7 States Ban Same-Sex Marriage. [Archive]

atszyman

Nov 8, 2006, 07:25 AM

marriage is a name, civil union is good enough, as long as you get full benefits, don't pay too much attention on the name for now, you know the time isn't on those old GOP's side,

You hit the nail on the head, sort of. The biggest problem I see with same sex marriage is that people cannot seem to get past the distinction between legal marriage and religious marriage.

There are a few of us on this board who have been advocating that the government get out of "marriage" altogether and instead give some legal name to the contract between adults which establishes guardianship/next of kin and leave the "marriage" title up to the churches to decide who they want to marry. If this were to happen I think you'd see the opposition to same sex unions drop to around 30% or less (probably a high correlation between that 30% and those who still support Bush).

riciad

Nov 8, 2006, 07:27 AM

Excuse my ignorance, but were all the states voting on this issue?

iGary

Nov 8, 2006, 07:29 AM

marriage is a name, civil union is good enough, as long as you get full benefits, don't pay too much attention on the name for now, you know the time isn't on those old GOP's side,

Hey - I'm fine with civil unions that grant all the benefits of married couples. I could care less if it's called marriage or not. I've been living with my partner for 7 years--longer than a large percentage of marriage last. Why can't I enjoy the same legal benefits?

I'm just disappointed (not surprised) that this country is filled with morons.

Dont Hurt Me

Nov 8, 2006, 07:33 AM

Excuse my ignorance, but were all the states voting on this issue?No, but they did try to amend the constitution for this and it failed so the republican states pushed for this. Though for me marriage has allways ment a man and woman I just dont understand someone who is gay then wonders why they cant marry. Marriage is a opposite sex union based around the procreation of our species sprinkled with religious ceremony and doogma and embraced by govt so it can then tax those new taxpayers when they become of age. I would be glad you cant marry.

iGary

Nov 8, 2006, 07:41 AM

Marriage is a opposite sex union based around the procreation of our species sprinkled with religious ceremony and doogma and embraced by govt so it can then tax those new taxpayers when they become of age. I would be glad you cant marry.

So your for discrimination then.

Why should one U.S. citizen be able to sign a piece of paper and get a package of benefits over another?

I don't think you, or most of the people in this country have a clue what Equal Protection under the law is.

Queso

Nov 8, 2006, 07:43 AM

No, but they did try to amend the constitution for this and it failed so the republican states pushed for this. Though for me marriage has allways ment a man and woman I just dont understand someone who is gay then wonders why they cant marry. Marriage is a opposite sex union based around the procreation of our species sprinkled with religious ceremony and doogma and embraced by govt so it can then tax those new taxpayers when they become of age. I would be glad you cant marry.
But there have been a huge number of rights wrapped up in marriage over the years by the state which gay people have no way of obtaining, such as the automatic transfer of a shared home in the event of one partner dying, automatic right-of-attorney when one partner is severely injured etc. Some way needs to be found in America to allow this bundle of rights and responsibilities to be granted to a same-sex couple should they wish to obtain them. Civil Unions seem to be the perfect way to deliver this whilst staying clear of the religious side of the argument.

Also, on your "I would be glad you can't marry" argument, that should be each person's choice to make. Nobody forces straight couples to marry, they do it if they choose to. That choice is denied gay couples.

iGary

Nov 8, 2006, 07:45 AM

Civil Unions seem to be the perfect way to deliver this whilst staying clear of the religious side of the argument.

Exactly.

clevin

Nov 8, 2006, 07:50 AM

Dallas County apparently goes dem too, we got a surprising upset for GOP Tobay Shook, and most county judges, one of the GOP loser for judge said she got ousted coz voter are "not educated", lol, its not like she is that "educated"

sushi

Nov 8, 2006, 08:03 AM

Why should one U.S. citizen be able to sign a piece of paper and get a package of benefits over another?

I don't think you, or most of the people in this country have a clue what Equal Protection under the law is.
I don't remember where I heard/read this, but it was described something like this if memory serves.

A regular marriage between a man and woman promotes family and children which are a building block of our nation if you will. The tax benefits and other incentives are there to encourage couples to marry and have children.

Personally, I don't think that it is any more complicated than that.

iGary, I understand your point about being with your partner for 7 years, which is very commendable considering many marriages don't last for that long.

However, I also understand the point of view that I tried to describe.

On a side note, as for the tax system, I wish we had a simple flat tax with no deductions whatsoever. If so, our tax rate would be low and still there would be plenty of funds to run the government. Plus it would be easy as can be to calculate your tax basis!

If we had something like this, then a couple union would be fine because it would deal with the passing of assets which seems very reasonable to me.

I hope that this makes sense as to what I am trying to say.

MrSmith

Nov 8, 2006, 08:07 AM

But there have been a huge number of rights wrapped up in marriage over the years by the state which gay people have no way of obtaining, such as the automatic transfer of a shared home in the event of one partner dying, automatic right-of-attorney when one partner is severely injured etc. Some way needs to be found in America to allow this bundle of rights and responsibilities to be granted to a same-sex couple should they wish to obtain them. Civil Unions seem to be the perfect way to deliver this whilst staying clear of the religious side of the argument.Hard to argue with that. But I also think if gay couples are able to claim these rights then any two close, same sex, people who are not in a sexual or even 'loving relationship' should be able to claim these rights, too. Any two people, if they can establish a relationship/history, should be able to. If recourse to the law is unavailable for certain groups then we still have discrimination.

Dont Hurt Me

Nov 8, 2006, 08:17 AM

Exactly.
And I agree, Civil unions does for the most part the same thing. Almost sounds better then marriage because its easy to marry and a royal pain in the a.. to go through Divorce. Plus why the heck a woman gets half of everything by signing a paper seems like a royal screw job for most men. Marriage and the legalitys that go with it dont seem that great if you ask me. For example I owned my own land before getting married, The day after getting married half of it was hers. Thats a little screwed I think.

MrSmith

Nov 8, 2006, 08:20 AM

And I agree, Civil unions does for the most part the same thing. Almost sounds better then marriage because its easy to marry and a royal pain in the a.. to go through Divorce. Plus why the heck a woman gets half of everything by signing a paper seems like a royal screw job for most men. Marriage and the legalitys that go with it dont seem that great if you ask me. For example I owned my own land before getting married, The day after getting married half of it was hers. Thats a little screwed I think.
I thought these were the kind of rights gay partners are seeking.

Abstract

Nov 8, 2006, 08:21 AM

...I just dont understand someone who is gay then wonders why they cant marry. Marriage is a opposite sex union based around the procreation of our species sprinkled with religious ceremony and dogma....

So your for discrimination then.

Why should one U.S. citizen be able to sign a piece of paper and get a package of benefits over another?

I don't think you, or most of the people in this country have a clue what Equal Protection under the law is.

I actually agree with Don't Hurt Me, and I don't think I'm for discrimination. Or maybe I should say, "I don't disagree with Don't Hurt Me." If the definition of marriage is "between a man and a woman", then leave it at that. Just find a new word for same sex marriages and give them the same/similar rights.

There are lots of things I simply don't fall into the definition of, and I think I can accept that as not being due to discrimination.

However, I think the definition of marriage should be a union of two people who love each other and want to remain together forever, but hey.....what do I know. :rolleyes:

gekko513

Nov 8, 2006, 08:30 AM

So do you think the man and woman couple should have to prove that they're fertile before they get the benefits? It's about much more than that. And besides, there are a lot of gay couples out there raising children.
I don't remember where I heard/read this, but it was described something like this if memory serves.

A regular marriage between a man and woman promotes family and children which are a building block of our nation if you will. The tax benefits and other incentives are there to encourage couples to marry and have children.

Personally, I don't think that it is any more complicated than that.

iGary, I understand your point about being with your partner for 7 years, which is very commendable considering many marriages don't last for that long.

However, I also understand the point of view that I tried to describe.

On a side note, as for the tax system, I wish we had a simple flat tax with no deductions whatsoever. If so, our tax rate would be low and still there would be plenty of funds to run the government. Plus it would be easy as can be to calculate your tax basis!

If we had something like this, then a couple union would be fine because it would deal with the passing of assets which seems very reasonable to me.

I hope that this makes sense as to what I am trying to say.

Queso

Nov 8, 2006, 08:30 AM

A regular marriage between a man and woman promotes family and children which are a building block of our nation if you will. The tax benefits and other incentives are there to encourage couples to marry and have children.
However, it has to be accepted that a lot of marriages these days are more about raising the children of previous relationships than having more. In which case, why should two women raising children within a relationship be treated differently to one man and one woman?

Hard to argue with that. But I also think if gay couples are able to claim these rights then any two close, same sex, people who are not in a sexual or even 'loving relationship' should be able to claim these rights, too. Any two people, if they can establish a relationship/history, should be able to. If recourse to the law is unavailable for certain groups then we still have discrimination.
When there is a long-term pooling of assets combined with emotional support, I don't see this as being a problem. Take the example of two sisters living in the same house for 20 years. By all sense and purpose, they are a domestic partnership. Why should the law discriminate against them simply because they don't share a bed?

And I agree, Civil unions does for the most part the same thing. Almost sounds better then marriage because its easy to marry and a royal pain in the a.. to go through Divorce. Plus why the heck a woman gets half of everything by signing a paper seems like a royal screw job for most men. Marriage and the legalitys that go with it dont seem that great if you ask me. For example I owned my own land before getting married, The day after getting married half of it was hers. Thats a little screwed I think.
It works both ways. A rich woman's assets are half-owned by her husband the moment the marriage is completed. The lesson to learn is not to enter lightly into marriage and to make sure you're in it for the long term. If you stay together, division of assets never becomes a problem.

atszyman

Nov 8, 2006, 08:38 AM

I don't remember where I heard/read this, but it was described something like this if memory serves.

A regular marriage between a man and woman promotes family and children which are a building block of our nation if you will. The tax benefits and other incentives are there to encourage couples to marry and have children.

Personally, I don't think that it is any more complicated than that.

This argument breaks down fairly quickly though.

Our society allows elderly couples to get married and assume the rights, yet they have no chance of having further offspring. Should fertility be a pre-requisite for marriage rights? What if a same sex couple wants to adopt? Can they marry then?

As I have stated before, all of the legal benefits of "marriage" should not, nor should they have ever been called "marriage." Marriage is a religious construct. The legal benefits provided to adults should be available to any two consenting adults under the same legal name. If we call it Civil Unions then every "married" couple is also in a Civil Union which covers the legal aspects, but not every Civil Union has to be a marriage. Marriage should be left to the churches to hash out.

As for the tax benefits I think it's completely backwards. I don't think tax breaks should be extended to couples who have kids. To the contrary, it almost makes more sense to me to extend tax hikes for each child (for the record I do have kids). It only makes sense to tax people with kids more. Couples without kids are going to have less of an interest in preserving the environment or keeping the country out of debt. As long as the environment doesn't fall apart or the debt isn't called in in their lifetime they won't care, however those of us with children are more likely to demand a cleaner environment and a sustainable, free country so that our children can have the best life we can give them. Since it's more likely couples with kids will place more demands on the government it is only fair that they should have to pay more taxes.

Queso

Nov 8, 2006, 08:47 AM

The legal benefits provided to adults should be available to any two consenting adults under the same legal name. If we call it Civil Unions then every "married" couple is also in a Civil Union which covers the legal aspects, but not every Civil Union has to be a marriage. Marriage should be left to the churches to hash out.
This is pretty much now how we have it in the UK. Gradually Civil Marriages between straight couples are being referred to as Civil Partnerships in official literature. A religious marriage involves the signing of a marriage certificate that immediately confers all the rights of the Civil Partnership. It's a nice compromise and seems to suit virtually everybody. There was a court case in the early days to try and force the Government to call the same-sex partnerships marriage, but there wasn't much support for it from within the gay communities.

bowens

Nov 8, 2006, 09:19 AM

This country is disgusting.

Then leave. I don't think you'll hurt anybody's feelings.

Queso

Nov 8, 2006, 09:32 AM

Then leave. I don't think you'll hurt anybody's feelings.
Oh dear, someone's in a bad mood today. Can't for the life of me think why :rolleyes:

iGary

Nov 8, 2006, 09:37 AM

Then leave. I don't think you'll hurt anybody's feelings.

I love this answer.

"Leave."

LOL

jelloshotsrule

Nov 8, 2006, 09:41 AM

Then leave. I don't think you'll hurt anybody's feelings.

you are the man!

the results of these amendments passing (in all the states they were up for vote besides AZ i think), to me, is more depressing than the positive of the republicans being booted from office. after all, the people of this country are still hate filled bigots, and they only voted out their hate filled bigot leaders because they are so pathetic... that doesn't 1. make the altnernatives (democrats) magically awesome, and 2. stop the people of this country from hating gays, and other minorities. great.

bowens

Nov 8, 2006, 09:52 AM

I love this answer.

"Leave."

LOL

I'm just saying that if you hate this country and the people in it so much, there is nobody stopping you from going somewhere you feel more comfortable.

freeny

Nov 8, 2006, 09:55 AM

New state motto?

Virginia is for (heterosexual) lovers (and it wouldn't hurt if they are both white)

Thats funny!:D lol

eva01

Nov 8, 2006, 10:18 AM

Why does it seem that for the most part, there is the north east, and california are somewhat the only two areas of the country that are somewhat reasonable to live in?

This is why i actually do like living in MA. Any other part of the country and I would have gotten the frack outa there right quick

and this country is beyond "disgusting" Gary

iGary

Nov 8, 2006, 10:24 AM

I'm just saying that if you hate this country and the people in it so much, there is nobody stopping you from going somewhere you feel more comfortable.

Because besides the people, I love it here.

I just don't like it when people say "leave."

Just because I don't like a lot of the policies and attitudes doesn't mean I can't speak negatively about other aspects.

People don't understand what they are voting for. Why would you vote against something like same-sex marriage? Because at the root of it they have a problem with it, which is disgusting. I don't like this, so let's deny these people rights.

The view points of a lot of people and the stupidity of most American citizens is disgusting.

Better? ;)

clevin

Nov 8, 2006, 10:29 AM

Then leave. I don't think you'll hurt anybody's feelings.

if you don't like dem controlled congress, you can leave too.

bowens

Nov 8, 2006, 10:41 AM

if you don't like dem controlled congress, you can leave too.

Did I say anything about that?

leekohler

Nov 8, 2006, 10:46 AM

Did I say anything about that?

No- but I'd be happy to show you where the door is. ;)

Bottom line- this type of discrimination is wrong. Hmm...maybe we should start a campaign to restrict adoption by Christians. They raise bigots, don't they? We should be able to vote to take their kids away too.

This doesn't sound so good now, does it, bowens?

clevin

Nov 8, 2006, 10:53 AM

Did I say anything about that?
did you read the "IF"?

freeny

Nov 8, 2006, 10:55 AM

I am against marriage between bigots.
And if you dont like it, leave.

Josh

Nov 8, 2006, 11:42 AM

Then leave. I don't think you'll hurt anybody's feelings.

Rather than making a point of your own, you've only strengthen the claim made by iGary.

This country is disgusting, and you've made that all the more clearer.

freeny

Nov 8, 2006, 12:25 PM

Rather than making a point of your own, you've only strengthen the claim made by iGary.

This country is disgusting, and you've made that all the more clearer.

well said.

SMM

Nov 8, 2006, 12:41 PM

So your for discrimination then.

Why should one U.S. citizen be able to sign a piece of paper and get a package of benefits over another?

I don't think you, or most of the people in this country have a clue what Equal Protection under the law is.

You are absolutely correct. I forget who said, "The freedom of a society must be measured from its' most discriminated group" (or words to that effect). I think no one is free as long as any group suffers from discrimination.

As a kid growing up, I hated 'Homo's'. What was interesting was, I did not actually know any. But, the view was they were predators out to get you. The only good thing was, they were easy to beat up. These were the general beliefs I grew up with in a relatively lillie-white, blue-collar neighborhood.

Many people fear what they do not understand. Fear often leads to mindless hatred. Hatred is one of the important social issues we have. It knows no boundaries and no one is immune from it. Allowing any group to be discerned as different, and not granting them equal civil liberties, propagates and justifies acts of hatred.

Americans cannot fathom why we are hated by the islamic jihad. They think it is incredibly unfair that others would commit acts of violence against us, the 'good guys'. Yet, they will also support policies which have similar results for members of their own society. They just do not get it. The final irony is, many of these people are part of a devout christian-based organization.

jelloshotsrule

Nov 8, 2006, 12:55 PM

"until the last lock breaks, none of us are free"

that's my tattoo whenever i get the money/balls/design

amateurmacfreak

Nov 8, 2006, 01:23 PM

I love this answer.

"Leave."

LOL

Yes. Maybe I'm a little giddy, but it made me giggle. But blahhh, Americans are still bigots, this is proof.

Um, anyone want to move to Canada (or France would work too if we wouldn't die of learning the language) and set up a little MR colony?

amateurmacfreak

Nov 8, 2006, 01:33 PM

Many people fear what they do not understand. Fear often leads to mindless hatred. Hatred is one of the important social issues we have. It knows no boundaries and no one is immune from it. Allowing any group to be discerned as different, and not granting them equal civil liberties, propagates and justifies acts of hatred.

I have a friend, totally ignorant, who's a republican because his parents are (I actually got him to admit that when I killed him in an argument, I could have been sweeter :o). I don't think he's ever known one gay or lesbian person in his life. He still thinks that gay people are out to molest little boys. It's so medeival. Really quite, quite, depressing. I mean, he's half-joking, but it's not funny. He's kind of a bigot. It makes me really, really sad for our nation.

People don't have any clue what discrimination is. That's for sure. And I think a part of it is individual rights too.

Honestly, who should give a s*** if a guy wants to marry a guy or a woman wants to marry a woman? I don't understand why people are so up in arms about it, especially when the bible, weighing Jesus's teaches against one or two little quotes from the old testament, I would go in favor of gay marriage. Do you think Jesus would want this hate, fear, and discrimination?

Counterfit

Nov 8, 2006, 01:43 PM

I was pretty dismayed when I saw how many had passed (81/19 in S.C. :(). At least AZ rejected it. Too bad the Domestic Partnership referendum didn't pass in CO...

iBlue

Nov 8, 2006, 01:58 PM

Plenty of fantastic points on the matter have already been outlined, I won't reiterate. America seems to be getting worse and worse on this mater, it's sickeningly unfair.

I'm just saying that if you hate this country and the people in it so much, there is nobody stopping you from going somewhere you feel more comfortable.

pffffffft... said like someone who knows jack about what it takes to actually emigrate. Believe me, I am sure if it were simple as that, a huge group of people would get up and leave.

<- From an american, living in England.

Thomas Veil

Nov 8, 2006, 02:20 PM

You know what? Don't expect the Democrats to take this up on a federal level. The people have apparently spoken, and while we progressives may see this (correctly) as ignorant and prejudicial, we have to acknowledge the fact that it's apparently what the people want.

The Democrats, having just won, are not going to screw themselves big-time by taking up what is obviously perceived by the country as a far-left position.

I think what the Democrats do need to do -- overall, not just on this issue -- is to start from the center, pass some things that are crowd-pleasers, and slowly start nudging the country back to the left. Their success last night is based largely on being not-Bush. They are still perceived by many as too far to the left. It'll take a while to gain the country's trust, show them that the Democrats can do things that are in their interest, before you can tackle controversial stuff like gay marriage.

Even then, I wouldn't expect them to approve anything more than civil unions. I don't see this backwards country being ready for gay marriage for a long, long time.

jelloshotsrule

Nov 8, 2006, 03:45 PM

MacNut

Nov 8, 2006, 05:26 PM

The question is how many Democrats voted no on the same sex marriage issue. Don't make this a right wing thing.

Heres my issue with it. What's to say that a man and a women who have been living with each other for many years that don't want to get married what's to stop them from claiming civil union.

AP_piano295

Nov 8, 2006, 05:27 PM

agreed. but civil unions are generally the ultimate goal. most gay people (that i've talked to) don't care what it's called, but want to get the legal rights that come with marriage/civil union... however, the civil unions of course have to be completely equal, not separate but equal.

also, i think that the success last night was about 99% based on being not bush. ;)

So what's your point? The repubs may not be Bush but Bush wouldnt have his power without them.

Voting on parties is one thing but seeing as the majority of repubs up for election/re-election are hard core bush fans it becomes party voting get the party out of power because these people have one mind. This is traditional of the Republican party they pick a leader and get behind him no matter what he says. This contributes to the partys huge success for the last decade+, democrats are often a more devided party.

So yes they lost their positions because they are part of Bush'es party but dont act like blame doesnt lay on their shoulders if they had stood aggainst Bush this may not have happened.

Queso

Nov 8, 2006, 05:58 PM

Heres my issue with it. What's to say that a man and a women who have been living with each other for many years that don't want to get married what's to stop them from claiming civil union.
The whole point of the civil union is that the couple are legally married but without calling it marriage. In the eyes of the state and the law, marriage and civil unions are totally equivalent. Therefore, if the straight couple in question want to enter into a civil union rather than get married, perhaps because they are both atheists, they can do. It's just that civil unions are also open to same-sex couples.

The important thing to remember is that a civil union is not something that is automatically granted just by moving in together. It needs a license (like a marriage), some form of witnessed ceremony (like a marriage), and is registered by the state (like a marriage). The couple choose whether they want to enter one or not.

Like a marriage.

pseudobrit

Nov 8, 2006, 06:27 PM

I'm just saying that if you hate this country and the people in it so much, there is nobody stopping you from going somewhere you feel more comfortable.

If you hate the Constitution and the equal civil rights contained therein, start your own ****ing country and leave my Constitution alone.

hulugu

Nov 8, 2006, 07:04 PM

I'm just saying that if you hate this country and the people in it so much, there is nobody stopping you from going somewhere you feel more comfortable.

Love it or leave it. Never heard that one before. :rolleyes:

iGary has a right, and even a duty, to disagree with his fellow citizens. He has a right to debate and argue and to be disillusioned when things don't go his way. He shouldn't be packed up and sent to Canada in some ideological cleansing, rather he (and people like him) should have a say in this country.
I'm disgusted that while the AZ bill failed, other states have used their state constitutions as a bludgeon to deny same-sex couples the same rights others around them have.
I have the right and the duty to disagree. And you need to accept that.

Or maybe it's time to pack your bags. ;)

jelloshotsrule

Nov 8, 2006, 08:14 PM

So what's your point? The repubs may not be Bush but Bush wouldnt have his power without them.

Voting on parties is one thing but seeing as the majority of repubs up for election/re-election are hard core bush fans it becomes party voting get the party out of power because these people have one mind. This is traditional of the Republican party they pick a leader and get behind him no matter what he says. This contributes to the partys huge success for the last decade+, democrats are often a more devided party.

So yes they lost their positions because they are part of Bush'es party but dont act like blame doesnt lay on their shoulders if they had stood aggainst Bush this may not have happened.

yes, i think you missed my point. i wasn't saying that bush's followers in congress/the republican party are good and should've been reelected. rather, i was saying that the only real reason the dems won was that they weren't bush cronies. or in some cases, didn't have scandals around them. i'm not saying they aren't better than the republicans, but i don't think they generally won because they put forward all these great ideas and a solid platform. so, it's time for the democrats to step up to the plate and deliver something better than "less worse". until that happens i'll remain cautiously optimistic.

hulugu

Nov 8, 2006, 10:13 PM

yes, i think you missed my point. i wasn't saying that bush's followers in congress/the republican party are good and should've been reelected. rather, i was saying that the only real reason the dems won was that they weren't bush cronies. or in some cases, didn't have scandals around them. i'm not saying they aren't better than the republicans, but i don't think they generally won because they put forward all these great ideas and a solid platform. so, it's time for the democrats to step up to the plate and deliver something better than "less worse". until that happens i'll remain cautiously optimistic.

I have to agree with you, the Dems have a chance to lead this country and now it's time to do their jobs.

joepunk

Nov 8, 2006, 11:06 PM

To those who voted in favor of the ban…

**********!

© the show with ze frank

leekohler

Nov 9, 2006, 01:36 AM

Let me submit this: I think the gay marriage debate has just taken a back seat in politics. It was something that Rove started to motivate the Republican base. I think we'll be hearing a lot less about gay marriage and the religious right real soon.

yg17

Nov 9, 2006, 01:44 AM

7 states no longer deserve to be in the union.

solvs

Nov 9, 2006, 04:28 AM

Um, anyone want to move to Canada (or France would work too if we wouldn't die of learning the language)
You should come to CA. It's not so bad here if you don't mind the traffic and the fact that everything is way too expensive. Oh, and Arnold.

Edit: Er, not that I'm going all Mark Foley on you. :o

Then leave. I don't think you'll hurt anybody's feelings.
That's not how it works here. If you don't like something, you strive to change it. To make things better for everybody. He wants rights others have, people want to take away those rights because of what they believe, even though it has nothing to do with them. Not the way things are supposed to work here.

Well it's very simple really. Gay marriage is going to happen, there's nothing they can do about that. It will happen. But they want to fight it as much as they can. To pretend they're ok with taking rights away from others because they believe something by saying not to call it marriage (nevermind that some religions don't have a problem with homosexuality, nor infertile and elderly marriages). You could do civil unions, but before you know it, us gosh darn straight people will be using the term. We'll pretend it's a protest, but that won't be it. So we'll just call you guys Butt Buddies. How about that? Butt Buddies? Then everybody's happy. (sorry, lame south park reference)

As for lesbians, yes please.

wmmk

Nov 9, 2006, 06:16 PM

I am against marriage between bigots.
And if you dont like it, leave.
http://static.flickr.com/1/2186506_fda45f5b29_m.jpg;)

KingYaba

Nov 11, 2006, 02:41 PM

Full faith and credit clause.

When will a married couple move from MA to TX? And challenge the marriage amendment.

obeygiant

Nov 11, 2006, 07:57 PM

Those poor gay people. They just can't catch a break can they?

ChrisWB

Nov 11, 2006, 08:29 PM

Those poor gay people. They just can't catch a break can they?
No. They're currently America's favorite minority to discriminate against. :(

Next week it'll be Latinos again.

Queso

Nov 12, 2006, 05:27 AM

Those poor gay people. They just can't catch a break can they?
Yeah. Gays should count themselves lucky they're not white, male and straight. Those guys are really repressed.

solvs

Nov 12, 2006, 06:18 AM

Those poor gay people. They just can't catch a break can they?

It's only a matter of time. Most of us don't really care what they do, so when they get all their rights, we won't be affected. Luckily for them, thanks to the failed policies and hypocrisies of those who are against them, that day may be here sooner than you'd think.

Even though I'm not a suppressed minority, for some reason I can sympathize. There but for the grace of God/first they came for the Jews thing. Just funny that way.

Yeah. Gays should count themselves lucky they're not white, male and straight. Those guys are really repressed.
I think you meant suppressed.

But then again, maybe not. :cough: Ted Haggard :cough:

Queso

Nov 12, 2006, 07:28 AM

I think you meant suppressed.

But then again, maybe not. :cough: Ted Haggard :cough:
i was wondering whether anyone would pick up on that :D

srf4real

Nov 12, 2006, 07:35 AM

What's the big deal with same sex marriages? Anybody who's ever been married knows it's always the same sex...

-not originally my quote, but appropriate humor, I'd say.

What this country needs is more hypocrites.:rolleyes:

srf4real

Nov 12, 2006, 07:39 AM

Yeah. Gays should count themselves lucky they're not white, male and straight. Those guys are really repressed.

Um, I think you mean oppressed. Only thing harder than being a straight white male in this country is adding 'Christian' to that list. Then everybody wants a lynching!

sushi

Nov 12, 2006, 07:40 AM

What's the big deal with same sex marriages? Anybody who's ever been married knows it's always the same sex...
LOL. So true! ;)

The trick is to keep it interesting. :D

Caitlyn

Nov 12, 2006, 10:22 AM

This country is disgusting.

I completely agree.

skunk

Nov 12, 2006, 10:32 AM

Um, I think you mean oppressed. Only thing harder than being a straight white male in this country is adding 'Christian' to that list. Then everybody wants a lynching!I think you'll find that historically it was almost exclusively "straight" Christian white males who indulged in lynching.

srf4real

Nov 12, 2006, 12:37 PM

I think you'll find that historically it was almost exclusively "straight" Christian white males who indulged in lynching.
yep. guess you didn't catch the sarcasm there. I'm not nearly as self-righteous as I'm percieved to be... I love everbody, just wish the feelings were mutual.

Fearless Leader

Nov 15, 2006, 02:09 AM

Yah this country is going down hill fast. I agree with that this is discrimination, I think the government should only issue civil unions and if you wanna call it marriage go for it.

bursty

Nov 19, 2006, 12:37 AM

To those who voted in favor of the ban…

**********!

Hmm, guess I'm an a**hole....nice. :rolleyes:

hulugu

Nov 19, 2006, 12:40 AM

Hmm, guess I'm an a**hole....nice. :rolleyes:

So, why did you vote in favor of such a ban?

bursty

Nov 19, 2006, 12:51 AM

So, why did you vote in favor of such a ban?

I don't believe that same-sex marriage is morally right. It's how I was brought up and it's what I believe.

hulugu

Nov 19, 2006, 12:58 AM

I don't believe that same-sex marriage is morally right. It's how I was brought up and it's what I believe.

Why?

Was everything you were told as you grew up true?

And, should your own personal religious belief extend to everyone in your state or the country? Should everyone subscribe to the same belief structure, and if they don't should they be denied their civil rights?

For instance, Catholics are not supposed to eat meat on Fridays, should steakhouses be closed on Fridays?

bursty

Nov 19, 2006, 01:02 AM

Why?

Was everything you were told as you grew up true?

And, should your own personal religious belief extend to everyone in your state or the country? Should everyone subscribe to the same belief structure, and if they don't should they be denied their civil rights?

For instance, Catholics are not supposed to eat meat on Fridays, should steakhouses be closed on Fridays?

There are a lot of issues that would seem rediculous to force onto the entire nation, such as the example you gave. Then, there are those that seem necessary. To me, this is a necessary one.

pseudobrit

Nov 19, 2006, 01:06 AM

There are a lot of issues that would seem rediculous to force onto the entire nation, such as the example you gave. Then, there are those that seem necessary. To me, this is a necessary one.

Why? What harm is done to society by granting homosexuals equal rights?

bursty

Nov 19, 2006, 01:12 AM

Why? What harm is done to society by granting homosexuals equal rights?

Just because it's not harming society, doesn't make it right. If I said I wanted to marry my sister and be treated like a normal married husband and wife, would you grant us those rights? Of course not. Incest is wrong, but homosexuality is fine? Where do you draw the line? I draw the line at gay marriage. It's not harming society, but it's still wrong.

And with that, I'm bowing out of this thread. I'm not going to change your mind and you won't change mind. :)

pseudobrit

Nov 19, 2006, 01:20 AM

Just because it's not harming society, doesn't make it right. If I said I wanted to marry my sister and be treated like a normal married husband and wife, would you grant us those rights? Of course not. Incest is wrong, but homosexuality is fine? Where do you draw the line? I draw the line at gay marriage. It's not harming society, but it's still wrong.

And with that, I'm bowing out of this thread. I'm not going to change your mind and you won't change mind. :)

What a cowardly little piece of trolling then.

Do us all a favour next time you feel inclined to spout off your hateful point of view without having the decency to follow forum rules and keep your bigotry to yourself.

bursty

Nov 19, 2006, 01:25 AM

What a cowardly little piece of trolling then.

What good would it do to argue? :confused:

pseudobrit

Nov 19, 2006, 01:29 AM

What good would it do to argue? :confused:

Then why the **** did you open your mouth to begin with?

bursty

Nov 19, 2006, 01:35 AM

Then why the **** did you open your mouth to begin with?

If I called you an a**hole, would you pass on like nothing happened without saying a word?

I voiced my opinion, but arguing something like this is kinda pointless to an extent.

pseudobrit

Nov 19, 2006, 01:39 AM

If I called you an a**hole, would you pass on like nothing happened without saying a word?

If I wasn't going to stick around to defend my viewpoint, then yes. I'd just keep it to myself.

You didn't get called anything personally. The poster who made that comment simply gave the benefit of the doubt that the readership here at MR would not be so uncivilised and bigoted as to vote for something so hateful and disgusting (and ultimately unconstitutional).

bursty

Nov 19, 2006, 01:49 AM

If I wasn't going to stick around to defend my viewpoint, then yes. I'd just keep it to myself.

You didn't get called anything personally. The poster who made that comment simply gave the benefit of the doubt that the readership here at MR would not be so uncivilised and bigoted as to vote for something so hateful and disgusting (and ultimately unconstitutional).

Wow....that's quite an ignorant statement. OK, I'll leave so everyone can go back to making civilised, non-bigoted statements. :rolleyes:

hulugu

Nov 19, 2006, 04:03 AM

Wow....that's quite an ignorant statement. OK, I'll leave so everyone can go back to making civilised, non-bigoted statements. :rolleyes:

Slow down. I'd like to talk to you about this because there are a lot of Americans who feel this way and I want to know why. I may even try to convince you otherwise, but isn't that the point of debate?

I'd like you to stay because I'd like to ask you questions and maybe guide the conversation in a Socratic method. Stay, defend your opinion.

skunk

Nov 19, 2006, 05:46 AM

You didn't get called anything personally. The poster who made that comment simply gave the benefit of the doubt that the readership here at MR would not be so uncivilised and bigoted as to vote for something so hateful and disgusting (and ultimately unconstitutional).However much you disagree, pseudo, you're not going to win any hearts and minds with this approach. :rolleyes:

Queso

Nov 19, 2006, 06:58 AM

In Saudi Arabia, it's moral and right for the people to stone an adulterous woman to death. It's the way they've been brought up.

To my eyes, it's state-sanctioned murder.

So bursty, who would you say is right?

aquajet

Nov 19, 2006, 09:37 AM

It always seems to boil down to the same few things:

1. Corruption of the meaning of the Constitution
2. Use of fallacious arguments
3. And of course the inevitable "I'm bowing out..."

pseudobrit

Nov 19, 2006, 10:24 AM

However much you disagree, pseudo, you're not going to win any hearts and minds with this approach. :rolleyes:

What's the purpose of coddling someone who admits they're just doing a drive-by? I'm sick of seeing this pattern.

aquajet

Nov 19, 2006, 12:18 PM

However much you disagree, pseudo, you're not going to win any hearts and minds with this approach. :rolleyes:

I don't believe anybody's heart or mind is going to change on this issue.

gekko513

Nov 19, 2006, 07:01 PM

I don't believe anybody's heart or mind is going to change on this issue.

They don't over night, but they can over time. Believe me, it's true. Public opinion on gay issues and rights has changed dramatically over the last 20 years in Norway.

hulugu

Nov 19, 2006, 08:41 PM

I don't believe anybody's heart or mind is going to change on this issue.

I think a good argument can dent the armor so to speak, people are changing their viewpoint on this issue and I think it's only a moment of time before the tide shifts.

I wish bursty had stayed to discuss his opinion rather than backing out so quickly.

Oh well, c'est la vie.

leekohler

Nov 19, 2006, 08:54 PM

I think a good argument can dent the armor so to speak, people are changing their viewpoint on this issue and I think it's only a moment of time before the tide shifts.

I wish bursty had stayed to discuss his opinion rather than backing out so quickly.

Oh well, c'est la vie.

People like bursty will never stick around to defend their opinions because their books and "what momma taught" them is always right, no questions asked. People like this don't ask questions, display a lack of curiosity, and generally only care about what goes on in their small, little worlds. Anything that challenges their beliefs is just wrong, wrong, wrong. :rolleyes:

Besides that, they have no rational explanations for what they believe. THAT is why they run, that is why they are afraid, and that is why they hate us.

solvs

Nov 20, 2006, 02:53 AM

I don't believe that same-sex marriage is morally right.
Then don't get gay married. :rolleyes: It's none of your business if someone else wants to. Believe whatever you want, but I wouldn't want you in my bedroom, and I'm guessing gay people fell the same way. We don't get involved in your life, or force our religious beliefs on you.

BTW, nice of you to equate incest with homosexuality. If you can't tell the difference between the 2 (or pedophilia, or bestiality) there's not much we can tell you. That was pretty disgusting though, kinda surprised more people didn't pick up on it.

MacsomJRR

Nov 20, 2006, 03:28 AM

Wait, gays can't get married?

solvs

Nov 20, 2006, 03:53 AM

Wait, gays can't get married?

Not in those 7 states. And some others that haven't made it illegal, but haven't made it legal yet either. Unless you were being sarcastic, in which case I don't get it.

Queso

Nov 20, 2006, 04:44 AM

Wait, gays can't get married?
In lots of countries they can, just not in cultural backwaters like Zimbabwe, Jamaica and the USA. :p

hulugu

Nov 20, 2006, 01:43 PM

Then don't get gay married. :rolleyes: It's none of your business if someone else wants to. Believe whatever you want, but I wouldn't want you in my bedroom, and I'm guessing gay people fell the same way. We don't get involved in your life, or force our religious beliefs on you.

BTW, nice of you to equate incest with homosexuality. If you can't tell the difference between the 2 (or pedophilia, or bestiality) there's not much we can tell you. That was pretty disgusting though, kinda surprised more people didn't pick up on it.

I'd picked up on the incest thing, but I wanted to start with beliefs and then work towards getting him to acknowledge that gays weren't in the same catagory as bestality, incest, and pedophilia.

pseudobrit

Nov 20, 2006, 10:30 PM

BTW, nice of you to equate incest with homosexuality. If you can't tell the difference between the 2 (or pedophilia, or bestiality) there's not much we can tell you. That was pretty disgusting though, kinda surprised more people didn't pick up on it.

I did, but in the same post he admitted he was just doing a drive-by. What's the point of arguing with trolling? Just call them out for being cowards and let them run away.

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 08:55 AM

So, now it's uncivilized and culturally backwards to have something against homosexuality? really? :rolleyes:

Queso

Nov 24, 2006, 08:57 AM

So, now it's uncivilized and culturally backwards to have something against homosexuality? really? :rolleyes:
Can you really not see why? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 09:03 AM

Can you really not see why? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
No actually, I can't.

Queso

Nov 24, 2006, 09:12 AM

No actually, I can't.
Personal feelings are one thing. State sanctioned bigotry another. Any state that deliberately goes out of its way to either criminalise or publicly discriminate against a group of its own citizens just because one private aspect of their lives is different to the majority can't be described as civilised nor culturally advanced.

You are entitled to whatever personal feelings you wish about homosexuality, but you are not entitled to legislate your personal insecurities about strangers' bedroom activities into a tax and/or legal disadvantage. Just because you don't like the guy next door, it doesn't mean he's not a human being and you have no place denying him rights.

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 09:36 AM

apachie2k

Nov 24, 2006, 09:43 AM

i keep getting this picture in my head, it's like in the movie the hills have eyes, where those deformed (usa) people impose w.e. they want to do to that family (citizens)... it was scurry... anyways some compare homosexuality with incest and beastily and pedophilia's and all that. The line is drawn when someone is bieng taken advantage of. Now, for the homophobics, they might say homo's are "not of sound mind" or some b.s. Fact of the matter is, if both parties consent (and are at the age to do so) than i have no problem with any of the above mentioned "topics du jour". Because it's happened before, it's happening now, and it probobly will always happen unless there are no more people. So what is to be gained... don't impose crap on people, the "god" you believe in doesn't so why should you?? You live your life and let others live theirs...

in other news : yay 4 jesus cuz he loves everyone hahaahhaa

Queso

Nov 24, 2006, 09:48 AM

Well, most (if not all) states and nations criminalize or publicly discriminate against pedophilic and incestuous citizens for one private aspect of their lives. Why? Because the vast majority of people think it's uncivilized and disgusting to be pedophilic and incestuous. I can't see why homosexuality should be treated any differently.
So you can't see any difference between two constentual adults in a loving relationship and an act of sexual abuse on minors? And you can't see any difference in the effects a gay partnership has on all involved from the effects of abuse or an incestuous relationship?

That thinking is most definitely backwards. You are basically saying that gay behaviour is wrong because historically it's been lumped together with incest and sexual abuse, even though it is neither.

You just lost the argument, whether or not you realise it yet.

gekko513

Nov 24, 2006, 09:49 AM

Because homosexuality is love between two consenting adults, while pedophilia is between an adult and a child that has no desire to be in the situation. Homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone, but pedophilia traumatises the child.

That's your explanation. It's a fundamental difference between the two, and I'm shocked when people try to compare them to each other. You're not the only one who failes to see this at first, though, so I guess I shouldn't flame you as hard as I want to. Incest is a bit more complicated, but if a child is involved it's the same as for pedophilia.

Well, most (if not all) states and nations criminalize or publicly discriminate against pedophilic and incestuous citizens for one private aspect of their lives. Why? Because the vast majority of people think it's uncivilized and disgusting to be pedophilic and incestuous. I can't see why homosexuality should be treated any differently.

(I'm not trying to be a troll here. I'm genuinely interested in discussing this issue.)

mpw

Nov 24, 2006, 09:51 AM

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 09:55 AM

The line is drawn when someone is bieng taken advantage of.
In case of incest, the couple might want each other and no one is taken advantage of. Does that make it right?

gekko513

Nov 24, 2006, 10:06 AM

In case of incest, the couple might want each other and no one is taken advantage of. Does that make it right?

That is a better question, but I'd like to know why previously compared homosexuality to pedophilia and now you ignore the replies you got about that. I just hope you had some minor revelation, and it'll sink in after a while.

Incest between siblings isn't a good thing biologically speaking, if it's a man and a woman and they have children together, or so they say. Aside from that, it is an interesting philosophical question whether a love affair between siblings is "wrong".

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 10:12 AM

That thinking is most definitely backwards. You are basically saying that gay behaviour is wrong because historically it's been lumped together with incest and sexual abuse, even though it is neither.
Thank you for calling my thinking backwards, I appreciate that.

True, I can't put pedophilia and homosexuality in the same level. Pedophilia is most definitely worse than homosexuality (in my opinion, of course). But you still fail to explain why homosexuality is any better than incest between two adult siblings who love each other. Why is should gay couples given rights and incestuous are committing a horrible crime and therefor should be punished?

Queso

Nov 24, 2006, 10:14 AM

In case of incest, the couple might want each other and no one is taken advantage of. Does that make it right?
That is another question entirely, but the vast majority of incestuous behaviour does not fall into this category. However, the possibility of offspring being produced with the associated health effects on the child would still put a big negative question mark over whether this should ever be officially legalised.

There is also the point that in this case, you are talking about one particular person being the object of attraction. The male of the relationship is attracted to women, but has fixated on a close female relative, and vice versa. It isn't the same thing as for a man to only be attracted to men, or a woman to only be attracted to women.

So I would say heterosexual incest is no better or worse than homosexual incest, but that's the only thing it can be directly compared to.

Thank you for calling my thinking backwards, I appreciate that.
It is backwards because you are using a historically flawed link between three types of behaviour to justify your position.

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 10:35 AM

That is another question entirely, but the vast majority of incestuous behaviour does not fall into this category. However, the possibility of offspring being produced with the associated health effects on the child would still put a big negative question mark over whether this should ever be officially legalised.
No, it's not another question. Homosexuality and incest are both, dare I say, controversial sexual relationships. But incest is a bit more complicated, some kinds of incest are completely unacceptable in almost all cultures, and other kinds are perfectly normal in other cultures. As gekko513 said, if there's a child involved in an incestuous relationship, it turns into pedophilia. If a brother and sister get involved sexually, it's also completely unacceptable and outlawed in most cultures. But if 2 cousins get married, it's perfectly acceptable in many cultures, but still outlawed in some states in the US.

You're citing health concerns in incest offsprings as why it should be outlawed. But what about the psychological concerns of the children raised by gay couples?

It is backwards because you are using a historically flawed link between three types of behaviour to justify your position.
It's not a "historically" flawed link just because gay activists say so.

gekko513

Nov 24, 2006, 10:37 AM

True, I can't put pedophilia and homosexuality in the same level. Pedophilia is most definitely worse than homosexuality (in my opinion, of course). But you still fail to explain why homosexuality is any better than incest between two adult siblings who love each other. Why is should gay couples given rights and incestuous are committing a horrible crime and therefor should be punished?

Homosexuality and incest between siblings are different in a number of ways, one is that there is no such thing as siblingphilia, a person that exclusively can fall in love and be sexually attracted to his or her siblings.

But the most important thing is that it's not up to us to explain why homosexuality is better than incest. It's up to you to explain why homosexuality is wrong. It isn't enough to say that incest is wrong or that pedophelia is wrong, because those are terms that have different definitions. You have to explain why homosexuality in itself is wrong.

Queso

Nov 24, 2006, 10:49 AM

You're citing health concerns in incest offsprings as why it should be outlawed. But what about the psychological concerns of the children raised by gay couples?
What about the psychological concerns of the children raised by a single parent? Or parents who get divorced? There are so many situations that can psychologically hurt a child that singling out gay parenting for criticism on this front really is tunnel-vision. All the research shows that the important thing for a child is to grow up in a stable family environment. Whether the parents are gay or straight isn't important as long as both parents are there.

I also think you've singled-out one point in my post there. As I've replied consentual adult-adult incest is an extremely rare situation that effects virtually nobody, unlke gay relationships that run into millions in the USA alone. However, if the siblings do share their lives together with the resulting pooling of assets and supporting each other emotionally, then perhaps society should look at some form of recognition for that relationship at some point, even for situations where there is no sex involved. Why should only heterosexual married couples get automatic rights that are denied to other domestic relationships?

It's not a "historically" flawed link just because gay activists say so.
Have you actually read the responses to your post above? There's plenty of reasoning why the link is flawed right there.

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 10:51 AM

But the most important thing is that it's not up to us to explain why homosexuality is better than incest. It's up to you to explain why homosexuality is wrong. It isn't enough to say that incest is wrong or that pedophelia is wrong, because those are terms that have different definitions. You have to explain why homosexuality in itself is wrong.
But since gay people are calling for their rights, it's up to them to explain why is homosexuality "right", because "normally" a man is attracted to a woman and a woman is attracted to a man.

Ugg

Nov 24, 2006, 10:55 AM

No, it's not another question. Homosexuality and incest are both, dare I say, controversial sexual relationships.

You're citing health concerns in incest offsprings as why it should be outlawed. But what about the psychological concerns of the children raised by gay couples?

There are a lot of controversial sexual relationships out there, why focus on just 3?

What about the psychological concerns of the children raised by single mothers, or those who force them to conform to some fundamentalist religious standard that is outside most social norms? Two parent families are infinitely better than single parent families according to a lot of the research I've read. So far there's absolutely no problems associated with children who've grown up with same sex parents. Unless you consider a lack of bigotry to be a problem.

iGary

Nov 24, 2006, 10:58 AM

But since gay people are calling for their rights, it's up to them to explain why is homosexuality "right", because "normally" a man is attracted to a woman and a woman is attracted to a man.

And it's also normal for heterosexuals to engage in bondage, anal sex, and a host of other things I can't mention here.

But that's "Normal" because they're straight, right?

mpw

Nov 24, 2006, 11:02 AM

But since gay people are calling for their rights, it's up to them to explain why is homosexuality "right", because "normally" a man is attracted to a woman and a woman is attracted to a man.
I'm not homosexual; I'm just calling for all adults to have the same rights and for governments to only legislate against practices that are wrong. By wrong I mean where a party, either directly involved in the practice or a 3rd party is innocently and adversely effected by that practice.

Therefore any two, or more, consenting adults should be able to do with themselves pretty much what they want. The child adversely affected in a relationship with a pedophile is protected by law/society and the offspring of an incestuous relationship are protected from any possible health issues if there are any. I think there is also the issue of how incestuous relationships are formed being a very grey area.

skunk

Nov 24, 2006, 11:02 AM

Queso

Nov 24, 2006, 11:03 AM

But since gay people are calling for their rights, it's up to them to explain why is homosexuality "right", because "normally" a man is attracted to a woman and a woman is attracted to a man.
Cop out answer. We're already doing that, which is why more and more countries are giving us the partnership rights we're calling for. The trend is in our favour. Tell me why you think all those countries are mistaken?

gekko513

Nov 24, 2006, 11:05 AM

But since gay people are calling for their rights, it's up to them to explain why is homosexuality "right", because "normally" a man is attracted to a woman and a woman is attracted to a man.
No it's not. There are some people who call for us not to have rights, as I see it. They're the ones who have to explain why we shouldn't have the same rights as other couples.

If you need me to explain why homosexuality is better than incest between adult siblings, then I can ask you to explain why non-incestous heterosexuality is better than incest between adult siblings.

I can think of one explanation. Non-incestous heterosexuality is what in general leads to biologically healthy children. If that is the only explanation, it should either make us accept a marriage between an infertile brother and sister couple, or make us not accept marriage between infertile men and women.

If you can think of more explanations, then those explanations will also explain why homosexuality is "better" than incest between adult siblings.

Ugg

Nov 24, 2006, 11:53 AM

But since gay people are calling for their rights, it's up to them to explain why is homosexuality "right", because "normally" a man is attracted to a woman and a woman is attracted to a man.

Was it up to the slaves to provide a reason that slavery was bad? Ultimately it was men that "gave" women the right to vote, etc, etc. Much of the rest of the world has stopped discriminating against gays. There comes a time when Americans need to realize their behaviour is out of step with cultural reality. It's not far off and you know what, it's not going to have any negative impact on your life whatsoever.

skunk

Nov 24, 2006, 11:55 AM

However, you might find your picket fence is not as straight as you thought.

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 12:57 PM

And it's also normal for heterosexuals to engage in bondage, anal sex, and a host of other things I can't mention here.

But that's "Normal" because they're straight, right?
I can't see the point you're trying to make. :o

What the hell is "normal"? It's not normal for a gay man to be sexually attracted to a woman.
Well, you're assuming that being gay is normal in the first place.

There are a lot of controversial sexual relationships out there, why focus on just 3?

What about the psychological concerns of the children raised by single mothers, or those who force them to conform to some fundamentalist religious standard that is outside most social norms? Two parent families are infinitely better than single parent families according to a lot of the research I've read. So far there's absolutely no problems associated with children who've grown up with same sex parents.
Research: A common "buzz" word used to strengthen or weaken an argument. synonym: a study.

With that said, I do agree that two parent families are definitely better than single parent families. I also agree that there are many psychological concerns in cases where the child has only one parent, or divorced parents. But that doesn't subdue the psychological concerns of children who are raised by gay parents, no one can claim such a concern doesn't exist. Since I think that we can all agree that, normally, a child has two parents of opposite sexes.

Unless you consider a lack of bigotry to be a problem.
No comment...

Cop out answer. We're already doing that, which is why more and more countries are giving us the partnership rights we're calling for. The trend is in our favour. Tell me why you think all those countries are mistaken?
The trend is in your favor? really? Then why is more than half of the world still prohibiting same-sex unions? You're assuming that giving gay rights is the right thing to do, and those who don't are backwards uncivilized bigots.

(off topic: gotta love multi-quote! :p )

Blue Velvet

Nov 24, 2006, 01:04 PM

Well, you're assuming that being gay is normal in the first place.

Of course it's normal. It occurs in many species (well-documented fact) and probably has a higher prevalence in humans than being left-handed.

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 01:08 PM

No it's not. There are some people who call for us not to have rights, as I see it. They're the ones who have to explain why we shouldn't have the same rights as other couples.

If you need me to explain why homosexuality is better than incest between adult siblings, then I can ask you to explain why non-incestous heterosexuality is better than incest between adult siblings.

I can think of one explanation. Non-incestous heterosexuality is what in general leads to biologically healthy children. If that is the only explanation, it should either make us accept a marriage between an infertile brother and sister couple, or make us not accept marriage between infertile men and women.

If you can think of more explanations, then those explanations will also explain why homosexuality is "better" than incest between adult siblings.
It's just related to culture. Incest is mainly unacceptable because many cultures can't accept it. Same with homosexuality.

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 01:10 PM

Of course it's normal. It occurs in many species (well-documented fact) and probably has a higher prevalence in humans than being left-handed.
Where does it say that? Let me guess, a study.

Research: A common "buzz" word used to strengthen or weaken an argument. synonym: a study.

Blue Velvet

Nov 24, 2006, 01:16 PM

Where does it say that? Let me guess, a study.

Ignore the facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality#Homosexual_behavior) in light of your own ugly and ignorant prejudices. Far from wanting to discuss things, you're in the wrong forum entirely and just seem to be trolling for the sake of it.

gekko513

Nov 24, 2006, 01:17 PM

But that doesn't subdue the psychological concerns of children who are raised by gay parents, no one can claim such a concern doesn't exist.
Can you document these concerns? I have seen no reports that children who have been raised by gay parents have more psychological problems than average.
It's just related to culture. Incest is mainly unacceptable because many cultures can't accept it. Same with homosexuality.
I'm kind of glad you say that, because if that's your position then you have to consider if it's fair for homosexuals to be discriminated against just because it's the tradition in a culture.

I don't know how often siblings fall in love with each other, but it'd be reasonable to say that extremely few people suffer from denied love because incest is unacceptable and those few that do only do so briefly and can find other mates that are acceptable in society.

However, if homosexuality is unaccepted in a culture, then those that are homosexual will have to suffer and go against their nature their entire life, or they will have to live out their sexuality in secret.

The similarities between homosexuality and incest between siblings are fewer and far less important than the differences. You have to come up with explanations for why homosexuality is wrong and hurtful to individuals or society.

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 01:30 PM

Ignore the facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality#Homosexual_behavior) in light of your own ugly and ignorant prejudices. Far from wanting to discuss things, you're in the wrong forum entirely and just seem to be trolling for the sake of it.
How nice of you, I appreciate your kindness :)

Mord

Nov 24, 2006, 01:33 PM

It's just related to culture. Incest is mainly unacceptable because many cultures can't accept it. Same with homosexuality.

You have your views, these are views and opinions probably based on religious faith. They have no place in law.

Whatever you think causes homosexuality YOU cannot understand what it's like, just imagine that everyone is gay but you and everyones religion states that this is normal and gods way, could you force yourself to love another man? If you did imagine how much distress this would cause for a moment.

Fundamentally the world is where we all live and all that really matters is that we all live out happy lives and out children should we choose to have them continue to live happy fulfilling lives, that is an ultimate goal for humanity which I don't think anyone can ultimately disagree with.

Now why should you campaign against what makes other people happy? the idea of it repulses me, how exactly is it your business?

Not long ago any sexually active relationship outside marriage was considered sin, why should society deny gay couples the right to have their relationship legally recognised and then look down on them for it? What difference does it make to you?

It does not matter if you call it marriage or civil unions, what matters is that people can lives the lives they want regardless of gender sexuality religion race or creed.

Whatever views you have on the causes of homosexuality it's accepted that it cannot be "fixed" via therapy or any other method that leads to an emotionally happy and fufilling hetrosexual relationship, and why should it? They tried for years and years back when it was considered a mental disorder and it's not possible, the broken crazed self hating "ex" homosexual "fixed" people you see are generally very very messed up.

When it comes down to it by opposing gay rights your opposing other people's right to lead the life they want, why anyone would do that is beyond insane to me.

Ugg

Nov 24, 2006, 01:34 PM

Research: A common "buzz" word used to strengthen or weaken an argument. synonym: a study.

With that said, I do agree that two parent families are definitely better than single parent families. I also agree that there are many psychological concerns in cases where the child has only one parent, or divorced parents. But that doesn't subdue the psychological concerns of children who are raised by gay parents, no one can claim such a concern doesn't exist. Since I think that we can all agree that, normally, a child has two parents of opposite sexes.

No comment...

The trend is in your favor? really? Then why is more than half of the world still prohibiting same-sex unions? You're assuming that giving gay rights is the right thing to do, and those who don't are backwards uncivilized bigots.

So all studies are bad?

Until the 20th century, families were anything but "normal". Many had elderly relatives living with them. Death occurred at an early age and there were a lot of remarriages so step siblings were the norm rather than the exception. Women banded together to raise their children when their husbands were killed in wars and men were also known to raise children together. While it has always taken a male and a female to conceive, it has never been a requirement whether in nature or amongst humans for only a male/female couple to raise the resulting offspring.

Your requirments that families only have a female and male head of household are both outdated and historically inaccurate.

Bigotry is most often found in those groups of people who don't practice inclusiveness and are only able to view life through a very narrow interpretation of what is moral. If the shoe fits....

The trend has developed very rapidly. Even China has seen major reforms in urban areas and India is rethinking its laws as well. Don't view the issue as static because it is anything but. Within the next couple of decades your views will belong to those of the minority around the world. Time will prove that beyond a doubt.

jelloshotsrule

Nov 24, 2006, 02:32 PM

How nice of you, I appreciate your kindness :)

do you hate black people too because they're not "normal"? do you hate men because they're not "normal"? after all, they got that abnormal mutation called a y chromosome.. weirdos.

it's terribly ironic for a bigot to accuse someone else of lacking kindness.

iGary

Nov 24, 2006, 02:38 PM

Where does it say that? Let me guess, a study.

There's an entire book if Wikipedia isn't sufficient. (http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html)

skunk

Nov 24, 2006, 02:45 PM

So all studies are bad?It's a slippery slope, I tell you. You start off "reading a book", then you fall into "asking questions", and before you know it, you've got "a mind of your own". Best to stay well clear, really. "Facts" are nothing but trouble.

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 03:04 PM

You have your views, these are views and opinions probably based on religious faith. They have no place in law.
Since when faith didn't have place in law? There are some laws based on faith as far as I know.

Whatever you think causes homosexuality YOU cannot understand what it's like, just imagine that everyone is gay but you and everyones religion states that this is normal and gods way, could you force yourself to love another man? If you did imagine how much distress this would cause for a moment.
You think gays are the only ones who feel unaccepted based on some aspect of their life? Do you think that nobody but homosexuals know the distress of being unaccepted for just one aspect of life?

Fundamentally the world is where we all live and all that really matters is that we all live out happy lives and out children should we choose to have them continue to live happy fulfilling lives, that is an ultimate goal for humanity which I don't think anyone can ultimately disagree with.

Now why should you campaign against what makes other people happy? the idea of it repulses me, how exactly is it your business?

Not long ago any sexually active relationship outside marriage was considered sin, why should society deny gay couples the right to have their relationship legally recognised and then look down on them for it? What difference does it make to you?

It does not matter if you call it marriage or civil unions, what matters is that people can lives the lives they want regardless of gender sexuality religion race or creed.

Whatever views you have on the causes of homosexuality it's accepted that it cannot be "fixed" via therapy or any other method that leads to an emotionally happy and fufilling hetrosexual relationship, and why should it? They tried for years and years back when it was considered a mental disorder and it's not possible, the broken crazed self hating "ex" homosexual "fixed" people you see are generally very very messed up.

When it comes down to it by opposing gay rights your opposing other people's right to lead the life they want, why anyone would do that is beyond insane to me.
Your argument doesn't answer why should we deny incest relationships. People with such relationships also want to live happy, and it's not anyone's business to interfere with.

So all studies are bad?
Not exactly. But I always keep hearing about all those different studies that keep contradicting one another. So many people think that they can prove their arguments by citing some research or study and asserting its undeniable facts based on Almighty science.

Until the 20th century, families were anything but "normal". Many had elderly relatives living with them. Death occurred at an early age and there were a lot of remarriages so step siblings were the norm rather than the exception. Women banded together to raise their children when their husbands were killed in wars and men were also known to raise children together. While it has always taken a male and a female to conceive, it has never been a requirement whether in nature or amongst humans for only a male/female couple to raise the resulting offspring.
Well, that's why in the past few decades of the 20th century, when societies consisted of mostly stable families, humanity witnessed the fastest advance in technology in its history of existence.

Your requirments that families only have a female and male head of household are both outdated and historically inaccurate.
Outdated and historically inaccurate? :confused:

Bigotry is most often found in those groups of people who don't practice inclusiveness and are only able to view life through a very narrow interpretation of what is moral. If the shoe fits....

The trend has developed very rapidly. Even China has seen major reforms in urban areas and India is rethinking its laws as well. Don't view the issue as static because it is anything but. Within the next couple of decades your views will belong to those of the minority around the world. Time will prove that beyond a doubt.
We'll live and see.

vniow

Nov 24, 2006, 03:06 PM

There's an entire book if Wikipedia isn't sufficient. (http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html)

I'm putting this up on my door. :D

62660

iGary

Nov 24, 2006, 03:15 PM

I'm putting this up on my door. :D

62660

:D

Mord

Nov 24, 2006, 03:17 PM

Since when faith didn't have place in law? There are some laws based on faith as far as I know.

You think gays are the only ones who feel unaccepted based on some aspect of their life? Do you think that nobody but homosexuals know the distress of being unaccepted for just one aspect of life?

Your argument doesn't answer why should we deny incest relationships. People with such relationships also want to live happy, and it's not anyone's business to interfere with.

First off just because most religions say you should not kill does not mean that we should scrap the law against murder, religions and what we hold as law will always have overlaps but the law should not be based on any one religion but instead be designed so that everyone can live as fulfilling a life as possible, in my opinion.

Don't get my started on feeling unaccepted, homosexuality is the topic we're on, no one should feel unaccepted, it's going to happen but that does not mean we should fight against it, the notion is ridiculous and frankly your just dodging the question.

As for incest, it's not genetically a good idea, however I think that if two people closely related do want to get married they should be allowed to. A marriage that leads to offspring should be HIGHLY discouraged/against the law as it's cruel to the offspring, I don't have double standards with such things.

Blue Velvet

Nov 24, 2006, 03:24 PM

Not exactly. But I always keep hearing about all those different studies that keep contradicting one another.

Please. Let's see some links to research that back up your views instead of anecdotal quips like 'I keep hearing...'

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 03:27 PM

All the Demi-gods and Demi-goddesses hate me now, bravo for me! :(

do you hate black people too because they're not "normal"? do you hate men because they're not "normal"? after all, they got that abnormal mutation called a y chromosome.. weirdos.

it's terribly ironic for a bigot to accuse someone else of lacking kindness.
What point are you trying to make here? I didn't make any genetic arguments here.

So much for the irony here. I didn't call anyone uncivilized and backwards and ignorant.

gekko513

Nov 24, 2006, 03:27 PM

Your argument doesn't answer why should we deny incest relationships. People with such relationships also want to live happy, and it's not anyone's business to interfere with.
But see, you haven't yet given an explanation for why incest and homosexuality should be treated the same. They're not the same. It's not my job to explain why incest is "wrong". I'm not on any anti or pro incest campaign. I'm only interested in getting homosexual relationships accepted by law in society. It's your job to explain why homosexuality is "wrong" if you're against it.

iGary

Nov 24, 2006, 03:29 PM

You guys do realize this is pointless, right?

You can't argue with a brick.

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 03:32 PM

Please. Let's see some links to research that back up your views instead of anecdotal quips like 'I keep hearing...'
Want me to look them up? Fine, I will.

Blue Velvet

Nov 24, 2006, 03:32 PM

I didn't call anyone uncivilized and backwards and ignorant.

No you didn't. Instead, you equated homosexuality with paedophilia; a comment highly offensive to many people on this forum and one almost guaranteed to get an adverse reaction.

jelloshotsrule

Nov 24, 2006, 03:33 PM

All the Demi-gods and Demi-goddesses hate me now, bravo for me! :(

What point are you trying to make here? I didn't make any genetic arguments here.

So much for the irony here. I didn't call anyone uncivilized and backwards and ignorant.

you have made it clear that you don't think homosexuals are "normal". that is an insult equal to calling them backwards.

i take it you think that homosexuality is a choice and not a biological disposition?

ps. i'm sure there are some contributors to this site (ie, demigod(esse)s) that share your beliefs...

Mord

Nov 24, 2006, 03:37 PM

You guys do realize this is pointless, right?

You can't argue with a brick.

I argued with one for 12 years on a daily basis, my father

I find even if the person is an idiot people that are not so steadfast in their ideas will be swayed by whoever puts the best points across and that's what makes the biggest difference, we need to show up idiots for the douches they are.

This is an in general post not directly directed at anyone in this thread, mods please don't kill me.

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 03:38 PM

You guys do realize this is pointless, right?

You can't argue with a brick.
Exactly. :rolleyes:

So now, I'm the uncivilized, backward, ignorant, bigot brick. And all of you are the progressive, intellectual, civilized, open-minded humans. Congratulations!

Mord

Nov 24, 2006, 03:39 PM

Exactly. :rolleyes:

So now, I'm the uncivilized, backward, ignorant, bigot brick. And all of you are the progressive, intellectual, civilized, open-minded humans. Congratulations!

duh.

iGary

Nov 24, 2006, 03:40 PM

Exactly. :rolleyes:

So now, I'm the uncivilized, backward, ignorant, bigot brick.

You said it, not me. :D

vniow

Nov 24, 2006, 03:43 PM

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 03:48 PM

You said it, not me. :D
But you took that out of context! :p

duh.
:(

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 03:51 PM

I think it's up to you to explain why it is wrong rather than have us explain why it is right.
What comes first? Proving or disproving a theory?

Mord

Nov 24, 2006, 03:53 PM

What comes first? Proving or disproving a theory?

Neither, usually it's suggested and people try to come up with counterpoints and disprove it in contrast with other accepted theories.

I use such terms as I'm a physics student and I don't exactly believe in anything, that's for another thread and another time

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 03:56 PM

No you didn't. Instead, you equated homosexuality with paedophilia; a comment highly offensive to many people on this forum and one almost guaranteed to get an adverse reaction.
I took that comment back:
True, I can't put pedophilia and homosexuality in the same level. Pedophilia is most definitely worse than homosexuality (in my opinion, of course).

gekko513

Nov 24, 2006, 04:19 PM

What comes first? Proving or disproving a theory?

I don't get it. Why do you want to hurt people by removing their rights, when giving them the same rights as other people doesn't hurt you or anyone else?

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 04:27 PM

There's an entire book if Wikipedia isn't sufficient. (http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html)
Well, the author is gay, of course he's going to try to prove homosexuality is natural.

I'm putting this up on my door. :D

62660
Interesting :D

First off just because most religions say you should not kill does not mean that we should scrap the law against murder, religions and what we hold as law will always have overlaps but the law should not be based on any one religion but instead be designed so that everyone can live as fulfilling a life as possible, in my opinion.

Don't get my started on feeling unaccepted, homosexuality is the topic we're on, no one should feel unaccepted, it's going to happen but that does not mean we should fight against it, the notion is ridiculous and frankly your just dodging the question.

As for incest, it's not genetically a good idea, however I think that if two people closely related do want to get married they should be allowed to. A marriage that leads to offspring should be HIGHLY discouraged/against the law as it's cruel to the offspring, I don't have double standards with such things.
The part of my post about feeling unaccepted was only a reply to a particular part of your post, where you said I should try to imagine how it feels to be gay, not your whole argument.

If you're ok with incest that doesn't produce offsprings, then I guess I can't argue with you.

you have made it clear that you don't think homosexuals are "normal". that is an insult equal to calling them backwards.

i take it you think that homosexuality is a choice and not a biological disposition?

ps. i'm sure there are some contributors to this site (ie, demigod(esse)s) that share your beliefs...
Yes, I believe homosexuality is a choice and not genetic. I can't prove it though.

Blue Velvet

Nov 24, 2006, 04:30 PM

Yes, I believe homosexuality is a choice and not genetic. I can't prove it though.

OK, in the absence of any evidence for this claim, why do you believe it? Do you know any gay people? Is your own sexual orientation a choice?

spicyapple

Nov 24, 2006, 04:32 PM

What comes first? Proving or disproving a theory?
I once stuck my thumb up my ass and it felt really good. If it's wrong, I don't want to be right!

Yes, I believe homosexuality is a choice and not genetic. I can't prove it though.60 Minutes ran a story on homosexuality. Their conclusion is that it's genetic.

luv ya bunches! xoxoxo

vniow

Nov 24, 2006, 04:41 PM

Well, the author is gay, of course he's going to try to prove homosexuality is natural.

You can't seriously be discounting that entire book because the author is gay. But here you are...

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 04:45 PM

OK, in the absence of any evidence for this claim, why do you believe it? Do you know any gay people? Is your own sexual orientation a choice?
I've met gay people before, but none of my friends are gay.

I believe that humans are initially heterosexual, and become homosexual by choice. As for the reason, it's the same reason why normal people aren't attracted to their opposite-sex siblings.

Mord

Nov 24, 2006, 04:51 PM

If you're ok with incest that doesn't produce offsprings, then I guess I can't argue with you.

Yes, I believe homosexuality is a choice and not genetic. I can't prove it though.

What goes on between two consenting adults which does not harm anyone else is no business of anyone else, I extend that even to things which I don't find comfortable because I don't have to partake in them.

if you could honestly say that you are capable of choosing to be gay tomorrow and of having an happy fulfilling relationship then that position would be reasonable, your not and it's not.

As for if it's genetic or not that's pretty irrelevant it could be genetic, it could be caused my natal conditions who knows. If your attracted to a particular sex or both that's something you don't choose it's just how your wired, no one would choose a life that would mean being inflicted with bigots and the like if they could control who they were attracted to.

Blue Velvet

Nov 24, 2006, 04:54 PM

I believe that humans are initially heterosexual, and become homosexual by choice.

But there's no evidence for that statement. At all... anywhere. You've bought nothing of substance to this discussion. Which makes it a belief, not a fact, not even remotely resembling the truth about the situation.

I can't think of any gay people I know that would even agree with it in the slightest; so what makes you so knowledgeable about their psychology?

And if it was a choice, why would people choose it?

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 04:54 PM

You can't seriously be discounting that entire book because the author is gay. But here you are...
Ok, let me put it in another way. The author is gay, he wrote a book about homosexuality in animals. His main point of the book is to disprove an argument that homosexual activity can't be found in nature. His motive to disprove this argument is to show that homosexuality, which happens to be his sexual orientation, is normal.

But, is everything that animals do normal?

gekko513

Nov 24, 2006, 04:55 PM

I believe that humans are initially heterosexual, and become homosexual by choice. As for the reason, it's the same reason why normal people aren't attracted to their opposite-sex siblings.
How can you believe that? It's completely beyond me.

So all men have the same basic attractions and turn ons but can then choose to become homosexual... Does that mean all men are higly turned on by the thought of having sex with a man? Does that mean all men are indifferent about boobs? Does that mean all men are slightly repulsed by the look and thought of a womans sexual organs? You see that's how it's been for me since I was 13. Are you really saying that this is how all men feel, but most still choose to be heterosexual?

But, is everything that animals do normal?
All it says is that it's a normal occurrence in nature. It doesn't say that everything that happens in nature is the right thing to do for humans, and it doesn't say whether homosexuality among humans are right or wrong. It just says that it's not against nature. The question of right and wrong is a different ethical question, and you can say a lot about that, but you still haven't given one single argument for why it's wrong, why it hurts anyone.

Mord

Nov 24, 2006, 05:03 PM

I've met gay people before, but none of my friends are gay.

I believe that humans are initially heterosexual, and become homosexual by choice. As for the reason, it's the same reason why normal people aren't attracted to their opposite-sex siblings.

If I could change my sexuality I'd be stoked, honest to god I wish I was gay.

It's due to reasons more complex than I'm willing to discuss in this thread but I'm not and I can't be.

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 05:04 PM

But there's no evidence for that statement. At all... anywhere. You've bought nothing of substance to this discussion. Which makes it a belief, not a fact, not even remotely resembling the truth about the situation.

I can't think of any gay people I know that would even agree with it in the slightest; so what makes you so knowledgeable about their psychology?

And if it was a choice, why would people choose it?
You also claim that homosexuality is indeed genetic. What makes it an undeniable fact? without providing any evidence, except that gay animals exist, I can't see how this is enough proof.

As for why people choose to be gay, it's just something that's beyond me.

vniow

Nov 24, 2006, 05:05 PM

As for why people choose to be gay, it's just something that's beyond me.

It's only beyond you because people don't.

skunk

Nov 24, 2006, 05:10 PM

Blue Velvet

Nov 24, 2006, 05:12 PM

You also claim that homosexuality is indeed genetic.

I've never claimed that. However, what I did claim was it was normal... i.e. it occurs in many species, including our own with a reasonably high prevalence. To me, normal means natural. As natural as being left-handed, having blue eyes etc.

Virtually every piece of research on the matter points to it being hardwired in the mind — not remotely a choice — which would be corroborated by virtually every gay man and woman on this board and by many of my friends.

Because if it was a matter of choice, it would be easy to reverse that choice, right?

leekohler

Nov 24, 2006, 05:24 PM

You also claim that homosexuality is indeed genetic. What makes it an undeniable fact? without providing any evidence, except that gay animals exist, I can't see how this is enough proof.

As for why people choose to be gay, it's just something that's beyond me.

Yeah, right. We gay people choose to be gay. It's so much fun! :rolleyes:

Here's all the fun we get to have:

1. Being shunned by our families- in many cases even disowned. What fun! :rolleyes:
2. Losing at least some of your friends when they find out, and maybe even getting the crap beat out of you by them. What fun! :rolleyes:
3. Being told by society that we made a choice, so we've brought all our misery on ourselves and deserve it. What fun! :rolleyes:
4. Having to put up with insults from people like you. What fun! :rolleyes:
5. Getting told we're just the same as pedophiles. What fun! :rolleyes:
6. Being denied the same rights others have for no logical reason whatsoever. What fun! :rolleyes:
7. Being perceived as promiscuous, disease-carrying vermin. That's a blast too! :rolleyes:

Let me tell you something- there may be a few people out there who choose to dabble with the same sex to "check it out". But for most of us it most definitely was not a choice.

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 05:27 PM

It's only beyond you because people don't.
Thanks for enlightening me.

When did you first think you might be gay?
Never.

I've never claimed that. However, what I did claim was it was normal... i.e. it occurs in many species, including our own with a reasonably high prevalence. To me, normal means natural. As natural as being left-handed, having blue eyes etc.

Virtually every piece of research on the matter points to it being hardwired in the mind — not remotely a choice — which would be corroborated by virtually every gay man and woman on this board and by many of my friends.

Because if it was a matter of choice, it would be easy to reverse that choice, right?
You say you never claimed it was genetic, yet you say it's hardwired to the mind. How could that be?

Far too many choices in life cannot be reversed. Once you take a decision, you can't go back.

skunk

Nov 24, 2006, 05:27 PM

Yeah, right. We gay people choose to be gay. It's so much fun! :rolleyes:

Here's all the fun we get to have:

1. Being shunned by our families- in some case even disowned. What fun! :rolleyes:
2. Losing at least some of your friends when they find out, and maybe even getting the crap beat out of you by them. What fun! :rolleyes:
3. Being told by society that we made a choice, so we've brought all our misery on ourselves and deserve it. What fun! :rolleyes:
4. Having to put up with insults from people like you. What fun! :rolleyes:
5. Getting told we're just the same as pedophiles. What fun! :rolleyes:
6. Being denied the same rights others have for no logical reason whatsoever. What fun! :rolleyes:
7. Being perceived as promiscuous, disease-carrying vermin. That's a blast too! :rolleyes:

Let me tell you something- there may be a few people out there who choose to dabble with the same sex to "check it out". But for most of us it most definitely was not a choice.It should be blindingly obvious that since you lot are perverse and abnormal by choice, you'd be into pain, rejection and insults too. Naturally.

leekohler

Nov 24, 2006, 05:29 PM

It should be blindingly obvious that since you lot are perverse and abnormal by choice, you'd be into pain, rejection and insults too. Naturally.

Haha! Thanks for the giggle skunk. :)

skunk

Nov 24, 2006, 05:31 PM

Never.Now, that is abnormal.

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 05:37 PM

Yeah, right. We gay people choose to be gay. It's so much fun! :rolleyes:

Here's all the fun we get to have:

1. Being shunned by our families- in many cases even disowned. What fun! :rolleyes:
2. Losing at least some of your friends when they find out, and maybe even getting the crap beat out of you by them. What fun! :rolleyes:
3. Being told by society that we made a choice, so we've brought all our misery on ourselves and deserve it. What fun! :rolleyes:
4. Having to put up with insults from people like you. What fun! :rolleyes:
5. Getting told we're just the same as pedophiles. What fun! :rolleyes:
6. Being denied the same rights others have for no logical reason whatsoever. What fun! :rolleyes:
7. Being perceived as promiscuous, disease-carrying vermin. That's a blast too! :rolleyes:

Let me tell you something- there may be a few people out there who choose to dabble with the same sex to "check it out". But for most of us it most definitely was not a choice.
Well, enjoy all the fun while it lasts! :rolleyes:

People always have to deal with some sort of "fun" for something they choose to be. Most obvious example: religion. Religious people get a lot of "fun" from atheists and other religions, and atheists also get so much "fun" from religion.

Life is tough.

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 05:38 PM

Now, that is abnormal.
How is that?

Blue Velvet

Nov 24, 2006, 05:39 PM

People always have to deal with some sort of "fun" for something they choose to be.

You truly are bereft of any view of substance. Aptly-named nick, there.

Mord

Nov 24, 2006, 05:39 PM

You say you never claimed it was genetic, yet you say it's hardwired to the mind. How could that be?

Natal conditions for one thing, your genes don't set in stone who you're going to grow up into there are many environmental factors which can have hardwired effects on ones development.

leekohler

Nov 24, 2006, 05:42 PM

Well, enjoy all the fun while it lasts! :rolleyes:

People always have to deal with some sort of "fun" for something they choose to be. Most obvious example: religion. Religious people get a lot of "fun" from atheists and other religions, and atheists also get so much "fun" from religion.

Life is tough.

Have we said that religious people can't get married? Has anyone in the US been going directly to churches, waiting outside to knife them, shoot them, or cause any other sort of harm just because they're religious? No.

Yeah, life is tough. I'm not whining. Merely pointing out that being gay is not a choice, not for me or anyone I know.

Mord

Nov 24, 2006, 05:42 PM

Life is tough.

So why do you feel the need to make it tougher for 10% of the population.

Ugg

Nov 24, 2006, 05:45 PM

You also claim that homosexuality is indeed genetic. What makes it an undeniable fact? without providing any evidence, except that gay animals exist, I can't see how this is enough proof.

As for why people choose to be gay, it's just something that's beyond me.

Saying it's genetic is oversimplification IMO. Some research points to excess levels of testosterone during pregnancy as a possible cause. Other research indicates that few first born males are gay but the 2nd or 3rd one is much more likely to be gay. So, it could be a form of population control. As to why a woman would have too much testosterone in her system, that's beyond me. But trust me, nobody chooses to be gay.

People who have been abused by someone of the same sex when they were young may have seriously conflicted feelings about sexuality but since most gays aren't...

How do you know you're straight? Did you choose that or did you just know it to be true. If people can choose to be gay, then why didn't you?

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 05:53 PM

You truly are bereft of any view of substance. Aptly-named nick, there.
Is that so? This is the second time you attempt to attack me. I was genuinely interested in the discussion. First I equated homosexuality with pedophilia, I realized I was wrong I took my comment back, and I apologize. My discussion now boiled down do whether homosexuality is a choice or not. You made some arguments, I stated some counter arguments, which might seem "void" to you. Does that mean I'm truly void of any view of substance?

skunk

Nov 24, 2006, 05:55 PM

How is that?Well, you see, the Kinsey Report on Male Sexuality - I know, I know, it's a "study", and therefore entirely valueless, but humour me for a minute - found that just under 47% of men reacted sexually to persons of both sexes during their adult lives. And that's only the ones who admitted it. So I'd say that you are almost certainly in a minority.

leekohler

Nov 24, 2006, 05:58 PM

Is that so? This is the second time you attempt to attack me. I was genuinely interested in the discussion. First I equated homosexuality with pedophilia, I realized I was wrong I took my comment back, and I apologize. My discussion now boiled down do whether homosexuality is a choice or not. You made some arguments, I stated some counter arguments, which might seem "void" to you. Does that mean I'm truly void of any view of substance?

Well, you haven't given any argument as to why it would be a choice or why anyone would choose it. You just keep saying it is a choice.

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 05:58 PM

Saying it's genetic is oversimplification IMO. Some research points to excess levels of testosterone during pregnancy as a possible cause. Other research indicates that few first born males are gay but the 2nd or 3rd one is much more likely to be gay. So, it could be a form of population control. As to why a woman would have too much testosterone in her system, that's beyond me. But trust me, nobody chooses to be gay.

People who have been abused by someone of the same sex when they were young may have seriously conflicted feelings about sexuality but since most gays aren't...

How do you know you're straight? Did you choose that or did you just know it to be true. If people can choose to be gay, then why didn't you?
Could you please provide links to these studies? I want to read them myself.

Why would I choose to be gay if I have to deal with all the "fun" that leekohler mentioned? :D

skunk

Nov 24, 2006, 06:01 PM

IMy discussion now boiled down do whether homosexuality is a choice or not.Your "discussion" to date has consisted of little but assertions based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever. You have stated that you have no gay friends (how would you know? Knowing your views, would they tell you?) and that you have never questioned your own sexuality. Just what is your argument? :confused:

skunk

Nov 24, 2006, 06:01 PM

Why would I choose to be gay if I have to deal with all the "fun" that leekohler mentioned? :DWhy would anybody?

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 06:02 PM

Well, you haven't given any argument as to why it would be a choice or why anyone would choose it. You just keep saying it is a choice.
Does that give anyone rights to attack me personally?

skunk

Nov 24, 2006, 06:04 PM

Does that give anyone rights to attack me personally?Asks the person who has spent the last few pages of posts making odious and prejudiced attacks on the entire homosexual population.

leekohler

Nov 24, 2006, 06:07 PM

Why would I choose to be gay if I have to deal with all the "fun" that leekohler mentioned? :D

Starting to get it yet?

leekohler

Nov 24, 2006, 06:08 PM

Does that give anyone rights to attack me personally?

No- but she has a point. We have given you many reasons as to why it is not a choice. You haven't given one reason as to why someone would choose to be gay.

skunk

Nov 24, 2006, 06:08 PM

Starting to get it yet?The smiley says "no".

leekohler

Nov 24, 2006, 06:09 PM

The smiley says "no".

I thought I'd at least give it a shot. ;)

skunk

Nov 24, 2006, 06:10 PM

I thought I'd at least give it a shot. ;)You're a sucker for punishment.

As it were. ;)

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 06:15 PM

Well, you see, the Kinsey Report on Male Sexuality - I know, I know, it's a "study", and therefore entirely valueless, but humour me for a minute - found that just under 47% of men reacted sexually to persons of both sexes during their adult lives. And that's only the ones who admitted it. So I'd say that you are almost certainly in a minority.
That's interesting. 47%? almost one out of two men? :eek:

Why would anybody?
Same applies for religion. Why would anybody want to deal with all the "fun" from other religions or atheists?

Your "discussion" to date has consisted of little but assertions based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever. You have stated that you have no gay friends (how would you know? Knowing your views, would they tell you?) and that you have never questioned your own sexuality. Just what is your argument? :confused:
I indeed don't have gay friends. I'm not the social kind, and my friends are countable on one hand. I'm also not open about sexuality or views on homosexuals in my public life.

Also, no one here provided true evidence of homosexuality not being a choice.

skunk

Nov 24, 2006, 06:25 PM

That's interesting. 47%? almost one out of two men? :eek:

Same applies for religion. Why would anybody want to deal with all the "fun" from other religions or atheists?

I indeed don't have gay friends. I'm not the social kind, and my friends are countable on one hand. I'm also not open about sexuality or views on homosexuals in my public life.

Also, no one here provided true evidence of homosexuality not being a choice.Why won't you take the word of those who have testified here that it isn't?

leekohler

Nov 24, 2006, 06:29 PM

Why won't you take the word of those who have testified here that it isn't?

Because obviously those of us who are gay don't know what we're talking about. :rolleyes: Get to know some gay people Voidness. That's the only way you'll ever undertand us.

iGary

Nov 24, 2006, 06:29 PM

Also, no one here provided true evidence of homosexuality not being a choice.

Prove to me that getting an erection when you see a hot woman/whatever does it for you is a choice.

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 06:35 PM

Why won't you take the word of those who have testified here that it isn't?
Is testimony enough to prove a scientific issue?

I'm not the only one that says homosexuality is a choice. There are also "studies" that prove that it's merely a choice, but there are other "studies" that say it's not.

http://salmon.psy.plym.ac.uk/year1/psychobiology_site_backups/homosexuality-debate/choice.html

What to believe?

gekko513

Nov 24, 2006, 06:35 PM

Also, no one here provided true evidence of homosexuality not being a choice.
You just don't see them because you ignore any dilemmas and questions people bring up that you can't explain and reply to those you feel convenient.

I don't know how your penis works. Does it arise when you say 'up'? Mine arises when I think of something that turns me on. If I think about naked men, I'm turned on. Do you deny that? Are you saying I can choose not to get turned on by that? If that's what you're saying, I think you'd better have a talk with my penis, because it won't listen to me.

skunk

Nov 24, 2006, 06:38 PM

If that's what you're saying, I think you'd better have a talk with my penis, because it won't listen to me.Oh, to be a fly on the wall for that encounter! :D

vniow

Nov 24, 2006, 06:39 PM

If that's what you're saying, I think you'd better have a talk with my penis, because it won't listen to me.

So...how you doin'?

iGary

Nov 24, 2006, 06:42 PM

What to believe?

He's awfully well-published. His book is out of print and he has one hit on the Internet.

And it isn't a study, it's a summation of other research, most of which is contradictory to his own overview of their work.

:)

iGary

Nov 24, 2006, 06:43 PM

Prove to me that getting an erection when you see a hot woman/whatever does it for you is a choice.

You just don't see them because you ignore any dilemmas and questions people bring up that you can't explain and reply to those you feel convenient.

I don't know how your penis works. Does it arise when you say 'up'? Mine arises when I think of something that turns me on. If I think about naked men, I'm turned on. Do you deny that? Are you saying I can choose not to get turned on by that? If that's what you're saying, I think you'd better have a talk with my penis, because it won't listen to me.

Great minds... :D

skunk

Nov 24, 2006, 06:45 PM

Great minds... :DIt may have a mind of its own, but...

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 06:50 PM

I think you'd better have a talk with my penis, because it won't listen to me.
Get a women to talk to your penis.

iGary

Nov 24, 2006, 06:52 PM

Get a women to talk to your penis.

I have and it didn't like the chat.

Voidness

Nov 24, 2006, 06:59 PM

I have and it didn't like the chat.
Maybe you didn't have a heated argument. ;)

iGary

Nov 24, 2006, 07:01 PM

Maybe you didn't have a heated argument. ;)

Answer the question.

Blue Velvet

Nov 24, 2006, 07:01 PM

What to believe?

Linking to a first year student's psychology paper full of dubious assertions? Every link from that page is dead so it's hard to find out what they're referring to. So I had a little look around.

Preferential and exclusive homosexuality is not naturally found in any infrahuman mammalian species and it would be odd for such behavior in humans to be genetically determined. — Dr. Joseph Wortis

A psychiatrist, mind. Not an animal behaviourist, zoologist etc.

Which is flatly contradicted by:

A first-ever museum display, "Against Nature?," which opened last month at the University of Oslo's Natural History Museum in Norway, presents 51 species of animals exhibiting homosexuality.

"Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them," said Petter Bockman, project coordinator of the exhibition.

Then we come onto Charles Socarides.

Socarides states, "Homosexuality, the choice of a partner of the same sex for orgiastic satisfaction, is not innate. There is no connection between sexual instinct and the choice of a sexual object. Such an object is learned, acquired behavior, there is no inevitable genetically inborn propensity toward the choice of a partner of either the same or opposite sex."

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

Just one lone voice against the entire gamut of the The National Association of Social Workers, The American Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, The American Counseling Association, and The American Academy of Pediatrics.

In short, the quality of this piece of research is lacking.

skunk

Nov 24, 2006, 07:06 PM

Get a women to talk to your penis.Get a man to talk to yours. Purely for "research", of course. Don't you want to be able to talk knowledgeably about your sexual preferences, and how "normal" they are?

jelloshotsrule

Nov 24, 2006, 07:26 PM

i have a question. if i somehow catch the gay, like if i accidentally end up in san francisco or on christopher street in new york, can i simply bathe in bleach to cleanse myself? or do i specifically have to ask jesus for cleansing?

skunk

Nov 24, 2006, 07:27 PM

i have a question. if i somehow catch the gay, like if i accidentally end up in san francisco or on christopher street in new york, can i simple bathe in bleach to cleanse myself? or do i specifically have to ask jesus for cleansing?I believe the correct procedure is to drink the bleach, just to be sure.

vniow

Nov 24, 2006, 07:34 PM

can i simply bathe in bleach to cleanse myself?

That will probably work, just so long as you bathe in one of these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bathhouse).

jelloshotsrule

Nov 24, 2006, 07:36 PM

I believe the correct procedure is to drink the bleach, just to be sure.

i feel it is also then my duty to buy a round of bleach drinks for all the others here who have caught the gay. cheers!

skunk

Nov 24, 2006, 08:27 PM

i feel it is also then my duty to buy a round of bleach drinks for all the others here who have caught the gay. cheers!"Bottoms Up" might be more appropriate. :D

hulugu

Nov 24, 2006, 09:02 PM

So, now it's uncivilized and culturally backwards to have something against homosexuality? really? :rolleyes:

Yes.

But, more importantly, where does the disdain for homosexuality come from? What are you using as a basis for supporting something like the bans on same-sex marriage?

Kalns

Nov 24, 2006, 09:22 PM

Wow, there's a lot of bigotry and hatred here....and it's not directed towards the gay rights people.

iGary

Nov 24, 2006, 09:23 PM

Wow, there's a lot of bigotry and hatred here....and it's not directed towards the gay rights people.

Who are the gay rights people?

Kalns

Nov 24, 2006, 09:28 PM

The ones who are pleading for tolerance while being incredibly intolerant of other beliefs and views themselves.

iGary

Nov 24, 2006, 09:35 PM

The ones who are pleading for tolerance while being incredibly intolerant of other beliefs and views themselves.

We're merely asking him to defend his point of view. This sub-forum is for debate.

"Gays are wrong, wierd, pedophiles..."

He's not attacking our "beliefs," he's attacking us as homosexual individuals.

No one has said "you stupid God fearing Christian loo-loo," but we've been compared to child molesters and people engaged in incestuous activities.

Get the difference?

He can feel whatever way he wants, I respect his right to feel whatever way he wants.

Just because we are a minority class doesn't mean we have to shutup and let him drivel on with nonsense.

Sayhey

Nov 24, 2006, 09:38 PM

The ones who are pleading for tolerance while being incredibly intolerant of other beliefs and views themselves.

Being unwilling to accept the very active bigotry on the part of those who believe gay people aren't equal doesn't qualify as intolerance.

Kalns

Nov 24, 2006, 09:45 PM

Honestly Gary, looking at this objectively, thats not the way I see it playing out at all. Is it wrong to demean homosexuals with insinuations about child molestation? Absolutley. But, on the same hand, it's also absolutley wrong for you all who ARE in the majority in this instance to gang up so to speak on him and mock not only his belief in God, but God himself. This won't get you anywhere. You're only causing deeper division and resentment and putting forth and strengthening negative stereotypes about both groups. If you ever want to get anywhere you need to have an open heart and honestly, without malice, try to understand the objections of the religious community and work TOGETHER to reach a comprimise that satisfies both parties. And yes, I do believe that is possible when people approach one another without animosity.

vniow

Nov 24, 2006, 10:11 PM

Last time I checked, no one in this thread was mocking Voidness and his belief in God or whatever. Hell, he didn't even mention any religious beliefs.

That and we who are in support of gay rights certainly aren't in the majority, at least not in the country in which seven states passed laws preventing two members of the same sex from getting married. Like Gary said, all we're asking is for Voidness (and now you) to come out and defend their beliefs. Simply posting "I think homosexuality is a choice but I can't prove it" doesn't go off very well here. You make a claim, you back it up.

Ugg

Nov 24, 2006, 10:12 PM

Wow, there's a lot of bigotry and hatred here....and it's not directed towards the gay rights people.

What there are are a lot of incredibly offensive insinuations coupled with links that have no solid research behind them. Add that to his belief that any behaviour that is outside his norm must be learned. He's also never had any friends who are gay.

What we have is someone who is simply unwilling to take at face value years and years of research into homosexual behaviour. But he's more than willing to support research that is faith based rather than based in science.

What should we do? Commend him for his insistence, his lack of empathy, the narrow minded world he lives in? Personally, I think the discussion has been pretty tame and a lot of people here are truly trying to let him know what it's like to be gay.

There's no hatred directed at him, but there is an attempt to reverse the hatred of centuries.

iGary

Nov 24, 2006, 10:13 PM

What there are are a lot of incredibly offensive insinuations coupled with links that have no solid research behind them. Add that to his belief that any behaviour that is outside his norm must be learned. He's also never had any friends who are gay.

What we have is someone who is simply unwilling to take at face value years and years of research into homosexual behaviour. But he's more than willing to support research that is faith based rather than based in science.

What should we do? Commend him for his insistence, his lack of empathy, the narrow minded world he lives in? Personally, I think the discussion has been pretty tame and a lot of people here are truly trying to let him know what it's like to be gay.

There's no hatred directed at him, but there is an attempt to reverse the hatred of centuries.

I think this says it all.

pseudobrit

Nov 24, 2006, 10:23 PM

I believe that humans are initially heterosexual, and become homosexual by choice. As for the reason, it's the same reason why normal people aren't attracted to their opposite-sex siblings.

Then why are there so many homosexual relationships and so relatively few incestuous ones?

I mean, if it's something that is brought about by purely behavioural anomalies, wouldn't the two practices, being roughly equally scandalous in society have seen roughly equal incidence?

Kalns

Nov 24, 2006, 10:48 PM

I can understand your frustration and anger over the situation, but maybe I can offer a new perspective on things. First though, you have to realize one very important thing. Despite everything you may have experienced, Christians are not your enemy and for the vast majority it is not hatred that drives them. Yes, there are some, but they are not following in the pattern of Christ. You also have to understand that when gay rights groups protest Christian groups with chants such as "racist, sexist, anti-gay! Christian fascists go away!" you're only encouraging hate. Even if you don't believe in God (and yes it is possible to be both Gay and a Christian) it would behoove you to confound Christians you perceive as being bigoted by acting like Jesus towards them. Turn the other cheek. Repay evil for good. Love your neighbor as yourself. Not only will you expose their own hardness of heart, but you may win a friend. Don't treat them like enemies, but as you would a brother. The point is, don't burn bridges....build them.

Now as to the specific concerns of the Christian community, first of all, homosexuality will always be viewed as a sin. I know you don't like to hear this but that's the case. Some have argued that it was an old testament Leviticus thing, but based on the hermeneutical and exegetical interpretations of both Leviticus and Romans, it's clear that it's relevance to Christians is every bit as relevant today as it was then. This is because the manner in which you determine if an element of the old coveneant is continued in the new covenant is if it is reiterated as is the case with this.

Now, given this, in one respect, it does not give us the right to impose our beliefs on the rest of the country. In another respect however, it's not a matter of imposition but rather being accountable to God as to the manner in which we vote. Given this, the only real options for a Christian are to vote against gay marriage or not vote at all.

To go deeper with this, let me personally say that I don't personally care if gays have civil unions and the rights that go with it. My primary concern is the sanctity of the church and in this regard also the seperation of church and state. If a stipulation were put into the legaslation stating that the courts couldn't force the churches to marry gay couples then I think I would be okay with that. It's not that I have anything against you personally, only that according to my belief system such a thing would be openly mocking God. I would hope that as I would try to respect your beliefs and choices you could respect mine. This doesn't mean we would agree of course, but what cause do we have to hate one another?

pseudobrit

Nov 24, 2006, 10:52 PM

From a purely eugenic point of view, it's particularly ironic that there's a significant likelihood the repression of homosexuality has perpetuated the genetic trait.

pseudobrit

Nov 24, 2006, 10:56 PM

In another respect however, it's not a matter of imposition but rather being accountable to God as to the manner in which we vote. Given this, the only real options for a Christian are to vote against gay marriage or not vote at all.

I think my religion has no place in my government and vice versa. I abhor divorce (as did Jesus, who forbade it) but I'm not going to vote to ban it because not everyone shares my religious convictions.

The moment I tie the two together to my own advantage is the moment I allow the government to reciprocate the influence to my detriment.

iGary

Nov 24, 2006, 10:59 PM

You also have to understand that when gay rights groups protest Christian groups with chants such as "racist, sexist, anti-gay! Christian fascists go away!"

Are you saying that protesting a group such as Fred Phelps Westboro Baptist Chruch is a bad thing?

Now as to the specific concerns of the Christian community, first of all, homosexuality will always be viewed as a sin.

That's their problem, not mine. I don't go around smearing my dogma on everyone, neither should anyone else - Atheist, Agnostic, Hindu, Muslim - whatever.

If someone wants to be a Christian - great. But that's a deeply personal spiritual choice. Leave me out, please.

Given this, the only real options for a Christian are to vote against gay marriage or not vote at all.

At it's core, sex is what it's all about. People are disgusted at the thought of two men having sex or two women rolling around in bed together and they want to try to discourage it by legislating against it under the guise of saving the family.

Why would any Christian be against two people having a committed relationship? I'm glad you are for civil unions with fair rights for everyone.

That's all we're really asking for.

Kalns

Nov 24, 2006, 11:01 PM

I think my religion has no place in my government and vice versa. I abhor divorce (as did Jesus, who forbade it) but I'm not going to vote to ban it because not everyone shares my religious convictions.

The moment I tie the two together to my own advantage is the moment I allow the government to reciprocate the influence to my detriment.

Frankly I don't care for government. I don't care for politicians or politics. As a matter of fact, I consider myself to be a Christian above even my status as an American. I think we do need the law to prevent certain individuals who would exploit and harm others from being able to do so, but ultimatley we all have to make choices according to what we believe is best for us and our communities and we need the freedom to do so.

apachie2k

Nov 24, 2006, 11:04 PM

i don't care if any one wants to be gay, if any one wants to practice incest or any of that...uhh ooo jesus might come down and get me? as long as everyone is of age and sound mind to conset, who the gives a damn. If you believe in god, i hope it is also free will you believe in...

How many hours have been wasted on trying to change things we cannot change?? In the end it only brings stress to our own worlds...

C Some1 and :) :) :) :)

Kalns

Nov 24, 2006, 11:15 PM

Gary, I don't know how to do the quote thing, so forgive me for responding like this.

I don't know who Fred Phelps is, but I would say that Baptists generally have a bad reputation. Admittedly, some of it is justified, but having gone to a Baptist church myself in the past and having been baptized by a baptist pastor, I can tell you that there's some really good people there. Yes, they're geenrally more strict about things and are more inclined towards the fire and brimstone variety of preaching, but I would encourage you not to form your impressions based of of what they believe neccessarily, but by who they are.

As for the assertion that it's all about sex, I don't believe thats the case. Homosexuals can have sex whether married or not. I'm quite certain that at the heart of the matter is a concern for the church amongst believers. We don't want state laws to require us to do things that are against our beliefs.

About the committed relationships point, nobody would argue that a committed relationship is a bad thing. At the same time however, you have to understand the Biblical idea behind marriage to understand why Christians wouldn't approve of this particular kind of committed relationship. To put it in simple terms, Christian marriage is meant to be a reflection of God's relationship with His people. Commitment is a part of that yes, but not the only part.

vniow

Nov 24, 2006, 11:18 PM

We don't want state laws to require us to do things that are against our beliefs.

Then don't get gay married.

pseudobrit

Nov 24, 2006, 11:24 PM

We don't want state laws to require us to do things that are against our beliefs.

You do then realise that tearing down the wall between church and state to inject dogma into government means the avenue is then open for the government to tamper with religion?

Ugg

Nov 24, 2006, 11:32 PM

The point is, don't burn bridges....build them.

Now as to the specific concerns of the Christian community, first of all, homosexuality will always be viewed as a sin.

Given this, the only real options for a Christian are to vote against gay marriage or not vote at all.

My primary concern is the sanctity of the church and in this regard also the seperation of church and state. If a stipulation were put into the legaslation stating that the courts couldn't force the churches to marry gay couples then I think I would be okay with that. It's not that I have anything against you personally, only that according to my belief system such a thing would be openly mocking God.

I'm all for building bridges but all you've presented are dead ends.

Your assumption that all Christians view gay marriage as a sin is false. There are a lot of gay couples being wed in churches in Europe and more than a few churches in the US have held gay unions or commitment ceremonies. Maybe what you meant to say that fundamentalist American sects will always view it as such. Could you clarify?

What a load of bollocks! No church is forced to marry anyone! Catholic churches won't marry a couple if neither are Catholic, the same with Jews, etc, etc. And, you know what, nobody has every made a case about it because it all has to do with that little phrase "establishment of religion". Churches will never be forced to perform a marriage ceremony because they can't be. Especially since a couple need have nothing to do with religion to get married! Didn't you know that?

In the eyes of the US government, marriage is a legal contract with government protection and religion has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Your god will decide for himself when he is being mocked and act accordingly. Why are you telling him what to think?

Kalns

Nov 24, 2006, 11:43 PM

You do then realise that tearing down the wall between church and state to inject dogma into government means the avenue is then open for the government to tamper with religion?

Well ideally here's how I think it should work...much smaller government first of all. Particularly at the national level. The vast majority of our policies and programs ought to be dealt with at the state level. Second, church and state SHOULD be seperate, but it ought to truly be seperate and not subject to any form of government oversight or mettling except for where it pertains to cult like religions where there is evidence of people being physically harmed. At the same time though, as it pertains to freedom of expresson, individuals of faith ought to be able to express that in whatsoever way they see fit that does not impinge on the rights of others. This does not mean however no religious expression in public places. I think the religious and culture diversity of our country is something to be celebrated, not hidden. A nativity scene on public property does not infringe on anyone's rights so long as it is being payed for and maintained by a non governmental group. If people are offended at the sight of such things, they ought to examine their own hearts rather than leading crusades against any and all evidences of our diversity.

pseudobrit

Nov 24, 2006, 11:51 PM

Second, church and state SHOULD be seperate, but it ought to truly be seperate and not subject to any form of government oversight or mettling...

A nativity scene on public property does not infringe on anyone's rights

Maybe not overtly, but it can qualify as government endorsement of religion, which attacks the separation.

Kalns

Nov 24, 2006, 11:52 PM

I'm all for building bridges but all you've presented are dead ends.

Your assumption that all Christians view gay marriage as a sin is false. There are a lot of gay couples being wed in churches in Europe and more than a few churches in the US have held gay unions or commitment ceremonies. Maybe what you meant to say that fundamentalist American sects will always view it as such. Could you clarify?

What a load of bollocks! No church is forced to marry anyone! Catholic churches won't marry a couple if neither are Catholic, the same with Jews, etc, etc. And, you know what, nobody has every made a case about it because it all has to do with that little phrase "establishment of religion". Churches will never be forced to perform a marriage ceremony because they can't be. Especially since a couple need have nothing to do with religion to get married! Didn't you know that?

In the eyes of the US government, marriage is a legal contract with government protection and religion has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Your god will decide for himself when he is being mocked and act accordingly. Why are you telling him what to think?

What God says and what His people do are not always the same thing. What you see in Europe is a form of apostacy. Our own apostacy in America comes in the form of intolerance. That's not to say that these are bad people, but they are not acting in accordance with what the Bible plainly teaches in this regard.

I took insult to your last remark. I would ask you to keep anything resembling a personal attack from the conversation.