Same-sex Marriages

[Seven]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Many straight couples don't have kids. Besides, you can adopt and still provide a loving environment for a child.

[Tamer Marco]

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]

Why wouldn't it be?

[The End]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

NOt really, considering the fact that only one state lets them marr.y

[Seven]

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]

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]

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]

Maybe you feel this way because the bible makes you feel this way, maybe.

[Seven]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Actually, I can't say I have.

[Seven]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Actually, they can't do whatever they want, especially if the constitutional ban pulls through.

[Crimson Spider]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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])]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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])]

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]

)']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]

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]

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]

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]

I dont think there is anything wrong with it. They are still a couple and it is falt out discrimintation!

[Crimson Spider]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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])]

"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]

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])]

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]

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])]

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]

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]

(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]

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]

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]

(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]

Yay! California banned Same-Sex marriages!

[masaki]

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]

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]

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