suggestions to completely change the make-up of human beings as a whole, this may not be a problem. I doubt this will happen until we are extinct.

§avage])
03-09-2004, 01:46 AM
I didn't read any of the other posts since its probably all just a repeat of the last time this was discussed... but Marrage is not something that the law made up... its a RELIGIOUS MATRIMONY, between a man and a woman... whether you like it or not, its more cultural then anything. If you want to unite gay couples so they can get benefits, go ahead, but under no Religious value do they have to right to be married, which is a RELIGIOUS MATRIMONY.

I could do detail, but I mean that sums it up... go unite for all I care

Dre@mWe@ver
03-09-2004, 01:52 AM
I really don't care about same sex marriages, it doesn't really affect me because I am not gay, so it is hard for me to say I care, because to be honest I don't. Whether the outcome of if gay people are allowed to marry or not, it won't phase me either way.

plasmaball3000
03-09-2004, 01:53 AM
That's true, but certain privliges are granted (by the government) to married couples, and considering that Church and state are officially seperated, it's not fair to those who are not allowed to be married.

Crimson Spider
03-09-2004, 05:37 AM
Becasue an extreamly homocidal person has previously shown that he or she might do physical harm to another individual (though he or she would still be allowed to marry). If a gay has shown no such tendencies to impose a physical threat to another, why can't they get married.
Emphases on the MIGHT I see. Regardless of disposition, it is still a choice. BTW: they can get married.

If that's true, than why not spare everyone of the horrible prospect of marriage. Maybe if we just ban marriage all together, than money wouldn't be wasted, and straight people would not have the pressure of being unfairly descriminated against by being allowed to have the mediocre thing that is a wedding. If gays don't need weddings, why do straights?
I forsaw this statement, and it's reply: Straits don't need to marry. Simple as that. Marriage was made under the impression of religion, NOT legal benifits. Also, I never said that money was wasted on marriage. Where did you get that from?


Some people's brains and body's do not work in the same way as others. Take mental illnesses for example. Are you saying that everyone with turrets is just pretending, and could act normal if they just tried?
I covered this in the 10 page report. I'll feed the details to you in a nutshell: The sexual drive for the opposet sex has little to do with the brain. People with turrets can be identified, scientifically discovered, and is easily recognized as a syndrom. With homosexuality, there would have to be a specific change in the brain of which allowed one to be stimulated by the multitude of chemical pheramones emitted by the opposite gender to re-align the non-intelectual organs of that one person to have an attraction to that of which the chemical exlusivly emitted by the same gender of the same species, which in itself is dictated as the gender of the baby is determined would emit, of which the person is themselves and would somehow NOT become used to nor permanantly infatuated with ones own self, and would actually have a change in preferance and desire for the shape, bodystyles, and various infatuation inflicting fetures of the opposite gender to ones own gender without being decensitized by one's constant presance of one's own self. This change to a specific one area of the brain with NO other side effects has not yet been discovered.

No really. That IS the nutshell. I can go more indepth. (waits for Plasmaball3000 to claim there is some mysterious unamed chemical which dictates a persons sexual preferance in moderation with the enviroment of which it exists and plays no other role so CS can counteract that statement easily).

Yes my mother has postamostic stress disorder that leads to break downs and well, stress. And she's a published author CS.
What I said above also applies.

That's true, but certain privliges are granted (by the government) to married couples, and considering that Church and state are officially seperated, it's not fair to those who are not allowed to be married.
They can get married. Why don't people see that? The government benifits of marriage are by their own choice. They can go ahead and remove those. There are many other benifits that are givin to families exclusive of marriage.

plasmaball3000
03-09-2004, 11:41 AM
True, I have no scientific way to prove that gays are born with their preferences already decided. That's just what I believe, and unless some sort of breakthrough in modern science emerges, it will have to remain that.

But to sum up my opinion, it has not been scientifically proven that gays are just straight people that have made different choices, so the prospect of being gay has not been disproven. There is still so much about the brain that we do not know about, so even if we haven't found something yet, that isn't saying that we wont someday.

But there is the ideal prospect of 'innocence until proven guilty', isn't there? So until all gays have been proven to be people that are just different, I think that they should be given all the coices as straight people are given. And if a couple finds someone that is willing to marry them, go right on ahead.

Alakazam
03-09-2004, 05:14 PM
I have not read the multitude of posts in this thread, and here is my opinion on the subject of gay marriage:


First of all, I think it appropriate to state that I am straight, and am fundementally opposed to gay marriage as a concept. However, my opinion very much likens to the statement "I disagree with you, but I'd fight untill my dying breath for your right do say it". I think that making same-sex marriages illegal is both unconstitutional, discriminatory, and morally unethical.

Marriage is an institution, an institution that is open to Americans; ALL AMERICANS. Gays have just as much right to marry as anyone else, if they do not, than they are being treated as second-class citizens, which is of course, absolutely unacceptable.

It seems to me that allowing civil unions between same-sex couples is very degrading, as if to say "You're not worthy of a real marriage."

I've heard the following explanation for the support of same-sex civil unions floating around lately: "While marriage and civil union are seperate, they are indeed equal." I can't help but relate this to another famous instance of discrimination in the US some years ago. In the case Brown vs. the Board of Education in 1954 in Kansas, the United States Supreme Court overturned the previous ruling that segregation was "acceptable as long as both seperate facilities are equal" by stating that the seperate facilities were inhenently inequal because they are seperate. It's the same thing today. If there were no difference between marriage and civil union, than they would be one and the same, and this whole debate would never have arisen.

Furthermore, I do realize why this has come up. The vast majority of heterosexual Americans (I think someone said ealier that we make up 98% of the total population) absolutely detest homosexuals, and think that gay marriage defiles the institution of marriage. Why do many people think this? I'm pretty sure it is because they don't think that an environment without a female (or without a male, as the case may be) is good for a child, and they fear that the parents will cause the child to become gay (reguardless if he/she was or wasn't before), which is the lowest form of loathing for some people, a thing that the think must be stopped.

I am a devout Catholic, though I don't always agree with the opinons/views of the Catholic Church. I'm sick and tired of hearing during mass how we need to fight against gay marriage, and how it is against our religion to be gay. I believe that the Bible is a VERY subjective book, and resent the fact the the Catholic Church takes it's spin on it, and preaches it as objective fact.

Lastly, is the topic of a constitional amendment. I find this to be the height of hypocrisy, foolishness, and discrimination. In this great country, in which we have always valued civil rights for all (or at least fought for them), we now want to pass an amendment saying the gay people can't get married? That's pretty much what it'll say. I know it will read "A marriage shall be defined as the union of a man and a woman", it is equivilent to "Homosexual persons do not have the right to marry." What angers me further, is that the president supports such an amendment. I think such an amendment makes a mockery of our system of government, our belief system, and is almost as bad as spitting on the graves of our forefathers.


---

Okay, so I lied when I said "lastly" in the above paragraph... >_<

It pains me to see so many around me support the aforementioned legislation, including my parents. I just don't ever discuss it with them, becuase, of course, supporting gay people is a bit of a taboo that I am not strong-willed enough to break. I don't even want to contemplate what my parents would think of me after expressing my true opinions on this subject.

I'd be interested to know: what are your parent's stance on this issue?

§avage])
03-09-2004, 07:14 PM
Kazaam, Marrage and Unity are not the same thing. You cannot say that beung married in by the church is the same then by the law... the only reason why Marrage is part of the law is because the whole community does it... But here in North America the largest group is Catholic... therefore our traditions are upheld in the law... before it was illigal for stores to be open on the holly day... and Christmas vacation is a naional thing... You cannot allow the minority to fight up and change sumthing as grand as same sex marrages, if this were aloud... then who's to say a muslem cant come here and make it legal to change our law to be able to marry 5,6,7 wives at a time... you have to draw the line somewhere. Like Aristotle said to live a virtuos life is to live the middle way, To much liberty is an extreme, and can be harmfull... where do we draw the line?

Alakazam
03-09-2004, 08:07 PM
)']Kazaam, Marrage and Unity are not the same thing. You cannot say that beung married in by the church is the same then by the law... the only reason why Marrage is part of the law is because the whole community does it... But here in North America the largest group is Catholic... therefore our traditions are upheld in the law... before it was illigal for stores to be open on the holly day... and Christmas vacation is a naional thing... You cannot allow the minority to fight up and change sumthing as grand as same sex marrages, if this were aloud... then who's to say a muslem cant come here and make it legal to change our law to be able to marry 5,6,7 wives at a time... you have to draw the line somewhere. Like Aristotle said to live a virtuos life is to live the middle way, To much liberty is an extreme, and can be harmfull... where do we draw the line?
Come and change things? So, you're saying that gay marriage was never allowed before, but now they want it to be? Definately not. What's being changed is that liberty being taken away.

Also, the courts have the power to unite two people in marriage; it doesn't neccessarily have to be done be the church. And, FYI, we Catholics aren't the majority... >_<. The Protestants far outweigh the Catholics in the country as a whole (though not in Massachusetts, they don't ^_^); anyway, that doesn't really matter, since I'm guessing that the Protestant churches have simliar views as does the Catholic Church.

Crimson Spider
03-09-2004, 09:49 PM
True, I have no scientific way to prove that gays are born with their preferences already decided. That's just what I believe, and unless some sort of breakthrough in modern science emerges, it will have to remain that.

But to sum up my opinion, it has not been scientifically proven that gays are just straight people that have made different choices, so the prospect of being gay has not been disproven. There is still so much about the brain that we do not know about, so even if we haven't found something yet, that isn't saying that we wont someday.

Being gay is possible. It is 100% possible to believe that you are gay. They actually prefer the same gender to their other. But this mere preferance (sexual preferance is influenced almost soley on the surroundings of Minister D-- when growing up).

But there is the ideal prospect of 'innocence until proven guilty', isn't there? So until all gays have been proven to be people that are just different, I think that they should be given all the coices as straight people are given. And if a couple finds someone that is willing to marry them, go right on ahead.

Everyone is different. Even genetic twins have quite the differences between them. And Gays do have the same rights as straits as far as the prospect of marriage goes.

Problem lies in that not only are homosexual-marriages not viewed as legal by the law, but it is also illegal to marry to members of the same gender together.


I was wondering when alakazam was going to pop in.
I have not read the multitude of posts in this thread, and here is my opinion on the subject of gay marriage:


First of all, I think it appropriate to state that I am straight, and am fundementally opposed to gay marriage as a concept. However, my opinion very much likens to the statement "I disagree with you, but I'd fight untill my dying breath for your right do say it". I think that making same-sex marriages illegal is both unconstitutional, discriminatory, and morally unethical.

Marriage is an institution, an institution that is open to Americans; ALL AMERICANS. Gays have just as much right to marry as anyone else, if they do not, than they are being treated as second-class citizens, which is of course, absolutely unacceptable.

It seems to me that allowing civil unions between same-sex couples is very degrading, as if to say "You're not worthy of a real marriage."

I've heard the following explanation for the support of same-sex civil unions floating around lately: "While marriage and civil union are seperate, they are indeed equal." I can't help but relate this to another famous instance of discrimination in the US some years ago. In the case Brown vs. the Board of Education in 1954 in Kansas, the United States Supreme Court overturned the previous ruling that segregation was "acceptable as long as both seperate facilities are equal" by stating that the seperate facilities were inhenently inequal because they are seperate. It's the same thing today. If there were no difference between marriage and civil union, than they would be one and the same, and this whole debate would never have arisen.

Furthermore, I do realize why this has come up. The vast majority of heterosexual Americans (I think someone said ealier that we make up 98% of the total population) absolutely detest homosexuals, and think that gay marriage defiles the institution of marriage. Why do many people think this? I'm pretty sure it is because they don't think that an environment without a female (or without a male, as the case may be) is good for a child, and they fear that the parents will cause the child to become gay (reguardless if he/she was or wasn't before), which is the lowest form of loathing for some people, a thing that the think must be stopped.

I am a devout Catholic, though I don't always agree with the opinons/views of the Catholic Church. I'm sick and tired of hearing during mass how we need to fight against gay marriage, and how it is against our religion to be gay. I believe that the Bible is a VERY subjective book, and resent the fact the the Catholic Church takes it's spin on it, and preaches it as objective fact.

Lastly, is the topic of a constitional amendment. I find this to be the height of hypocrisy, foolishness, and discrimination. In this great country, in which we have always valued civil rights for all (or at least fought for them), we now want to pass an amendment saying the gay people can't get married? That's pretty much what it'll say. I know it will read "A marriage shall be defined as the union of a man and a woman", it is equivilent to "Homosexual persons do not have the right to marry." What angers me further, is that the president supports such an amendment. I think such an amendment makes a mockery of our system of government, our belief system, and is almost as bad as spitting on the graves of our forefathers.


---

Okay, so I lied when I said "lastly" in the above paragraph... >_<

It pains me to see so many around me support the aforementioned legislation, including my parents. I just don't ever discuss it with them, becuase, of course, supporting gay people is a bit of a taboo that I am not strong-willed enough to break. I don't even want to contemplate what my parents would think of me after expressing my true opinions on this subject.

I'd be interested to know: what are your parent's stance on this issue?
Nicely written. :clap:

But to point out specific statement:
Lastly, is the topic of a constitional amendment. I find this to be the height of hypocrisy, foolishness, and discrimination. In this great country, in which we have always valued civil rights for all (or at least fought for them), we now want to pass an amendment saying the gay people can't get married? That's pretty much what it'll say. I know it will read "A marriage shall be defined as the union of a man and a woman", it is equivilent to "Homosexual persons do not have the right to marry." What angers me further, is that the president supports such an amendment. I think such an amendment makes a mockery of our system of government, our belief system, and is almost as bad as spitting on the graves of our forefathers.
I will continue to press one of my undenyable statements: Homosexuals have the right to wed. A Homosexual man can marry any woman, whether they be homosexual women or not, legally and vice-versa.

It is an exception in itself based on the ideal derived from an inaccurate interpretation of the US constitution influenced by modern definition.

BTW: My parents are against it. Rather blindly, but against it. I would not be able to place their statements in my posts because they are very easily nullified.

Protestants are the minority in Nevada, too. I feel as if I stand alone in a school denoted for greatness but blinded to a 3-dimensional interpretation of an issue.

The very same basis that the supreme court ruled as "seperation between church and state" to the pledge of allegiance is being tossed aside and ignored that the benifits come from cival union, and not the religious ceremony of marriage itself.

PS: if a topic only has 5 pages, try to read them. I feel as if I'm a broken record here. broken record here.

Alakazam
03-09-2004, 10:12 PM
I did notice and think upon that very concept, CS, when first you said it (or at least, first on this page >_<). I know just what you mean, and yet it doesn't say anywhere that they can't, so how can you say that same-sex marriage would be a privilage?

After reading your opening post, I also have the following to add:

Mess things up? I know what you're talking about, but allowing gays to be married isn't going to change how much they 'mess up' things in society at all. Your're right about what you said, it all boils down to sex. Whether or not they are married, it will still occur, and they will still live together, as if they were married. It's not reality that will be changed, it's the financial benefits enjoyed by married couples, and the same recongition married couples recieve.

At first, I thought that this was an issue I had a firm stance on, but I see that there are two very valid sides to this issue. With the assumption that same-sex marriage is not a special previlage, I stand by my original opinion, though with a better understanding of the opposing view. >_<

Tamer Marco
03-10-2004, 12:30 AM
I did notice and think upon that very concept, CS, when first you said it (or at least, first on this page >_<). I know just what you mean, and yet it doesn't say anywhere that they can't, so how can you say that same-sex marriage would be a privilage?

After reading your opening post, I also have the following to add:

Mess things up? I know what you're talking about, but allowing gays to be married isn't going to change how much they 'mess up' things in society at all. Your're right about what you said, it all boils down to sex. Whether or not they are married, it will still occur, and they will still live together, as if they were married. It's not reality that will be changed, it's the financial benefits enjoyed by married couples, and the same recongition married couples recieve.

At first, I thought that this was an issue I had a firm stance on, but I see that there are two very valid sides to this issue. With the assumption that same-sex marriage is not a special previlage, I stand by my original opinion, though with a better understanding of the opposing view. >_< Kazam gay marrage is a privilage if the president or state Govenor allows it.

Suicune
03-10-2004, 01:19 AM
I dont think there is anything wrong with it. They are still a couple and it is falt out discrimintation!

Crimson Spider
03-10-2004, 03:06 AM
I did notice and think upon that very concept, CS, when first you said it (or at least, first on this page >_<). I know just what you mean, and yet it doesn't say anywhere that they can't, so how can you say that same-sex marriage would be a privilage?
Um... Define "It" please. I'm having trouble assinging the definition.
So... you're saying that allowing gays to marry would not be a privilage? *sigh* Je dois de nouveau me répéter. The very reason why it would be considered a special privilage is because it is specifically made to enhance the benifits and abide a law against the very act of which makes homosexual marriage illegal to a certain minority alone.

Let me put an more simplistic but analygic response: Lets say a few kids in the back of a third-grade classroom are acting up. The teacher makes new rules in the classroom to prevent the children from doing whatever they were doing. Though it applies to everyone in the class, it was made soley for the intent of the minority.


After reading your opening post, I also have the following to add:

Mess things up? I know what you're talking about, but allowing gays to be married isn't going to change how much they 'mess up' things in society at all. Your're right about what you said, it all boils down to sex. Whether or not they are married, it will still occur, and they will still live together, as if they were married. It's not reality that will be changed, it's the financial benefits enjoyed by married couples, and the same recongition married couples recieve. Some people consider legal benifits of marriage to be a waste, you know (looks at a certain member).

I believe I also stated on this. First, the not made by me arguement: when will we draw the line?

he permiscuocity of the homosexual stereotype and vast majority would give no consideration to the ideals of Marriage other than it's legal benifits, truly ruining the concept of marriage as a whole.

These amending of the law means that it infact holds no ground on actual authority and can be dis-regarded as a mere preferance, and one can easily argue that murder isn't illegal with this basis. "It" means the law.

Kenny_C.002
03-10-2004, 04:02 AM
Yeah. I'd have to agree that giving same-sex marriage would be giving special privilages to the gay population. It's like this: let's say you're a straight man. You can marry women and now you can marry men. You back off on the second choice as it will never ever cross your mind.

You're a gay person, you can marry both genders again. As CS said, scientifically speaking, they have both choices that they can consider. This means that they have essentially "double" the marriage possiblities and therefore gain the benefits "more easily".

I'm only trying to "explain" on a different "perspective" on the same thing that CS is trying to say (but like more literally?).

Alakazam
03-10-2004, 10:52 AM
I never thought of it like that...I now see how it would probably be considered to be special previlege. With that in mind, I agree that allowing them to marry wouldn't be the fair thing. Like CS said, they 'can' marry, just not as they would.

However, you must see that the majority of the people who oppose gay marriage do not becuase they see it as a special privelage...see my first post for details. I now officially oppose gay marriage, in light of it being a special privelage, yet it bugs me that I hold the same stance on an issue as an innumerable number fools (not you, CS or Kenny).

plasmaball3000
03-10-2004, 11:34 AM
You're a gay person, you can marry both genders again. As CS said, scientifically speaking, they have both choices that they can consider. This means that they have essentially "double" the marriage possiblities and therefore gain the benefits "more easily".

Yes, but if a person really was gay, then they wouldn't want to marry someone of the opposite gender, at least no more than a straight person marrying someone of the same gender. (And please don't bring up the argument about why someone can't be gay again because of my post; I'm writing this assuming that being gay is a possibility)

Ferret
03-10-2004, 01:34 PM
Woah! I come back to PE2k and find this giant topic sitting here? Well I say it's a good job I can skim text quite quickly. :rolleyes:

First off, I would like to say that I am a bisexual man who definatly has more sexual feelings towards males than females. Also, I'm very against marriage as a whole, I think it's a pathetic waste of time. I guess this comes from my hate of religions based on specific rules (Religions unlike this would be, for instance, Satanism).

Okay, so while I'm against marriage, I'm no way against people marrying. Why should something I am against not happen when other people believe in it?

Please note, I am using the term people marrying, because let's be honest, regardless of sexual preference, everyone is a person who should be treated as everyone else.
It's almost as if bisexual people do not exist in half of your arguments, saying that gays want special rights? No. It's about everyone having the right to do what they should be allowed to.
So sure, I could marry a woman, but hold on, I can't marry a man? To me this is stupid alienation. Being bisexual half of my feelings are towards men so it appears you're denying them, saying they are an illusion?

Oh my, I'm living an illusion, yes of course. :rolleyes: Your arguments are based on misunderstanding, not having certain feelings does not mean they cease to exist.
Let me spin it on it's head here, I'm white, therefore black people don't exist?
I hate sports, therefore anyone who likes sports is living a lie?

And religion? Christianity is the most contradictory religion ever, most religious wars are centered aorund Christianity. Even today, Ireland anyone?
Also, the Bible is so vague it can be interpreted in anyway you like, here is a website that takes the entire last book of Revelations and interprets it in a way to show that David Hasslehoff is the Anti-Christ. :eek:
http://www.esquilax.com/baywatch/index.shtml

Sure, it's a funny read, but it's giving a loud message. The Bible is WRONG. :dance:

Alakazam
03-10-2004, 02:36 PM
Please note, I am using the term people marrying, because let's be honest, regardless of sexual preference, everyone is a person who should be treated as everyone else.
It's almost as if bisexual people do not exist in half of your arguments, saying that gays want special rights? No. It's about everyone having the right to do what they should be allowed to.
So sure, I could marry a woman, but hold on, I can't marry a man? To me this is stupid alienation. Being bisexual half of my feelings are towards men so it appears you're denying them, saying they are an illusion?

Oh my, I'm living an illusion, yes of course. :rolleyes: Your arguments are based on misunderstanding, not having certain feelings does not mean they cease to exist.
Let me spin it on it's head here, I'm white, therefore black people don't exist?
I hate sports, therefore anyone who likes sports is living a lie?

And religion? Christianity is the most contradictory religion ever, most religious wars are centered aorund Christianity. Even today, Ireland anyone?
Also, the Bible is so vague it can be interpreted in anyway you like, here is a website that takes the entire last book of Revelations and interprets it in a way to show that David Hasslehoff is the Anti-Christ. :eek:
http://www.esquilax.com/baywatch/index.shtml

Sure, it's a funny read, but it's giving a loud message. The Bible is WRONG. :dance:

First, of all, it's not that just gays/bisxeuals can't marry people of the same gender, NO ONE CAN. It's not alienation if it applies for the populace as a whole.

But some people may want to marry somone of the same gender? While I don't deny that *ignores the meaningless 'illusion' rant (itslef based on conjecture), since Alakazam never said any of that* , it's not enough to make it law. Like somone else said, some people want to marry more than one person? Does the fact that a small percentage of people want to do it justify a law stating that anyone can marry more than one person? I think not.

Allow me to make a conjecture. If I were truely want to marry a horse, and I married a woman who also likes horses, and we had many children, and soon 2% of the US would love to marry a horse. Would this justify a law saying that anyone in the US can marry horses? I think not. (Please excuse the rediculousness of my conjecture; I'm not implying anything by it's level of rediculousness)

As long as civil unions offer the same financial benefits as marriage does, I see no grounds for allowing gays to marry. As CS said, it is a special previlage.

On religion: I'm not going to argue with you about most of it; I'll just say that I completely disagree. One thing I will refute, however, is your statement that "the Bible is wrong". It's wrong? What the hell do you mean by that? You said yourself that there are countless valid interpretations of it, so how is it wrong?

Ferret
03-10-2004, 02:46 PM
You said yourself that there are countless valid interpretations of it, so how is it wrong?
Ahaha, what? Since when did I say any of them were valid?

§avage])
03-10-2004, 05:44 PM
"Come and change things? So, you're saying that gay marriage was never allowed before, but now they want it to be? Definately not. What's being changed is that liberty being taken away.

Also, the courts have the power to unite two people in marriage; it doesn't neccessarily have to be done be the church. And, FYI, we Catholics aren't the majority... >_<. The Protestants far outweigh the Catholics in the country as a whole (though not in Massachusetts, they don't ^_^); anyway, that doesn't really matter, since I'm guessing that the Protestant churches have simliar views as does the Catholic Church."
__________________

I said that they have to power to unite in marrage because it is our community... it is tradition to do such... and not two people, an man and a woman... Dont you get my point... too much freedom is a bad thing... If you cannot see that too much of anything is bad, then I dont know about you. Cuz what gay marrages are aloud, then why not Brother and Sister marrage? More then one spouce? Mother and son? Whats to stop their right to express FREEDOM... explain to me how you draw a line?

and Protetant is the largest? I alwas thaught Roman Catholic? well christianity all the same

Ferret
03-10-2004, 06:16 PM
Marriage counts for a lot in law. There any many benefits for marriages in terms of loans and banking.
That is why you can get married outside of a chruch, because it is not just a religious thing.

I say, if it is not part of your religion for homosexuals to marry, then fine! But DO NOT use it as an excuse to disallow same-sex couples marrying in the eyes of the law.

§avage])
03-10-2004, 06:27 PM
Thats why I said in my first post its ok for them to get United to have benefis, go ahead for all I care... But religion cannot be seporated from marrage, because it is the institution of marrage... If they seperate Marrage completely from the church, then its not marrage anymore, just a unity.

Alakazam
03-10-2004, 08:09 PM
D, you apparently haven't read my last few posts in this thread. You may want to check them out and re-write your reply >_<. I posted that before I was convinced that gay marriage would be a special privelage. Wow...talk about biting my head off...

§avage])
03-10-2004, 08:27 PM
Oh well if you agree thats cool... I said I wasn't going to read the other stuff... I like to argue, but I'm lazy lol

LolJolteonMaster
03-10-2004, 09:18 PM
I think, if they want to have same-sex marriges, so what? I would go against it, though, because it clearly states in the bible it is a sin, and if you have a same-sex marrige, you will probably go to hell. But, let them fool with their lives. I think we have no right to tell them they can't, because if they love each other, I would hate to be the one to break their love.

Crimson Spider
03-11-2004, 02:40 AM
(And people tell me people never change sides in a debate)

Well, since Kazam and D covered a lot of stuff, I'll try to comment on other things.

First off, I would like to say that I am a bisexual man who definatly has more sexual feelings towards males than females. Also, I'm very against marriage as a whole, I think it's a pathetic waste of time. I guess this comes from my hate of religions based on specific rules (Religions unlike this would be, for instance, Satanism).
About time we get a bisexual. I've been waiting for this. (Was expecting Kan).

Well, bisexuality itself does have some (extreamly rare occasions of which it would be possible) possibilities, but I have yet to actually meet someone who would've biologically had the possibility to be bisexual, nor can I give an actual example of one. I doubt that it's actually possible.

It all comes down to psychology, in short. Probably don't want to hear the long version.

Even with an unfortunate disposition, doesn't give reason to grant rights.

So you're aethiest. Hard to imagine many homosexuals and bisexuals aren't.

Can I ask you a question? Even if D did mention this, I have to bring it up.

Did you support the removal of the 10 commandments from a government building? Let me guess your purpose: Seperation between church and state, right? Well, Marriage is itself an issue that isn't seperated between church and state. Those two have no grounds on which to dictate what the other may or may not allow.

The benifits of which the government grants to married couples are by it's own contradicting will, and on no grounds justifies the right of which to amend the very religious purposes that marriage is about.

Marriage itself is a religious ceremony, as you have (interpreted this) stated. Thus, it is the churches choice of who they may or may not want to marry. Marriage due to the law is sorry to say an evil, money hungry thing. Only the benifits. That is the concern.

Thus, supporting the legalization (from a party that should have no right in the matter) of homosexual marriage (or Bisexual) would itself be hypocritically violating the very same law that you yourself have stood by before.

As many hyprocrites have been givin this label: you have no right to speak.

Okay, so while I'm against marriage, I'm no way against people marrying. Why should something I am against not happen when other people believe in it?

Please note, I am using the term people marrying, because let's be honest, regardless of sexual preference, everyone is a person who should be treated as everyone else. Stress the should, please.

It's almost as if bisexual people do not exist in half of your arguments, saying that gays want special rights? No. It's about everyone having the right to do what they should be allowed to.
The other half holds up that bargain.

So sure, I could marry a woman, but hold on, I can't marry a man? To me this is stupid alienation. Being bisexual half of my feelings are towards men so it appears you're denying them, saying they are an illusion?
*sigh* Je dois de nouveau me répéter

You would be suprised. It is 100% possible and actually quite easy for one to believe that they are gay. Since a person's belief is a very powerful thing, they actually DO like people of the same gender, and prefer that to the opposite gender.

May I ask how you came upon the assumption that we were stating that your feelings are mere illusions?

Oh my, I'm living an illusion, yes of course. Your arguments are based on misunderstanding, not having certain feelings does not mean they cease to exist.
Already stated this.
Let me spin it on it's head here, I'm white, therefore black people don't exist?
But the universe itself does not work this way. I stated this before... again...

There is only 2 things that defiine a person as homosexual: Actions and word of mouth.

But let me add this: the determination of the existance of something such as a dark hue of visible radiation being reflected by a fellow man is more than just a percieved thought or an implied and denyable statement.
I hate sports, therefore anyone who likes sports is living a lie?
Continuing to press an assumed point, I see.

And religion? Christianity is the most contradictory religion ever,
Wrong. The versions of it that are changed to suit ones own personal needs are the most contradiction religions.
most religious wars are (mind me as I insert "were") centered aorund Christianity. Even today, Ireland anyone?
I take it you percieve that these holy wars were acted out of belief and not mere worldy preferance? Take the Crusades. Muslims using Roman Christian Temples was used as a mere scapegoat to start a religios war.

Also, the Bible is so vague it can be interpreted in anyway you like, here is a website that takes the entire last book of Revelations and interprets it in a way to show that David Hasslehoff is the Anti-Christ.
http://www.esquilax.com/baywatch/index.shtml

Sure, it's a funny read, but it's giving a loud message. The Bible is WRONG.
Too bad for you it can't be interpreted in anyway you like. Often times the other "interpretations" are off of seperate books themselves. Take the origin of Catholocism: A group of people thought you should pray to a statue of Jesus rather than Jesus alone. That was it! Add 1500 years, and things have changed drastically.

Do me a favor, and prove to me that people here who claim to be Christian ARE actually Christian.

And I'll state this again... again... again...
. The point is this: The actions of the few do not give reason to allow the actions of the many.
For this ONE website that someone made (possibly some people blindely follow) is nothing more than a pathetic scapegoat. Unless you can bring up something more real, don't bother me with this off-topic arguement again.

Evanna
03-11-2004, 03:51 AM
The holy bible :/ Some people don't believe in God. Have we ever seen a sign he really exists? I'm supposed to be religious, but I don't know what I am. Other peoples thoughts made me start thinking.
But I think same-sex marriages should be allowed. If two people love eachother? I bet god wasn't gay :/ And I bet he wouldn't mind either. God and church are 2 things apart. Church blows things up... And they're way to hard. But I don't know about adopting kids =/ The kids could be teased in school or something... Dunno

Crimson Spider
03-11-2004, 04:53 AM
Interesting perspective :think:

O.K. I don't know what to call you either.

Signs that god exists? There are multiple. Whether someone excepts them or shrugs them off is their problem.

The thing with Churches: each one is different. I've seen some Churches that claim to be born-again yet they do extreamly wierd and contradicting stuff (such as claim that an actor from Baywatch is the anti-christ).

But alas: the church bases what it thinks on the Bible, which is what God has taught us to live by.

Alakazam
03-11-2004, 10:45 AM
(And people tell me people never change sides in a debate)

1- The feedback I get is quite the antithesis; most people say I can't see others point of view and don't listen

2- People can't keep me in boundaries like that; I changed my position because you backed up your claim enough that I could see where you were coming from (a POV I had never before considered), and agreed with your rationale. Congratulations :clap: To get me to change my stance on an issue takes a surmountable amount of information and rhetoric :p

Anyway, I'd rather not go into religion too much in this thread; we can make another thread for that purpose. :wink:

Though there are many religions in the US, there are mostly Chrstians, and thus their traditions predominate (as Muslim beliefs predominate middle-eastern countries) Though we all know that there is an inhenernt bias in their interpretation of the Bible (see my original post) :rolleyes:

LolJolteonMaster
03-13-2004, 05:21 AM
Yay! California banned Same-Sex marriages!

masaki
03-13-2004, 08:15 AM
But think. What would the world be like full of Gay couples. The earth's population would go down drasticaly. So I think it should be allowed to a certain degree but not just to let everyone in the world do it. Even though they wouldn't. But if it is allowed it may make it up to the president and congress who passes laws and could make our nation fall apart. Or that could just be what may happen in an 11 year old's mind. :doh: :wall: Either way thats my opinion.



Yay! California banned Same-Sex marriages!
YAY!!!

plasmaball3000
03-13-2004, 12:52 PM
But think. What would the world be like full of Gay couples. The earth's population would go down drasticaly. So I think it should be allowed to a certain degree but not just to let everyone in the world do it. Even though they wouldn't.

But the world isn't full of gay people, in reality they are a minority. If if we assume that everyone who is gay is currently married and has children with a straight person (which is very far from the truth), them no longer having children would not have a significant result on the world's population (which is getting to high already).

Seven
03-21-2004, 11:05 AM
You brought up an very jaded arguement which I have heard pressed over and over. This is "Love". I actually devoted a paragraph or two on my large report to "Love". Let me give you the definition of "love"

A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.
Sexual passion.
Sexual intercourse.
A love affair.
An intense emotional attachment, as for a pet or treasured object.
A person who is the object of deep or intense affection or attraction; beloved. Often used as a term of endearment.
An expression of one's affection: Send him my love.
A strong predilection or enthusiasm: a love of language.
The object of such an enthusiasm: The outdoors is her greatest love.

That's a lot, huh? Well, the word "Love" defines go's with all of these, and isn't exclusive to sexual activities. You see, I love my best friend. I love my guy friends, my girl friends (not ones i"m in a relationship with), my sister, my brother. I, however, do not want to have sex with them, nor do I get turned on by them. The very definition of love isn't solid to which one claims, and also the love for something can be negated by sheer will alone.

I never said lvoe was just sex did I. I said sexual attraction was just sex.


Why deny an extreamly homocidal person the benifits of owning a firearm? That's discrimination mister!
They aren't denied the finacial benifits. They can marry any woman they please, remember? Whether or not they want to do that determins if they get the finacial benifits or not. They want to change the law to suit their personal needs.

But they don't want to marry a woman! I know you keep saying that homosexuality it's a choice, but it just isn't. You're just too stubborn to accept that.
Yes, they do want to change the law for their personal needs. But the law was wrong al along in their, and my view. Gays aren't the minority you make them seem. Ten procent of all people have homosexual feeling (= gay, lesbian, bisexual). That's a lot of people.


So you agree that an obvious solution and alternative is there, and whether a person happens to use that alternative or not is their fault? FYI: the majority of people in New York don't own a car. A car is only a convience item, not a necessity.


Yes, that's how I feel. If someone doesn't want to use a condom and die at an early age, then it's their chocie. I don't approve of it, but who am I to stop them.


Nowhere on any grounds does that allow you the right to in any way shape or form give effort to try to question, insult, lower in rank, or stand in judgement of anyone who considers that a fact.

I don't, so what's your point?


FYI: the Bible is basically 3 things: History, ways of living life, and how to obtain salvation.

Ways of living in the time is was written, yes. But in these times, the world doesn't work the way it worked in those days.


For once I don't understand where your getting from. Define "Same thing" please. But going on, this experience, which you often use to define your facts, is to us a defining fact. Denying this falls under hypocrisy.
Or maybe they actually are strait and were just confused. That happens.

You "know" for a fact that you're right in your believe in God, right? Well, Muslims "know" for a fact that they are right in their believe in Allah.
People who are in sects also "know" that they are right.
That's what I meant with same thing.

Don't you think it's pure hypocrisy that you on one hand say that you know you're believe in God is right, and on the other hand say that gay's only think they are right but are actually wrong.
I sure do.


There is only 2 things that defiine a person as homosexual: Actions and word of mouth. Under relativity, nothing in homosexuality has been proven or found to be as a solid fact, but rather a choice. One can go back on their promises very easily, you know.


Nothing has been proven yet. Just recently I read an article about homosexual sheep having a different brain type.
Maybe this is the same with the human brain, I don't know, but you don't either.


Many falsely consider the notion of marriage to be denying of happiness, too. Take your previous statements: They love eachother (as you claim), they already live together. Happyness from marriage is merely only from a days worth of satisfaction, or other legal benifits. Such things cannot be considered a great deal of happiness, as for any rich man will tell you: worldly possessions don't give you content.

When you're love is recognised by the state, that alone gives you happiness. When all you're partners possesions get taken away when he dies, and you get nothing, because you weren't married, I think you'd be quite unhappy, don't you?


Second: physical appearance does a great deal of attraction. I covered this in the Romance thread in otherchat once. First judgements go on appearance. Personality goes quickly second in most occasions. In other, fewer occasions, personality goes first. This is extreamly rare, and seeing as how homosexuality seems to be almost completely restricted to the physical act of sex itself (the gays at my other board admitted to this themselves), personality has almost nothing to do with sexuality.

Heterosexuality is also restricted to physical sex itself. Or are you saying you could never live with a man because you don't like men? No. You just don't feel physically attracted to them.


Third: Sexual attraction often times doesn't involve the brain, for the mere infatuation and turn-on comes from a set of chemical reactions that can only be undergone with the assistance of the opposite gender. Basically saying, sexual attraction to the other gender is as basic as mixing baking soda and vineger.

Apparently not, because homosexuality exists. I know you're goign to say it's a choice.

The point is that abiding the constitution would be making special rights for a single group of people which can be defined as choice.

I think you know what i'm going to say, don't you?


Is it just me, or do people act stupid on purpose?
You bring in the child now? I thought I already gave the point of which why homosexuals cannot adopt children. I'll give it again: NAMBLA. And even if they didn't, which would be a very hard thing to resist because the urge for a feminine body would still exist, what about the children as they grow up? They'll be picked on and beat up in school. The child would go crazy from the circumstances of which they exist. This answers both your questions at the same time.


1. There is no urge for a feminine body
2. Even if there was, why would they use their child for these purposes? Call an escort service and you have better sex too
3. Why would a child mean a girl?
4. Doesn't the B in NAMBLA stand for boy? So what does it have to do with feminine body at all :S.


Kinda like how if the doctor wills it so, he can execute his patient if he or she dubs them unfit to live.
priorities.

Are you referring to euthanasia? If you are...*sigh*


You would be suprised. It is 100% possible and actually quite easy for one to believe that they are gay. Since a person's belief is a very powerful thing, they actually DO like people of the same gender, and prefer that to the opposite gender. It's the process that is more difficult.

It is NOT a choice, people DON'T make themself beleive they are gay. Some may, but a far greater numer make themself believe they are straight.
Here is how discovery of homosexuality works (for a boy):
1. You think you are straight
2. You fall in love with a boy
3. You're ashamed of yourself and denie your feelings
4. You fall in love with another boy
5. You grow to accept it


While there are many things that aren't forbidden by the law "such as animated child pornography", it does not give the right to try to amend the laws for something else "such as the legalization of actual child pornograph" Now, this is an analogy. I'm stating this, because quite the population of this debate seem to miss that.

Children are abused, and are not old enough to decide wehter they have sex or not. They also can't see or know the concewuences of it yet. Plus, the number of pedosexuals is far less than the munber of gays.
Poor analogy if you ask me.

Seven
03-21-2004, 11:05 AM
Dorry for the double post, but it didn't fit in one post :/


It's a right that is being made specifically for the benifit of a severe minority with no regard to to the rest of the nation.
I'm walking down the street. I see two men kiss eachother blatenly in public. I am not meddeling in another person's affairs, yet I see this. For there are many things that people dub only observable by meddeling in someone's affiars while in actually one often just stumbles upon these actions.
I never said that a person's life has a lesser value. For the point lies in the fact that mere sight or hearing could damage someone. If you saw someone get brutally beaton in the street, you probably wouldn't take it too well.

If the gays don't get married, does that mean you qon't see them kissing on the street? No.


That is assuming that a gay person tries to be strait. I've seen and known a few who don't. A good some of homosexuals have the "I'm gay and I'm proud of it" mentality. These guys obviously followed this mentality, because not only did they blatenly state in public that they were strictly homosexual, but they were "Flaming" and they Happily Agreed. Not an "Oh.. al right." But a "Of course! You're such a doll!" matter.

People who discover they are gay often try to act heterosexual. And when I say often, I mean in 99% of the cases.

You said the ratio to strait molesters to gay molestars are the same, correct? Well, if only 2% of the worlds populace is gay, compared to the EXACT same numbers with a 98% of the worlds pupulation... now their way off.

I never said that/ mean to say that :S.
But uhm, 10% of all people has homosexual feelings.


The homosexuals have their own channel on Bravo network, which satellite network has on their included set of channels. There, they have every kind of homosexual out there. From the drag queens, to the kind that you can only tell their gay by their word of mouth.

I don't know this channel, so I can't judge.


Are you forgetting the original statements I make, or are you purposly trying to lead me off of the point. The point is this: The actions of the few do not give reason to allow the actions of the many. I believe I covered how allowing homosexuals to marry would not only ruin the concept of marriage, but put law into question itself, have I not?

Yes, and I do not agree with them.


So your parents dis-regarded the whole notion of marriage for 10 years. Did they concieve you before they got married? That also abases the purpose of marriage.
No they didn't conceive me before they got married.
When I read this, I get the feeling we're talking about different kinds of marriage. We are talking about marrying for the law, right? Not in church or any other religious institute.
My parents aren't religious, just like 60% of all people here. It's more rule than exception that people live together before they marry.

plasmaball3000
03-21-2004, 01:34 PM
Is it just me, or do people act stupid on purpose?
You bring in the child now? I thought I already gave the point of which why homosexuals cannot adopt children. I'll give it again: NAMBLA. And even if they didn't, which would be a very hard thing to resist because the urge for a feminine body would still exist

Just a small point: how would this urge (if it did exist, which it wouldn't) be any more likely than a straight adult and a child of the opposite sex?

bjgamecreations
03-22-2004, 01:23 AM
Well i haven't read all of this because there is like 6 LONG pages but my opinion on the subject is there shouldn't be Same-sex Marriages. I believe there shouldn't be Same-sex marriages because like some people have mentioned this country (usa) is very supportive of God and most religions (it even says "In God we Trust" on the 1 dollar bill people). And i'm not sure about all religions but I think most are against this. I'm fine with homosexual people dating and being in love but to me Marriage is a sacred thing between a man and a woman. My opinion may be swayed this way because i'm just personally weirded out by it...no offense anyone....well i think that's all i've got to say...

Alakazam
03-22-2004, 03:06 PM
Homosexuality is a choice...or at least, marrying one of the same sex is a choice. If you can't accept that, than I'm not going to waste time arguing with you. No one can marry someone of the same sex, not just gays.

"But they wouldn't want to marry someone of the opposite sex"
^ So? They still have the option, as does every other US citizen.

So, what they are looking for (as CS first said) is a special privelage, and it's no more extreme than allowing poligamy for the minority that desire it.

Seven
03-22-2004, 03:23 PM
Homosexuality is a choice...or at least, marrying one of the same sex is a choice. If you can't accept that, than I'm not going to waste time arguing with you. No one can marry someone of the same sex, not just gays.

"But they wouldn't want to marry someone of the opposite sex"
^ So? They still have the option, as does every other US citizen.

So, what they are looking for (as CS first said) is a special privelage, and it's no more extreme than allowing poligamy for the minority that desire it.

Homosexuality is not a choice, but marrying someone of the same-sex is. Very true. But isn't that a logical consequence?

Special privelage? No. Everybody gains the right to marry someone of the same sex, not just gays, so nobody gains a special privelage. Every citizen of the US gains a new right.
The law should never have denied homosexual-marraiges in the first place, and now the time has come to fix this mistake.

Ierdar
03-23-2004, 03:59 AM
I think its stupid how they're trying to ban "gay marriages". If this is the land of the free, why are they being discriminated against? I dont mean to start a religious debate with this next statement, but who cares what it says in a book writen who knows how long ago by god knows who, for all we know, could be some total idiot who got bored. (no, i'm not big on religion =P) Same-sex marriages should be allowd, biggest reason, this is supposd to be a free country, by the banning of same-sex marriages, they are taking away peoples rights.

Didnt feel like i got my opion across very well. :wall: Maybe its because of all the times I'm hit my head on that brick wall.

Alakazam
03-23-2004, 10:45 AM
I'm in a peculiar situation...I'm a heterosexual catholic, yet I resent the views of the Catholic Church on many issues.

ALAKAZAM is confused!
ALAKAZAM hurt himself in his confusion

*ow!* :exclaim:

Anyway, now I'm not so sure that it can be considered to be a special previlage. For it is true that anyone would be able to marry someone of the same sex, the vast majority of us would never want to. However, in the current state of things, homosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex, though they of course, would most likely not want to do that either.

So, I don't see how it can be considered a special privelage. If you follow the same logic, then marriage as it stands is a special privelage for heterosexuals (though they are the majority).

The only reason I changed sides on this issue is because I was convinced that same-sex marriage would be a special privelage...but with that shot down with a Hyper Beam, taking the risk of being thought of as fickle, I think I'm for gay marriage. It truely is a civil rights issue.

Of course, it's undeniable that part of my position is utter contempt for the masses (especially for the mindless Catholics that are led around by the Catholic Church like trained dogs :evil: :naughty: :hand: :sick: :snooty: :wall: ) who are only against gay marriage because they resent homosexuality as if it were like commiting homicide every day. -_-

Kenny_C.002
03-24-2004, 02:58 AM
I stand against same-sex marriages along the lines of extremism. Though this is rarely discussed, extremism runs the world (don't argue here, 'cause it's a fact). With that in mind, this would mean we must allow different "marriages" just as same-sex marriages, considering the arguments would be completely equal as the same-sex marriages and therefore valid. I'm not against same-sex marriage, but the inevitable after it. Simple human psychology: all or nothing. In this case, I choose nothing and just ban same-sex marriage altogether.

Kan
03-26-2004, 06:56 PM
With that mentality, you'd have to ban ALL marriages, including diff sex ones. :silenced:

OF COURSE gay couples should have the right to marry! It's not hurting a damn person in the world, and only serves to make America that much better. I don't understand why all these groups have to "protect the US" against gay marriages; obviously, they have homosexual urges themselves, because otherwise it wouldn't affect/threaten them, right? :wink: Besides, it will help non-married straight couples get more rights too...for example, if my mom's bf were sick in the hospital, she wouldn't be able to visit him, which is BS.

I'm bi, and nothing makes me madder than someone saying no with no backing behind it other than the fact that they're a stupid, stubborn ass. If I want to go into a lasting relationship with a boyfriend, that's MY choice, not some 40 year old homophobe who's embarrassed 'cause he's nailing his gym buddy behind his wife's back. It's just a repeat of the Civil Rights movement; why can't anyone see that?!? :confused:

Crimson Spider
04-05-2004, 09:16 AM
I never said lvoe was just sex did I. I said sexual attraction was just sex."You're right. Most marriages are for the legal benefits. If you marry legally, not in church that is. But that doesn't mean there isn't true love. Gays'll never get to marry in church - so they won't reach for it."
Sound familiar? What I am saying that the love that is between to members of the opposite sex in homosexuality IS sex. That, and I was forseeing into the future what some people might say.


But they don't want to marry a woman! I know you keep saying that homosexuality it's a choice, but it just isn't. You're just too stubborn to accept that. Firstly, too darn bad if they don't want to marry a woman. But they STILL have the right, and arguing otherwise would be asking for special rights. Your parents didn't want to marry eachother either. Secondly: the matter of which homosexuality is a choice or not holds little to no ground on it's legalization. Third: I have myself a 10 page report on why it is a choice.
Yes, they do want to change the law for their personal needs. But the law was wrong all along in their, and my view. Gays aren't the minority you make them seem. Ten procent of all people have homosexual feeling (= gay, lesbian, bisexual). That's a lot of people.The law is wrong all along in many a death-rowers view too. Ones personal perspective of the law does not invalidate it, nor give reason for it's change to suit a minorities personal wants. Even if they aren't the such an extream minority, they are a minority.

Yes, that's how I feel. If someone doesn't want to use a condom and die at an early age, then it's their chocie. I don't approve of it, but who am I to stop them.Who are they to use the government to intrude into other matters not of it's own and violate my personal beliefs and customs when there is a clear alternative?


I don't, so what's your point?Proper semantics is a must here. I don't see how the phrase "I don't" makes sense. That statement isn't a preferance. It's a fact.


Ways of living in the time is was written, yes. But in these times, the world doesn't work the way it worked in those days.Oh no no no no. Ways of living, period. There is a reason why many of the things the Bible says is vague. When it utters "thou shalt not commit adultry", it means it. And people live now the same way they lived back 2000 years ago. They just have technology and stuff to do it with.


You "know" for a fact that you're right in your believe in God, right? Well, Muslims "know" for a fact that they are right in their believe in Allah.
People who are in sects also "know" that they are right.
That's what I meant with same thing.So that's what you meant.

Don't you think it's pure hypocrisy that you on one hand say that you know you're believe in God is right, and on the other hand say that gay's only think they are right but are actually wrong.
I sure do. Gays right on what? On if they should have marriage? If homosexuality is from birth? Personally, I don't find it hypocrisy, because there IS a right and a wrong out there. Second: they ARE gay. They DO have feelings for one another. I'm not denying that. I'm debating it's origins. I have a 10 page report on why being gay is scientifically impossible, but psychologically possible.

Nothing has been proven yet. Just recently I read an article about homosexual sheep having a different brain type.
Maybe this is the same with the human brain, I don't know, but you don't either.If you show me two creatures with the same brain, I'll hack my balls off with a soup-can lid and hand them to you. Of course their brain is going to be different! Every choice that you make in life changes the shape of your brain. It's like comparing someone who's modest by nature to someone who's arrogant. And exactly how different? You see, the general proness for homosexuality comes scientifically from the ratio of estrogen testosterone being closer together than your average indevidual, making a more feminine male. These chemicals shape the fetus, so the brain will be noticeably different. But due to the dominance of the male chemical along with it's mass production and the role it has during puberty, it's impossible to point to this and say "See! That's proof that you are born gay!".


When you're love is recognised by the state, that alone gives you happiness.That's debateable. You see, they argue for marriage for legal benifits. Happyness isn't one of their debates. If they aren't bringing it up, then very possibly it has little or nothing to do with what happyness you would get from having a legal state alone allow and not necissarily recognize your love and having others not recognize it.
When all you're partners possesions get taken away when he dies, and you get nothing, because you weren't married, I think you'd be quite unhappy, don't you?Actually, I wouldn't be unhappy.


Heterosexuality is also restricted to physical sex itself. Or are you saying you could never live with a man because you don't like men? No. You just don't feel physically attracted to them. Not quite. My mother and father weren't married for physical sex, nor is that how they got to liking eachother. (waits for obvious reply so he can counter it). But I'm sure I can live with a roommate as long as he isn't some sickly annoying idiot who steals from me.


Apparently not, because homosexuality exists. I know you're goign to say it's a choice.The matter of homosexuality being a choice has little to do with the legalization of homosexual marriage. Second, the existance of homosexuality does not invalidate the statement. That is, after all, what we are talking about. The statement claims that there WILL BE AN ATTRACTION TO THE OPPOSITE SEX BECAUSE IT IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THERE NOT TO BE ONE.


I think you know what i'm going to say, don't you? Most likely. Do you want to see the 10 page report or not?

Crimson Spider
04-05-2004, 09:36 AM
1. There is no urge for a feminine bodyShows how much you know. Listen: in my little report, I did more than just look up the chemistry of the human body. I have experience with homosexuals. And I know for a fact that they have the urge for a feminine body. That is why the vast majority either have a liking to children, bisexual, or just in denile because of the definition they donned onto themselves. Remember what my sisters friend did, all the other little fixins I've posted up? You chose to ignore these. Notice something: in every homosexual couple, there is atleast 1 extreamly feminine and womanlike man in there. Usually consisting of 2. There is a reason for this. Biolgically, the urge is still there, and the brain had almost nothing to do with that urge.
2. Even if there was, why would they use their child for these purposes? Call an escort service and you have better sex tooI wish it were that simple. But alas, their actions have made it so homosexual couples cannot adopt. And you are denying this? Firstly: their lust for children is very grand. It's like a dream come true for them. Second: "They don't want to have sex with an escort!" Third: It's not always THEIR child.

3. Why would a child mean a girl?There is little to no difference between a little boy and a little girl physically. Child molesters molest both boys and girls.
4. Doesn't the B in NAMBLA stand for boy? So what does it have to do with feminine body at all :S.Explained above: little boys and little girls look the same. Little boys grow up and change, but little girls do not do nearly as much changing.


Are you referring to euthanasia? If you are...*sigh*Who, what, or where the heck is euthanasia? But I heard it goes on in the netherlands, too.

It is NOT a choice, people DON'T make themself beleive they are gay. Some may, but a far greater numer make themself believe they are straight.They don't make themselves believe. They do believe. And since belief is a powerful thing, it makes them "are"

Here is how discovery of homosexuality works (for a boy):
1. You think you are straight
2. You fall in love with a boy
3. You're ashamed of yourself and denie your feelings
4. You fall in love with another boy
5. You grow to accept it
Do you know anything about psychology? It is a whole lot more complicated than that. Firstly, the definition of the word love is very vast in use. Love can be defined between friends and family. Let me brake it down into the 20 or so step process of how it really happens.
1. They think they are strait.
2. They act strait.
3. They have themselves a friend.
4. The friends become closer as feelings grow towards one another.
5. They become non-sexual intimet friends.
6. The idea of homosexuality is introduced to them some way. This some way matters.
7. Over time, they begin to suspect themselves of being homosexual, either from developing a status to constant insults, or from associating themselves with the common dogma of homosexuality, or as fulfillment to their self-torturing perspective upon life and selfrightous need to inflict more problems in their life.
8. They either dismiss this, or begin to get curios.
9. They are nervous to their friend, so they become explorative with another pre-defined homosexual
(keep in mind a great deal of time is passing from each step.)
10. They guage this to the other perspective to how much they like women. Since this occurs at a young age, the idea of girls VS boys and the constant conflicts gives no residence of an attraction to girls, but the friendship of the fellow man.
11. They either go with being strait with this guaging, or remain curious.
12. If possible, they then enter intercourse with a woman, and guage this.
13. They either go strait, or remain curious.
14. After much deliberation, they decide to admit this to others.
15. The shunnings often times give the supportance of differance, and the support of homosexuality feeds this.
16. They either go strait, or go with either denomination of Gay or Bi.
17. They continue to live lifee as their denomination under a belief of it, which re-constructs their entire persona and leads them to actual be homosexual or Bi.
18. They either remain this way, or come to their senses later on and go strait.

That's about how it happens with a boy.

Children are abused, and are not old enough to decide wehter they have sex or not.I used to know someone in 3rd grade who wanted to become a stripper.
They also can't see or know the concequences of it yet. Plus, the number of pedosexuals is far less than the munber of gays.
Poor analogy if you ask me.
The number does not matter in the base of the idea: Just because someone feels the law is treating them unfairly, does not justify the breaking of it. Whether the child knows what it is doing or not does not matter. It is not the child who gets itself into these situations.

If the gays don't get married, does that mean you qon't see them kissing on the street? No.Nice try on dodging the actual idea behind my post. I'll post it again: "It's a right that is being made specifically for the benifit of a severe minority with no regard to to the rest of the nation." Even if it would benifit Bi's, their not being taken into conideration.

People who discover they are gay often try to act heterosexual. And when I say often, I mean in 99% of the cases.You mean that people believe that they are gay. People don't discover they are gay. There is NOTHING solid to back homosexuality. Remember: People do go strait again.

I never said that/ mean to say that :S.
But uhm, 10% of all people has homosexual feelings.But 10% are not gay. Having homosexual feelings can be played with. This does not state that they always have homosexual feelings, or that they are actually homosexual or bisexual. Feelings, yes. Actually titled gay? 2%

Yes, and I do not agree with them.Please be more clear in your statement. What are you agreeing with, and what are you not agreeing with?

No they didn't conceive me before they got married. Did they enter intercourse though?

When I read this, I get the feeling we're talking about different kinds of marriage. We are talking about marrying for the law, right? Not in church or any other religious institute.Marrying in the law and in the church are pratically the same thing. Marriage is a religious affair. Law cannot marry, because people seem to scream seperation between church and state for everything else except for this matter.
My parents aren't religious, just like 60% of all people here. It's more rule than exception that people live together before they marry.Seems the religious have the majority. BTW: In the U.S, that's now how it goes. Two people find eachother, get married, and then move in with eachother.


Contendor no 2
Just a small point: how would this urge (if it did exist, which it wouldn't) be any more likely than a straight adult and a child of the opposite sex?You mean to tell me the urge to have sex with a child doesn't exist? O.K... yeah... Well, the urge for a homosexual and a young boy is that they are denoted in their head as liking a boy. Otherwise the desire for a child would be the same between genders.

Back to contendor no. 1

Homosexuality is not a choice, but marrying someone of the same-sex is. Very true. But isn't that a logical consequence?

Special privelage? No. Everybody gains the right to marry someone of the same sex, not just gays, so nobody gains a special privelage. Every citizen of the US gains a new right.
The law should never have denied homosexual-marraiges in the first place, and now the time has come to fix this mistake.

Quiz of the "what have I pressed mutliple times in this debate": When they make this right, who are they making it for?

Answer:Homosexuals

Are they taking into consideration the rights of others?

Answer: No.

Are they making it for anyone else (despite anothers benifit)in mind?

Answer: No.

In all sense, it's a special privalige, because it is a right givin SOLEY for the benifit of a small minority, and no one else. Whether they get the right or not doesn't matter. Let me give you 2 examples.

In my school, they used to let people go to the bathroom freely. Someone decided to grafitti the whole place, and now we can't go freely to the bathroom. This change in rules was made soley because of the offender, and no one else.

Second example: In my other school, people wanted to play a game called "Smear the queer". It was like football, but a lot more violent. They had the right to play football, but not this game. If they were suddenly allowed to, it would benifit only them, and ruin the concept of going to the park to play an honest game for others, and would further press the amending of more rules, where there was a very clear and similar alternative for pratically the same thing.

That is definately special.

Crimson Spider
04-05-2004, 09:45 AM
OF COURSE gay couples should have the right to marry! It's not hurting a damn person in the world, and only serves to make America that much better.
By plummiting the moral values of America, and offending those who are not fond of homosexuality?
I don't understand why all these groups have to "protect the US" against gay marriages; obviously, they have homosexual urges themselves, because otherwise it wouldn't affect/threaten them, right? :wink:
I fail to see the logic. Firstly, religious purposes and personal preferances. The defense of this is what thrives their "Protect the US" mentallity, and technically it would affect/threaten them. I thought I made it clear how the legalization of homosexuality would "affect" our modern day man.
Besides, it will help non-married straight couples get more rights too...for example, if my mom's bf were sick in the hospital, she wouldn't be able to visit him, which is BS.
Um... your mom not being able to see her BF is more rights?

I'm bi, and nothing makes me madder than someone saying no with no backing behind it other than the fact that they're a stupid, stubborn ass.
Personally, I think that someone who has backing of it (can't decipher what "no" means in this statement) would be more of a problem, because men are sheep.
If I want to go into a lasting relationship with a boyfriend, that's MY choice, not some 40 year old homophobe who's embarrassed 'cause he's nailing his gym buddy behind his wife's back. It's just a repeat of the Civil Rights movement; why can't anyone see that?!? :confused:
The civil rights movement was a movement in order to give people the same rights. Homosexuals HAVE the same rights in this instance. Why can't people see that?!? :confused:


Now if you don't mind, I would like to go to bed since it's 2:50 AM where I live.

plasmaball3000
04-06-2004, 03:21 AM
I keep seeing posts that include something along the lines of "giving gays the right to marry would be giving them special rights". Everyone gains that right, it's as simple as that. This has been said before several times, but it seems to have gotten lost. True, the right would be targeted at a minority, but a law against it would be just be targeting everyone else. As long as it's the same right given to everyone (the ability to marry whomever they like, regarless of gender), it's not "special".

Crimson Spider
04-09-2004, 12:53 AM
Sure. Everyone gets that "right". Only a select few will ever have the reason, or actually ever exercise this right. Only these select few are in mind, and they are the only ones who ever get to use it. It's like making an unfair law for paraplegics. Only they would be able to exercise the right, even if everyone gets it. So since it's a law made specifically for the benifit for the few and no one else can sparsely exercise this right, and probably never will, it can in all aspects with the exception of one a special right.

Second example: In my other school, people wanted to play a game called "Smear the queer". It was like football, but a lot more violent. They had the right to play football, but not this game. If they were suddenly allowed to, it would benifit only them, and ruin the concept of going to the park to play an honest game for others, and would further press the amending of more rules, where there was a very clear and similar alternative for pratically the same thing.

It being a special right isn't the only reason against it, too. That's just the one in discussion.

EDIT: Can't believe I forgot this part. :doh: Now, about that law against it. Well, until Clinton declared one, there wasn't a law against it. For the definition of marriage made it so marriage was ONLY between man and woman. So in essance, there wasn't actually a law against it, because it itself was not the act that is being pressed on it right now.

Alakazam
04-09-2004, 02:06 AM
Sure. Everyone gets that "right". Only a select few will ever have the reason, or actually ever exercise this right. Only these select few are in mind, and they are the only ones who ever get to use it. It's like making an unfair law for paraplegics. Only they would be able to exercise the right, even if everyone gets it. So since it's a law made specifically for the benifit for the few and no one else can sparsely exercise this right, and probably never will, it can in all aspects with the exception of one a special right.

Only a few people will most likely excercize the right, I agree with you on that. However, though I don't follow what you exactly mean with your paraplegics, it seems to me that anyone not paraplegic would physically not be able to obtain that benefit. However, it is possible for anyone in the US to benefit from this (though I realize that the vast majority of us would not).

Allow me to make a parallel. In the US, it is legal for citizens to have firearms in their homes. Only approximately 38% of Americans enjoy the benefit of this law. However, the rest of the populace could go out and buy a gun...so, do you consider this a special privilage? I don't, since everyone gains the right, though only a fraction of them choose to use it.

If one follows your logic regarding same-sex marriage as a special privelage, than it is no less harmful than the right to bear arms in the US.

It being a special right isn't the only reason against it, too. That's just the one in discussion.

Can't believe I forgot this part. :doh: Now, about that law against it. Well, until Clinton declared one, there wasn't a law against it. For the definition of marriage made it so marriage was ONLY between man and woman. So in essance, there wasn't actually a law against it, because it itself was not the act that is being pressed on it right now.

This is a bit unclear...if there is now law against it (it=same sex marriage), than what did Clinton pass a law on? (are you talking about another unclarified 'it'?)

Joe Moma
04-09-2004, 02:27 AM
I gay people are gay and sholdn't marrie eachother god even said it men should not sleep with other men!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Crimson Spider
04-09-2004, 02:46 AM
Seems like Alakazam is the only one here who could actual debate what I say effectivly.

Only a few people will most likely excercize the right, I agree with you on that. However, though I don't follow what you exactly mean with your paraplegics, it seems to me that anyone not paraplegic would physically not be able to obtain that benefit. However, it is possible for anyone in the US to benefit from this (though I realize that the vast majority of us would not).It was more or less an example. You see, homosexuals use the meaningless arguement that they are born that way to get the right. So that would mean that under their standings on the issue, the law who is for everyone though it is NOT stated to be and only in debation for homosexuals themselves. Their own standings betray them in this manner, meaning that you infact have to have a defect in you in order to take privelage of this changing of laws, and would be a special right made for an unfortunate few. As I've said before, the possibility of homosexuality being a born-with trait is meaningless in this debate, but they press it. So their desire to prove that homosexuality is not in their controll is going to backfire. That's what I meant by paraplegics.

Allow me to make a parallel. In the US, it is legal for citizens to have firearms in their homes. Only approximately 38% of Americans enjoy the benefit of this law. However, the rest of the populace could go out and buy a gun...so, do you consider this a special privilage? I don't, since everyone gains the right, though only a fraction of them choose to use it. Good point. I thought I explained this, though.
Yes, it is legal for Citizens to have firearms in their homes because when the US was first made, it was a safety precaution. Not a matter of personal preferance. They took the whole population of the 13 colonies into mind when they enacted this law, so homosexuals could have firearms back then, as any other strait man out there. The arguement for homosexual marriage is that they want the same legal benifits that are enforced for being a couple, and not necissarily marriage itself, and that they should preform religious ceremonies of marriage for the homosexual few to gain these not-necissarily-with-marriage rights. In NV, I always hear about family benifits, and not marriage benifits, so that's how it is here anyway. Not going further into the debation of homosexuality being a choice, many would find this right to be repulsive, such as if they made a right that a man can marry his own cow, so only few COULD enjoy it, and not just choose to. So this limitation upon one to have the ability to enjoy it or not would make it a special right, while the gun law only exercized by 38% of the people here, anyone could enjoy it, because it isn't for a select few in mind.

Take note of this with animated child pornography. As you may know, animation can look VERY real. I am amongst the most that would not enjoy waching twelve-year-olds having sex with someone. Even if I have the right to access it, I can't enjoy it by a default, because only a select few ever would. The enacting of the legalization of animated child pornography is only benifical by the extreme few by default, and is thus in all aspects except for one a special right.
If one follows your logic regarding same-sex marriage as a special privelage, than it is no less harmful than the right to bear arms in the US.I mentioned animated child pornography to explain this above. And the right to bear arms is a harmful right.

This is a bit unclear...if there is now law against it (it=same sex marriage), than what did Clinton pass a law on? (are you talking about another unclarified 'it'?)
O.K. What I mean is that by definition, what the homosexuals are asking for isn't marriage. What marriage is isn't what they want, so they couldn't demand marriage because that is not what they want. A law against it wasn't needed. Clinton is the one who made the law against same sex marriages for whatever reason, even though same-sex marriages couldn't be called marriage and thus there wasn't a law against it until Clinton made one.

In short: homosexuals couldn't get married, because it wasn't what marriage was that they were asking for, and thus isn't in discrimination of anyone. But why oh why did Clinton had to make that law? That was almost purposeless by what the definition of what marriage is, and is infact screwing things up now.

ElimN8
04-09-2004, 07:54 AM
It was more or less an example. You see, homosexuals use the meaningless arguement that they are born that way to get the right. So that would mean that under their standings on the issue, the law who is for everyone though it is NOT stated to be and only in debation for homosexuals themselves. Their own standings betray them in this manner, meaning that you infact have to have a defect in you in order to take privelage of this changing of laws, and would be a special right made for an unfortunate few. As I've said before, the possibility of homosexuality being a born-with trait is meaningless in this debate, but they press it. So their desire to prove that homosexuality is not in their controll is going to backfire. That's what I meant by paraplegics.
...
If you show me two creatures with the same brain, I'll hack my balls off with a soup-can lid and hand them to you. Of course their brain is going to be different! Every choice that you make in life changes the shape of your brain. It's like comparing someone who's modest by nature to someone who's arrogant. And exactly how different? You see, the general proness for homosexuality comes scientifically from the ratio of estrogen testosterone being closer together than your average indevidual, making a more feminine male. These chemicals shape the fetus, so the brain will be noticeably different. But due to the dominance of the male chemical along with it's mass production and the role it has during puberty, it's impossible to point to this and say "See! That's proof that you are born gay!".
You've contradicted your own statement. According to your logic, it's possible for a male fetus to be born and develop into a feminine male, yet at the same time it's impossible for someone with homosexual tendencies to start out that way.

I know the obvious counter to this statement. Most likely, you meant that while it's probable for some males to be born, perhaps, more feminine than normal, for one to take themselves up as "a homosexual", is completely psychological, right?

Well, although it is certainly very possible for one to convince themselves, through means of personal experiences, differentiating lifestyles, imposition by society, the desire to conform to/diverge from others within that society, etc. -- that they are "gay" when biologically, they may be completely heterosexual; wouldn't a male individual with an imbalance in their testosterone-estrogen levels (in this case presumably, a higher rate of estrogen) be more prone to female-like tendencies, e.g. perhaps taking an interest in men? ...

They don't make themselves believe. They do believe. And since belief is a powerful thing, it makes them "are"
Hmm... Reminds me of organized religion... :think: :tongue:

I have myself a 10 page report on why it is a choice.
I'm interested in this ten-page paper you consistently refer to... Keep in mind, however: length does not equal credibility -- general statement; I won't doubt the vailidity of your paper until I see it for myself. That is, of course, if you'll let me?

Synod
04-14-2004, 12:22 AM
You know, I think that everyone should have the absolute right to marry who every they please. Have they ever even thought of the orphaned children who are in need of parents. There are many gay/lesbian couples out there who would be glad to adopt a child, but since society decides to be narrowminded, this is halted. I just think people should stop basing everything on religion.

Crimson Spider
04-14-2004, 02:20 AM
...
Silence is a good thing. It's not my fault that other people try to press this. Even if they do win somehow, I'll just laugh at the hole they dug.

You've contradicted your own statement. According to your logic, it's possible for a male fetus to be born and develop into a feminine male, yet at the same time it's impossible for someone with homosexual tendencies to start out that way.
I don't see the contradiction, because that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that someone with tendencies and proneness can be born that way, but you are not born from the start liking the opposite sex. Whether you have feelings, like shopping, or find jewerly to be pretty does not determin your sexuality. I have all three of those, and I'm strait as an arrow.

I know the obvious counter to this statement. Most likely, you meant that while it's probableNot more than probable, but rather that it happens. Upbringing has a lot to do with what the modern paradigm for male behavoirs to be also plays a role, too.
for some males to be born, perhaps, more feminine than normal, for one to take themselves up as "a homosexual", is completely psychological, right? Pretty much.

Well, although it is certainly very possible for one to convince themselves,
Not really convince themselves, but believe they are.
through means of personal experiences, differentiating lifestyles, imposition by society, the desire to conform to/diverge from others within that society, etc. -- that they are "gay"[quote]They believe they are. You aren't 100% gay, even if you do have homosexual feelings. Gayness is merely an assumption based on data, and that shapes what the person is from there.
[quote]
when biologically, they may be completely heterosexual; wouldn't a male individual with an imbalance in their testosterone-estrogen levels (in this case presumably, a higher rate of estrogen)
Remember: the tesosterone will always bey dominant.

be more prone to female-like tendencies, e.g. perhaps taking an interest in men? ...You give the non-dominant chemical too much credit. You see, due to the construction of the human male, they would have to like girls because the testosterone chemical is what controls the urge to reproduce dominantly in the male body. Even though estrogen is involved, it has different roles in the human male than the testosterone does. The dominant chemicals role includes the sexual stimulation and attraction to the opposite chemical. The dominant chemical is mass-produced from the reproductive organs in both genders and is needed in larger amounts for our natural bodily processes to occur, so in this fact the male will have the attraction to the female and vice-versa.


Hmm... Reminds me of organized religion... :think: :tongue: It's a lot like that actually.


I'm interested in this ten-page paper you consistently refer to... Keep in mind, however: length does not equal credibility -- general statement; I won't doubt the vailidity of your paper until I see it for myself. That is, of course, if you'll let me? Sure. I'll PM it to you. Just let me read through it a little.

You know, I think that everyone should have the absolute right to marry who every they please. Have they ever even thought of the orphaned children who are in need of parents. There are many gay/lesbian couples out there who would be glad to adopt a child, but since society decides to be narrowminded, this is halted. I just think people should stop basing everything on religion.
Um... have you read this entire topic or are you just posting here from the last page? I guess you are entitled to your own opinion, be I am entitled to the opposition of it.

Alakazam
04-19-2004, 06:35 PM
CS, if you don't think that homosexuals are asking for marriage, what, in your opinion, are they asking for?

Crimson Spider
04-21-2004, 02:56 AM
Touché, Alakazam.

What they are asking for is for the nullification of the law passed against what they weren't asking for, and now asking for marriages to include same-sex. Before they wanted legal benifits, but now they want the whole marriage definition to be amended, since the law against what they weren't asking for made them ask for it.

Ironshell Blastoise
04-22-2004, 07:49 PM
I'm not going to get caught up in the discussion currently laid out, I just want my opinion down...

Making Christian-influenced laws in a muilti-religious society is wrong. Its benefitting Christians and not others. The perfect laws would be from an aethiest point of view, where religion does not have any influence on it. Sadly, religion controls and has controlled many things throughout the history of man, that it'd be hard to stop now. I'm just saying that I strongly disagree with Bush's push for the law banning same-sex marriage.

And with that, I bid the rest of you adieu.

DaRkUmBrEoN
04-23-2004, 08:12 AM
If I am not mistaking, it was an american who said that the government is for the people, by the people and so on... don't remember it that good.
But to get to the point if a part of the people want same-sex marriage then let them. 20 years ago nobody would get it in his/hers head to live with a woman/man without getting married. And now it's as commen as you are breathing. I live in a tolerant country. They lately came up with a new tolerant plan. You're not illegal just onwanted. So Same-sex marriage are normal here. But since I'm moslim in a non-moslim land I must adjust to it. Luckely the laws here aren't based on cristian value.

Crimson Spider
04-24-2004, 02:38 AM
Making Christian-influenced laws in a muilti-religious society is wrong. Its benefitting Christians and not others.
Um...

I stand against same-sex marriages along the lines of extremism. Though this is rarely discussed, extremism runs the world (don't argue here, 'cause it's a fact). With that in mind, this would mean we must allow different "marriages" just as same-sex marriages, considering the arguments would be completely equal as the same-sex marriages and therefore valid. I'm not against same-sex marriage, but the inevitable after it. Simple human psychology: all or nothing. In this case, I choose nothing and just ban same-sex marriage altogether.

It benifits him. I find christians who do support homosexual marriages, and aetheists/agnostics who don't. Associating the decisions with a specific religion isn't the most accurate decision here.

The perfect laws would be from an aethiest point of view,Oh no no no no no no! Little point here (agrued extensively on another board, with me victor) Aethiesm has little to no concept of what is right or wrong. No belief in anything means no absolute right or wrong, meaning the demeaning of moral values if immoral aetheists, which aetheists have a tendancy to be more immoral than religious people (not people who pratice religion. Religious people. There's a difference) have more integrity. Perfect example is this: "Why should each man have the same rights? Who cares if they don't get treated the same. It's them, not you". I mean, christianity doesn't each the discrimination of other religions any more than any other religion would.

where religion does not have any influence on it.Religious values cultivate the preferances of the non-religious, you know.
Sadly, religion controls and has controlled many things throughout the history of man, that it'd be hard to stop now.Why?
I'm just saying that I strongly disagree with Bush's push for the law banning same-sex marriage.Bush's defending, not pushing.

Well, I posted this in the beginning of the topic, and I find that it goes very well with your view. Keep in mind that the statement has changed over time.

O.K. You see, Homosexual people have the same right as hetero in this institution. A homosexual man can marry any women they please regardless of her sexuality, and vice versa while getting all the same legal rights, which many have done. In truth, homosexuals can marry each other.

They aren't arguing for "Equal Rights" (an illusion in itself that has been brought on by the flower-children of the early days). They want special rights. They want an abiding in the constitution of America to allow multiple breakings of law for a specific groups personal preferance under grounds of something never stated in the constitution. Whether the rest of the natioin gets the right to marry a counterpart of the same sex is irrelivant, because the pass in the law was made specifically for a small minority.

An example of this is such as if a somewhat decent sized group of people (lets say from a religious sect) were to move to America and claim that they want the right to be able to marry multiple wives at the same time, America would enter a fierce debate with this. Otherwise it would be discrimination. Purposes are irrelivant from the arguement of the rights.

Due to the Unfortunate ruling in the constitution, it is unconstitutional for homosexuals to wed. End of Story. Equal-Rights activists argue against it, whilst the same arguement can be used to not allow someone to stay in prison indefinatly due to him/her seriously violating the rights of the constitution. While they argue for an exclusion for one's own breaking of the law, they stand hard against what they dis-agree with to argue against something that isn't against the law at all, but is only infact a slight descrimination of choice. Seems as if people only use the constitution of America to suit their own personal preferances while they ignore it when they dis-agree with it, such as the 10 commandments in the Massachutes courtroom.

The main disregarding enacted law from an almost phantom base is the seperation of Church and State. Marriage itself is a religious ceremony in which two people wed together in holy matrimony, and not legally. Despite the many theories of how marriage came about, it came to America as a religious act, and not for political power. The constitution erected by the early settlers did not give political power to those wed to the indeviduals that are in power. True that there are the existance of many government enforced benifits for married couples, but this is also a violation of the seperation between church and state. Due to this seperation, the government has no ground to stand on forcing the Church to allow something it doesn’t condone. I personally would prefer that they would remove every benificial right of marriage, so those who marry for the government benifits would decline.

Lord Mullet
05-09-2004, 05:25 AM
)']Kazaam, Marrage and Unity are not the same thing. You cannot say that beung married in by the church is the same then by the law... the only reason why Marrage is part of the law is because the whole community does it... But here in North America the largest group is Catholic... therefore our traditions are upheld in the law... before it was illigal for stores to be open on the holly day... and Christmas vacation is a naional thing... You cannot allow the minority to fight up and change sumthing as grand as same sex marrages, if this were aloud... then who's to say a muslem cant come here and make it legal to change our law to be able to marry 5,6,7 wives at a time... you have to draw the line somewhere. Like Aristotle said to live a virtuos life is to live the middle way, To much liberty is an extreme, and can be harmfull... where do we draw the line?

No, minorities don't matter at all.

At the beginning of his term, Bush said something like allowing the states to decide whether same-sex marriage is allowed. Masachusetts allows same-sex marriage. Bush does a 180.

CS, I would like that 10 page or whatever article on why homosexuality is biologically impossible.

The idea of giving them civil unions is degrading. If two things are not the same, they are not equal. A civil union may afford the same rights, but it is not marriage. I imagine many people would be outraged if a law was passed abolishing the institution of marriage and replacing all existing ones with civil unions.

As for, 'You shall not lay with a man as you lay with a woman, for that is an abomination.' Well, it's in the bible. Of course everybody should obey what's in the bible, because everyone is Christian, right? Hey, isn't that quote from Leviticus, anyway? Well, Leviticus is the most reliable of the books of the bible, not to mention Deuteronomy. Did you know bats are actually birds, not mammals? It's true. Word of God.

EDIT:I feel very strongly about things like these because my mothers brother is gay. But the marragies won't last because there won't be anyone caring for each other. And once you get married usually you have kid's. You can't have kids in same sex marraiges.


No, since they are gay, homosexuals are incapable of all human emotion, because their gay status stops them from being human.

Alakazam
05-12-2004, 10:53 AM
So, D, let me ask you this: Do you find same-sex marriages to be dangerous or harmful? If so, to whom?

Seven
05-15-2004, 07:32 PM
Mmm, long reaction may follow sometime, not sure >> just 2 things:

The different homosexualsheepbrain was fundamentally different, not a little bit different.

Let me ask you this: if somehow was proven that homosexuality was no choice, what would you think of same-sex marriages then?

Ironshell Blastoise
05-16-2004, 05:07 AM
Someone I heard made the point that marriage is supposed to be a sacred bond between a man and a woman. So 2 people of the same sex who really love each other can't get married, while Britney Spears can have a 1 day marriage just for kicks? Where in HELL is the sense in that? :rolleyes:

Thanatos
05-16-2004, 11:27 AM
I find it pathetic that the homosexual people of the world are being shunned for their desires.

The world perhaps does not need an atheist point of view, but a more down to earth one. Homosexuals deserve the right as much as the next person.

Does it bother you? Does it matter what a man or woman does with someone they love? Passion is to do with love for one another, and it is completely unfair to do this to anyone.

Even if a country is built on the Christian belief, it doens't mean it can't change. Not all religion agrees......

I don't care if someone wants to be Homosexual as long as they don't bother me.

I can't really do much for this subject, since I live in Aus, unplagued by Bush.

I don't care if they marry, since love is beautiful between anyone.

Alakazam
05-16-2004, 02:19 PM
Hmph. I'm glad that the foolish conservative group in Mass. who were trying to stop gay marriage from becoming legal on ay 17th failed. The Mass. Supreme Court deemed a ban on same-sex marriages as unconstituational, so it.

May 17th is also the 50th anniversary of the historic Brown v. Board of Education case, which I find to be very fitting.

Civil unions: seperate but equal? Definately not.

Kenny_C.002
05-16-2004, 04:34 PM
From what I've seen so far, I think I am now FOR Civil Union between people of the same gender. I mean, they wanted the legal benefits right? They got it. Under Civil Union, they will still be considered "married" and therefore have the title they also desire.

As for it being a marriage, I still don't think it's necessary to change this. I mean, by definition it is the union between a man and a woman (marriage). If they wanted the legal benefits, they got it. If they wanted the title, they got it. But to change the literal definition of something...not so much. It makes me feel like somebody is changing the definition of a relgious culture.

Nefarious
05-16-2004, 11:31 PM
well my opinion is Christian based, I don't think that gay's should have the right to marry because the Bible says that a man shall not lay with another man. Marriage should be between a man and a woman. That's just my opinion.

I completely agree with you. And anyway, god didn't make humans to be gay.

Kan
05-17-2004, 03:43 AM
I completely agree with you. And anyway, god didn't make humans to be gay.

...yet He (it, really) made them in His own image. :roll:

Seven
05-17-2004, 03:04 PM
I completely agree with you. And anyway, god didn't make humans to be gay.

And how would you know what God wants and what He doesn't :rolleyes:. Where you there when He created the world?
I know what the Bible says, but it also says that you shouldn't judge others. Guess what you're doing?

(I'm doing it as well, but I'm not a christian so...)

Nefarious
05-17-2004, 04:26 PM
I am not judging others I am just going by what the bible says. If you read it you would know that it says that it is against gods law to be gay. It doesn't say that specifically but it says man shall not lie with man.

Agent Orange
05-17-2004, 04:35 PM
I think that being gay violates God's law, because I believe that sex is for procreation, not enjoyment.

If you marry one of the same sex, then they cain't reproduce, and the marrage would bring nothing, and is therefore for enjoyment.

Nefarious
05-17-2004, 04:44 PM
I think that being gay violates God's law, because I believe that sex is for procreation, not enjoyment.

If you marry one of the same sex, then they cain't reproduce, and the marrage would bring nothing, and is therefore for enjoyment.

I couldn't agree more. and anyway, god made man in his own image. I don't think anyone sees god as gay. Everyone should respect gods laws and abide by them. But that is not the case today.

Khashoggi
05-17-2004, 05:11 PM
I couldn't agree more. and anyway, god made man in his own image. I don't think anyone sees god as gay. Everyone should respect gods laws and abide by them. But that is not the case today.
If 'God' made man in his own image, he's 1/10th gay himself, whatever you see him as... And hey, you're a Christian, we were given free will and I doubt that Christians like yourself would believe that 'God' is stupid enough to have created us that way and believed that we were gonna abide by whatever rules he set... It's not human nature. :/ Anyway, what makes you think that you guys and your beliefs are more important than anyone else and theirs? I mean, it's not like the majority of people are Christians or anything, so I'd consider what you're saying just a teensy bit unfair, and exclusive to Christians. Guess you're not into equality, what?

Err, I think that gays should be able to have marriage rights, but like Kenny said, the word itself doesn't include ... Well, it's not appropriate for describing homosexual couples, so you're gonna need a new one or whatever.

*wonders how she managed to get herself into the Discussion section*

Nefarious
05-17-2004, 05:16 PM
Well god doesn't force us to do what he wants us to do. When adam and eve where created, he made them in his own image. He made them perfect. After that, they were to decide if they wanted to abide by gods laws. We all have the right to be gay, but the bible says that it is against his laws not human laws. Humans can do whatever they want but some people don't do what is right.

Seven
05-17-2004, 05:20 PM
I am not judging others I am just going by what the bible says. If you read it you would know that it says that it is against gods law to be gay. It doesn't say that specifically but it says man shall not lie with man.

You are judging, you tell people what they should and shouldn't do, and that's called judging.

I think that being gay violates God's law, because I believe that sex is for procreation, not enjoyment.

If you marry one of the same sex, then they cain't reproduce, and the marrage would bring nothing, and is therefore for enjoyment.

So, you're saying that people who stay single are violating God's laws too.
Marriage is about love, not sex, and not procreation, IMO.

Nefarious
05-17-2004, 05:24 PM
[QUOTE=Seven]You are judging, you tell people what they should and shouldn't do, and that's called judging.


I am not judging. I am just informing people what the bible says. I am not saying that you aren't aloud to be gay. Everyone has the right from the government to be.

Khashoggi
05-17-2004, 05:27 PM
What the crap... ST, unless you can come up with an intelligent response to what anyone says that doesn't run along the lines of "gay people are bad and shouldn't marry because God said so," you really shouldn't be in this thread. :neutral:

Anyway, it is possible for lesbian couples to have children, just for the record... So procreation is actually an option for that half of the homosexual population, through today's science.

Nefarious
05-17-2004, 05:31 PM
What the crap... ST, unless you can come up with an intelligent response to what anyone says that doesn't run along the lines of "gay people are bad and shouldn't marry because God said so," you really shouldn't be in this thread. :neutral:

Anyway, it is possible for lesbian couples to have children, just for the record... So procreation is actually an option for that half of the homosexual population, through today's science.

If you want an intelligent response, read the bible.

Agent Orange
05-17-2004, 06:06 PM
If 'God' made man in his own image, he's 1/10th gay himself, whatever you see him as... And hey, you're a Christian, we were given free will and I doubt that Christians like yourself would believe that 'God' is stupid enough to have created us that way and believed that we were gonna abide by whatever rules he set... It's not human nature. :/ Anyway, what makes you think that you guys and your beliefs are more important than anyone else and theirs? I mean, it's not like the majority of people are Christians or anything, so I'd consider what you're saying just a teensy bit unfair, and exclusive to Christians. Guess you're not into equality, what?

Err, I think that gays should be able to have marriage rights, but like Kenny said, the word itself doesn't include ... Well, it's not appropriate for describing homosexual couples, so you're gonna need a new one or whatever.

*wonders how she managed to get herself into the Discussion section*

I do believe in equilitiy. In my eyes, all people are equal no matter what.

For all I care, anyone can be gay. I for one, am not gay, because...well my boat just dont float like that. If someone wants to have an alteritive lifestyle, thats fine with me, just as long as they leave me out of it.

My great Uncle is Gay, and I couldent care less.

EDIT: So, you're saying that people who stay single are violating God's laws too.

No...I plan to stay single myself. Im just saying that in the bible it states that (As mentioned before) "A man should not sleep with a man" so there you have it I guess...

Ironshell Blastoise
05-17-2004, 10:14 PM
If you want an intelligent response, read the bible.

Maybe you should quote for us, oh religious one.

BTW, according to Christian beliefs, God made all of us, God loves all of us, and God doesn't make mistakes, kthnx. I don't think he'd make someone and them be homosexual and then change his mind and be like "I don't like you anymore" ¬¬

Nefarious
05-17-2004, 10:49 PM
Forget I even said anything. If you aren't going to like me over a statement I made, then I just won't post in this thread anymore. But no hard feelings from me.

Kenny_C.002
05-17-2004, 10:49 PM
Kan, less sarcastic, more proofing.

ST, please have less one-liners and post more valid reasons. Maybe allude to different portions of the Bible that support your argument or something.

Everyone else should at least like...say soemthing more valid than a "god's saying this or that" argument.

The above is an attempt at stopping a flamebreak from happening (yes, flamebreak is my official name for a flame war).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Backing up for topic:

Should gays and lesbians have same-sex marriage rights (e.g. legal benefits)?
Should they also get the title (as in yes they are married)?
Should they change the meaning of "marriage" to suit this or just call it a Civil Union?

Note that all three are independent of each other. Saying taht you are married doesn't mean that it must be a marriage that one goes through, for it could be a civil union also.

Nefarious
05-17-2004, 11:07 PM
Hey like I said I am sorry I ever posted here. Just forget I was ever here and go on with the discussion.

Ironshell Blastoise
05-17-2004, 11:20 PM
Kan, less sarcastic, more proofing.

ST, please have less one-liners and post more valid reasons. Maybe allude to different portions of the Bible that support your argument or something.

Everyone else should at least like...say soemthing more valid than a "god's saying this or that" argument.

The above is an attempt at stopping a flamebreak from happening (yes, flamebreak is my official name for a flame war).


I was using the "God says this" only to disprove anyone's above statements about homosexuality being against God's wishes or whatnot.

Nefarious
05-19-2004, 03:52 PM
I am just giving a link to some info that explains if god made us to be gay or not. http://www.watchtower.org/library/w/2002/6/1a/article_01.htm you can believe it or not but don't argue to say that this info is wrong. Like I said you can believe it or not but I just wanted to post the info.

Seven
05-19-2004, 04:03 PM
I am just giving a link to some info that explains if god made us to be gay or not. http://www.watchtower.org/library/w/2002/6/1a/article_01.htm you can believe it or not but don't argue to say that this info is wrong. Like I said you can believe it or not but I just wanted to post the info.

Just as true as how the world was supposed to end in 1975 according to Jehova Witnesses? Or how the name Jehova is based on a massoretic misunderstanding?
Just wondering... :whistle:

Nefarious
05-19-2004, 04:07 PM
Not all Jehovah's Witnesses thought it was the end. They didn't base their conclusion on facts. And I don't know what massoretic means. But if you want more info on Jehovah's wittnesses and their beliefs, click on the link below my sig. You will find a lot of intersting info. :biggrin:

Seven
05-19-2004, 04:56 PM
Not all Jehovah's Witnesses thought it was the end. They didn't base their conclusion on facts. And I don't know what massoretic means. But if you want more info on Jehovah's wittnesses and their beliefs, click on the link below my sig. You will find a lot of intersting info. :biggrin:
Massoretic misunderstanding in a nutshell:
Jehovah (q.v.), the traditional form of this name in Western languages, is based on a misunderstanding of the Massoretic vocalization. The name Yahweh, of which an abbreviated form, Yah, and a spelling, Yahw, seem to have been popular, is derived doubtlessly from the verb hayah "to be", and is best translated by "he is".



In other words, Jehova was never God's name, not even in ancient times ;).

I've been to watchtower.org before, and have been practicly harrassed by Jehova Witnesses.
Meh, let's just say it "doesn't float my boat".

Nefarious
05-19-2004, 04:59 PM
Massoretic misunderstanding in a nutshell:

In other words, Jehova was never God's name, not even in ancient times ;).

I've been to watchtower.org before, and have been practicly harrassed by Jehova Witnesses.
Meh, let's just say it "doesn't float my boat".

Actually it is explaining what god's name means. It means "to be" or "he is". But we say it as "he causes to become".

Seven
05-19-2004, 05:06 PM
"is based on a misunderstanding of the Massoretic vocalization."

Doesn't leave much room for interpretation, does it?

But meh, I don't care, and you shouldn't either, believe what you want.

To stay ontopic:
I am just giving a link to some info that explains if god made us to be gay or not. http://www.watchtower.org/library/w.../article_01.htm you can believe it or not but don't argue to say that this info is wrong. Like I said you can believe it or not but I just wanted to post the info.

You can't base a country's laws on religion. So, what God/Jehova thinks of gays is irrelevant.

Crimson Spider
05-19-2004, 10:47 PM
You can't base a country's laws on religion. So, what God/Jehova thinks of gays is irrelevant.
Actually, yeah. You can. Whether or not people agree with it is the problem.

I leave for a few weeks, come back, and everyone is going on about the Bible, and the different sects of what is dubbed Christianity, or whether god wills it or not, or whether homosexuals are born that way or not.

You know, I thought I cleared this all up. Perception that homosexuals are born that way does NOT justifiy it in any way, shape, or form. Why people think that, I don't know. Second, it is the church that weds someone in holy matrimony, thus the church has a say in it. If people can't remember what I've said, then I'll gladly post up the revised post.

Jyger X
05-19-2004, 10:57 PM
Hey, I got a question: Why is Bush against same-sex marriage?

Kenny_C.002
05-20-2004, 03:43 AM
Actually, yeah. You can. Whether or not people agree with it is the problem.

I leave for a few weeks, come back, and everyone is going on about the Bible, and the different sects of what is dubbed Christianity, or whether god wills it or not, or whether homosexuals are born that way or not.

You know, I thought I cleared this all up. Perception that homosexuals are born that way does NOT justifiy it in any way, shape, or form. Why people think that, I don't know. Second, it is the church that weds someone in holy matrimony, thus the church has a say in it. If people can't remember what I've said, then I'll gladly post up the revised post.

I'm curious on your standpoint here. Are you against gays getting married (as in like churches, etc.), or are you against Civil Union of gays in general (I think you're the first, but just wanting to make sure)?

Alakazam
05-20-2004, 12:57 PM
Here's how I see it, in brief: Even though it is the church that performs marriages, it is the title and legal benefits that are desired. Remember, the courts also have the power to wed. Whether someone is born homosexual or its a choice; it doesn't matter. It's a simple civil rights issue. Period. Civil Unions ARE NOT the same as marriages because they have different names. If they were equal, than both would just be referred to as marriage. They have just as much right to wed as the rest of us, and I think it would be a horrible an unjust decision to deny them that.

Changing the definition of marriage? Allowing homosexuals to be married? Will it really affect anyone not planning on marrying someone of the same sex to the point where they are even slightly inconvenienced? I think not.

I also find it very fitting that the first day that same sex marriages were allowed in Massachusetts was on the 50th anniversary (to the day) to Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, where the supreme court ruled that 'seperate but equal' is a fallacy. Things are inherently inqual if they are seperate. It's the same exact thing today with civil unions and marriage.

Ironshell Blastoise
05-20-2004, 06:12 PM
You can't base a country's laws on religion. So, what God/Jehova thinks of gays is irrelevant.

If the majority of the government officials are backing a law based on a religion, it can happen, even though it isn't right. But government is never right. Its always corrupt.

And I don't see why heterosexuals make a big fuss about gays marrying. Why do they care what other people do when it doesn't affect them? The majority of the time, if it DOES affect them, its because they don't like it, and therefore it affects them. And I completely agree with Alakazam.

Lord Mullet
05-22-2004, 02:51 AM
Actually, yeah. You can. Whether or not people agree with it is the problem.

I leave for a few weeks, come back, and everyone is going on about the Bible, and the different sects of what is dubbed Christianity, or whether god wills it or not, or whether homosexuals are born that way or not.

You know, I thought I cleared this all up. Perception that homosexuals are born that way does NOT justifiy it in any way, shape, or form. Why people think that, I don't know. Second, it is the church that weds someone in holy matrimony, thus the church has a say in it. If people can't remember what I've said, then I'll gladly post up the revised post.

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

The state weds someone in legal matrimony. Whether or not it is holy should be completely up to the churches, but whether or not they get married...well, religous people tend to have a bias based on their holy texts. Of course, the definiton alsa says 'man and woman', but that's what we're discussing.

Crimson Spider
05-22-2004, 06:37 AM
And I don't see why heterosexuals make a big fuss about gays marrying. Why do they care what other people do when it doesn't affect them? The majority of the time, if it DOES affect them, its because they don't like it, and therefore it affects them. And I completely agree with Alakazam.
Dude... yes it does affect us. That's the thing.

The state weds someone in legal matrimony.In the church in a religious manner.
Whether or not it is holy should be completely up to the churches, but whether or not they get married...well, religous people tend to have a bias based on their holy texts.
The thing is that marriage came about from religion, has had it's base in religion, came to America in religion and for religion, and regardless if there was any legal benifits for it or not, the church would religiously marry people. Now, whether the church in that area desides to wed homosexuals does not mean that I or many other people would condone those actions.

Of course, the definiton alsa says 'man and woman', but that's what we're discussing.

So do you support the definition or not?


My stance on Civil Unions, I like what Kazam said about them. But there is something I do disagree with there.

You see, if your parents were to turn around and start making pornographic movies in your presance and the supreme court labeled it legal, would it affect you in any way? Heck yeah! Let's call it psychological traumization until I can find the actual word for it, but this is one of those things that has a powerful effect on people merely for existing. How do you think I'll like it when I am rediculed for my beliefs by the aethiest majority of Vegas, aptly named Sin City? Or how do you think I'll like conciously knowing that the very church that I support and possibly go to now is forced to do the opposite of what the Bible they read from says to do? In the American Civil war, did the North just say to every black man out there "Oh! It's not happening to you. You don't need to complain about that."?


Extreamism also holds ground. When homosexual marriages are legalized, then what justification does every other law out there have other than a mere preferance? Religion offers some things that aethiesm and agnosticism cannot: an absolute right or wrong, and a purpose for it.

akdude
05-22-2004, 05:01 PM
well my opinion is Christian based, I don't think that gay's should have the right to marry because the Bible says that a man shall not lay with another man. Marriage should be between a man and a woman. That's just my opinion.

I have to agree with JT on his one. EXCEPT! What people do is their business. No one can tell them what they can and caint do. So we should stay out of their business and move on. But that too is my opinion.

latiasluver2004
05-23-2004, 02:01 AM
I think that same-gender marriages should be allowed. I mean, you can't prevent a girl from loving another girl deeply, can you? Marriage is just a sign that they truly love each other, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Kenny_C.002
05-23-2004, 04:01 AM
I think that same-gender marriages should be allowed. I mean, you can't prevent a girl from loving another girl deeply, can you? Marriage is just a sign that they truly love each other, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Sorry for interupting, but this does not state whether you are for legalization of civil union between two homosexual couples or changing the religious definition of marriage. That is what we are debating about right now.

mlugia
06-02-2004, 12:18 AM
Pardon my question, but

I was under the impression that in USA alone, a lot of states forbid the civil union between same-sex couples? Forgive me if I'm wrong on this one.

As well, I'm also under the impression that Civil Unions don't grant the same level of social benefits such as tax breaks as legal marriages do. Again, pardon me if I'm wrong.

If statement 2 is true, then the problem isn't same-sex couples marrying each other, is it? Wouldn't it just solve everyone's problems to give those benefits to civil unions between same sex couples as well?

Kenny_C.002
06-02-2004, 02:42 AM
Pardon my question, but

I was under the impression that in USA alone, a lot of states forbid the civil union between same-sex couples? Forgive me if I'm wrong on this one.

As well, I'm also under the impression that Civil Unions don't grant the same level of social benefits such as tax breaks as legal marriages do. Again, pardon me if I'm wrong.

First question: I'm 100% sure that there are countries other than the US that forbid same-sex "marriages". One of which is China.

Second question: civil union SHOULD give the same benefits as regular marriages do, because it is technically the same thing legally. I'm not completely sure on the US policy for that.

mlugia
06-02-2004, 02:58 AM
I meant alone as in "Using US as an example, a lot of states forbid Civil Unions" (and I mean unions, not marriages.)

Kenny_C.002
06-02-2004, 03:02 AM
Sorry. I did mean civil unions (thus I had the quotations). But I do have to agree that IF there is no civil union to begin with, then the legal benefits and titles wouldn't exist, thus they should fight for that.

Steven
06-02-2004, 08:22 AM
I mean I think it should be called a civil union because marrige is the name for opposite sex marriges and civil unions is the name for homosexuals. I mean it's just the name, except that I thought god didn't approve of homosexuality (so much for god if he can't forgive people and sends them to hell for eternity, and is so narrow minded... I hate people like that aswell.) and so it's not really a marrige if god doesn't want it, it should be named something else so it's not the same. I also think homosexuals aren't different from normal people, just because they like the same sex doesn't mean they're weird. They are normal, and they can do the same things a straight person can do such as abuse babies, which is crap because homosexuals know what it's like to be hated and they are more accepting. It's just sad that there are such people that are afraid of homosexuals... It's like saying your afraid of bugs... They aren't going to hurt you, and most of the time you squash them with your shoe... how sad, It's just not right...

The Dark Lord
06-09-2004, 02:57 PM
hey, look, all this stuff about the bible and god saying its wrong to be gay or bisexual, well im bisexual(and I know it even though im only 12) and im christian, I think god would like it better for everyone to be happy, and didnt you think who wrote the bible eh, for all we know someone could of been homophobic and put all this rubbish about god saying "oh its wrong dont sleep with the same sex"
anyway he also supposadly said "do not sleep together until you are married", but lots of christians do it all the time.

Matt & Vulpix
06-09-2004, 07:12 PM
I havent read nearly enough of this thread, but here's what I say.

If the homosexuals can be happy marrying each other, then let them. Why? Because it makes them happy! They don't hurt us in any way by what they do, so what's to stop them? If they don't hurt anyone, it should be okay.

I don't see why everyone is so against it. I'm not, and I'm straight.

Kenny_C.002
06-13-2004, 03:12 PM
I think it's more about whether we should change the definition of marriage to accomidate homosexuals or not. I mean, the definition of marriage is bonding a man and a woman in the presence of a God. So should we, as a whole, decide that yes we can change the bible, scrolls, etc. to allow for homosexuals (like as part of the definition of marriage)?

Then there's the second topic here that says whether we should allow homosexuals, regardless of the previous topic, to have civil unions (aka the legislation version fo marriage, but does not change the meaning of marriage itself) and then give them the legal benefits like a married couple (and because it's a civil union, they are indeed legally married).

Inferno
06-14-2004, 12:58 AM
I feel like society has already changed the definition of "marriage" over time. I mean everything evolves, and so has our understanding of marriage. So, for us to actually confirm the fact that the word "marriage" has changed is a little redundant or pointless. I don't think many people look at it as the bond between a man and woman under god, but that may just be what I see.
But if two people are going to live as a normal married couple with love for one another, I think the benefits should be given to them, because they are living a life of "marriage" by todays' standards.

Joe Moma
06-16-2004, 09:14 PM
Do you think their gonna make it legal in other states?

Kenny_C.002
06-17-2004, 03:30 AM
Well there's something disturbing tho. I have a teacher that's going to get married, so she naturally looks at bridal magazines. One of the ads had this quotation:

"After all, there's marriage, and then there is commitment."

I mean, has marriage itself been changed so much that it has no more religious meaning?

Crimson Spider
06-25-2004, 09:39 PM
I'm back.

Actually, marriage does still have religious meaning. It's the people that ruin it. But still, Christians do get wed for religious reasons. Belief is a very powerful thing.

hey, look, all this stuff about the bible and god saying its wrong to be gay or bisexual, well im bisexual(and I know it even though im only 12) and im christian, I think god would like it better for everyone to be happy, and didnt you think who wrote the bible eh, for all we know someone could of been homophobic and put all this rubbish about god saying "oh its wrong dont sleep with the same sex"
Um... generally, the name of the book is the guy/woman who wrote it. You know how they are titled Peter, and Ruth? Regardless if you are a christian or not, bisexuality is still fornication (can't remember the blasted spelling).

anyway he also supposadly said "do not sleep together until you are married", but lots of christians do it all the time.And it's a sin to do so.

(so much for god if he can't forgive people and sends them to hell for eternity, and is so narrow minded... I hate people like that aswell.)
Someone doesn't know the mechanics of the Bible. It isn't your sins that send you to hell. Whether you are born again or not is what counts. If you are not born again, then you can't enter the kingdom of heaven.

Kan
07-09-2004, 06:54 AM
I think it's more about whether we should change the definition of marriage to accomidate homosexuals or not. I mean, the definition of marriage is bonding a man and a woman in the presence of a God. So should we, as a whole, decide that yes we can change the bible, scrolls, etc. to allow for homosexuals (like as part of the definition of marriage)?

Then there's the second topic here that says whether we should allow homosexuals, regardless of the previous topic, to have civil unions (aka the legislation version fo marriage, but does not change the meaning of marriage itself) and then give them the legal benefits like a married couple (and because it's a civil union, they are indeed legally married).

So, based on what you've just said, marriage should be banned for violating the separation of church and state, which means heterosexuals would have to get civil unions too. Do you think it'll ever happen? No, even tho it should. If heterosexual couples can violate the Constitution for happiness, why is it wrong for homosexuals to try to do it legally? :rolleyes:

Also, I'd like to point out something about homosexual marriage "destroying" the already screwball moral fabric of America. People argue that if we allow gay marriage, what's to stop polygamy? Animal marriage? Child marriage? Well, there's a major difference between the former 2 and the latter 2: they involve 2 or more consenting, human ADULTS. OF COURSE animal and child marriage won't, and shouldn't, be allowed; but if 2, or even 5 resposible adults want to spend their lives together, who should stop them? I think that everyone is missing that main point: that this is between 2 adults, not a 40 year old with a little boy and a goat.
:rolleyes:

JoshE
07-17-2004, 11:48 PM
well my opinion is Christian based, I don't think that gay's should have the right to marry because the Bible says that a man shall not lay with another man. Marriage should be between a man and a woman. That's just my opinion.


So, if the bible told you to hate black people you would obviously obey it, correct? Your talking with not a very open opinion.

art
07-18-2004, 12:16 AM
Well, this goes out to everyone saying gay people cannot marry. WHY NOT!? please, one valid reason. not like "Because it's in the bible" 'cause there's lots more in the bible that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Even if it were in the bible, the book is about 2000 years old give or take, back then they still used blacks as slaves. do ya think that's a good idea too?

I am pro-gay marriage.

Agent Orange
07-18-2004, 12:18 AM
I don't care. If Gays wanna get married, fine by me, just leave me out of it.

JoshE
07-18-2004, 12:58 AM
I don't care. If Gays wanna get married, fine by me, just leave me out of it.


Same opinion here. They should get equal rights.

Steven
07-18-2004, 01:14 AM
I thought america was started for religious freedom. If the bible says something, you don't have to listen. You have freedoms. That's what this country is about. Restricting people of the pursuit of happiness is against the law. There really isn't an argument there. I don't believe in christ because there's no proof. I have the freedom of speech, so you can't do anything about it. :silly: That's also why I'm against the whole "In God We Trust" Thing on money and stuff. It's also stupid. Great. I mean you trust in god. Who gives a rip. Why put it on money. Let's put it on our fore head. Cause newsflash, not everyone believes in god. so live with it. Live with the fact that you're going to hell in everyone else's religions. I mean as far as I'm concerned Greek Religion is the only possible right one, unless you can think of one that came before it. I mean that's just plain silly to come out later with a different god system. I mean it can't start some other way ... again or what ever... It's just weird. Whatever, I really could care less about stuff like this. I just don't like the contradiction. Freedom of Religion, but the christian bible says gay people can't be together. Very stupid indeed. :smile:

--Steven ::cracks up and chuckles at contradiction::

JoshE
07-20-2004, 11:18 PM
I thought there was also suppose to be a seperation between church and State. But Bush chooses to ignore that.

Chris
07-29-2004, 04:02 AM
I think it's more about whether we should change the definition of marriage to accomidate homosexuals or not. I mean, the definition of marriage is bonding a man and a woman in the presence of a God. So should we, as a whole, decide that yes we can change the bible, scrolls, etc. to allow for homosexuals (like as part of the definition of marriage)?

Then there's the second topic here that says whether we should allow homosexuals, regardless of the previous topic, to have civil unions (aka the legislation version fo marriage, but does not change the meaning of marriage itself) and then give them the legal benefits like a married couple (and because it's a civil union, they are indeed legally married).

It's all a battle of Past and Present. The past argument supports traditional values set by our founding fathers and the writers of the bible. The more modern view is that we need to accomodate for homosexuals by allowing them to be married. It also has political undertones as well, seeing that republicans typically prefer status quo (staying the same) and democrats typically welcome liberal, beneficial change. What I believe that there should be a compromise between the two viewpoints: Not granting the title of marriage outright, but rather creating something new. I think that homosexuals can function as a married couple just as adaquately as a traditional married couple, but there should be stipulations on a new kind of union. If gay marriage were to be allowed, for example, a man could marry his brother :paranoid: There are certain fiscal benefits to this that would be considered "cheating the system." My point: create something new, with restrictions.

Inferno
07-30-2004, 10:26 AM
How would a man be able to marry his brother? I thought there were other laws against that...
But do you care to elaborate on the "stipulations"? Because while I was reading your post, I thought you were going to bring up a new and innovative solution... but you lost me with the brothers joined in matrimony.

Chris
08-02-2004, 04:29 AM
How would a man be able to marry his brother? I thought there were other laws against that...
But do you care to elaborate on the "stipulations"? Because while I was reading your post, I thought you were going to bring up a new and innovative solution... but you lost me with the brothers joined in matrimony.

Well, one stipulation would be that you CAN'T marry siblings. :silenced:
Some kind of union would be granted, there would just be restrictions.

As far as marrying your brother or sister goes, marriage laws are typically determined by the state. It would depend upon which state you live in.

Inferno
08-02-2004, 03:24 PM
I believe that there should be a compromise between the two viewpoints: Not granting the title of marriage outright, but rather creating something new. I think that homosexuals can function as a married couple just as adaquately as a traditional married couple, but there should be stipulations on a new kind of union.

That's the statement I wanted you to elaborate on.
I don't think marrying your sibling is a massive problem in the US right now. I'm pretty sure that issue's been dealt with and allowing for a homosexual union would not change the idea of sibling-marriage (I almost said sible, like civil, but I figured that was too lame of a joke, IDK why I felt like telling that. lol.)
I forgot where I was, what was I asking?
Was your only point that if homosexuals were allowed to marry, siblings would want to marry also?

JoshE
08-02-2004, 11:57 PM
Aren't there laws that siblings can't marry. :eh:

Inferno
08-03-2004, 12:55 AM
I was thinking there were. Of course I've never had a reason to look into it that hard.

Chris
08-04-2004, 04:55 AM
That's the statement I wanted you to elaborate on.
I don't think marrying your sibling is a massive problem in the US right now. I'm pretty sure that issue's been dealt with and allowing for a homosexual union would not change the idea of sibling-marriage (I almost said sible, like civil, but I figured that was too lame of a joke, IDK why I felt like telling that. lol.)
I forgot where I was, what was I asking?
Was your only point that if homosexuals were allowed to marry, siblings would want to marry also?

:naughty: NO. I'm saying that would happen if gay marriage were just granted to everyone. People would abuse the law. Siblings wouldn't want to marry!! (Well I hope not)

Inferno
08-04-2004, 06:18 AM
Oh, ok. Thank you for clearing up what you said.
I really don't think siblings are able to marry. So even after homosexuals were granted marriage, sibling marriage would still be illegal. So I don't think that's a big concern.
If sibling marriage isn't illegal... well... that's gross(IMO). Sibling marriage has to be illegal, if it's not... oh well.

JoshE
08-13-2004, 08:00 PM
:naughty: NO. I'm saying that would happen if gay marriage were just granted to everyone. People would abuse the law. Siblings wouldn't want to marry!! (Well I hope not)

I really think there is a law about siblings marrying. There has never been a problem with that before. (sister and brother marrying) :tongue: