FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


[insert ethnicity here]






Are you for Gay Marriage?
Yes
49%
 49%  [ 25 ]
No
50%
 50%  [ 26 ]
Total Votes : 51

Vofman
Hm. I was looking at the arguments against gay marriage, and gays in the military. For the military, they would be a bad influence. They have adopted a “ask don’t tell” principle, because of straight soldiers being afraid that the gays will “scope them out.” Then, there’s lesser used argument that hanging around gay people will make you gay (in the exact same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall, of course). People use the bible on both sides of this battle over gay rights. Wait a minute…that’s funny. I’ve heard a lot of these arguments before…Oh yeah! Remember back to when African Americans were first brought to America as slaves! People used the teachings of Christianity to keep them feeling inferior. They couldn’t join the military, until Lincoln in the Civil War. Even then, it was a touchy subject. Now, skip a few years forward to the 1930’s. Ah yes, Mr. Hitler, fuehrer of Germany. Hitler used the Jews, Gays and Gypsies as scapegoats for his empire, using a lot of the same arguments as were used against the blacks, and are being used against the gays today. These arguments are just being recycled through the system, coming back to hit the new stereotype of the day.



One of the most popular arguments today is the biblical book Leviticus. Allow me to tell you something about Leviticus. It is for priests, called the Levitican Code. As a matter of fact, it doesn’t even say that it’s a sin to be gay. Hell, it doesn’t mention homosexuality, just having homosexual sex, but even so, this applies to priests. Not to the common man. Also, does this priests having homosexual intercourse sound familiar? Yeah, all those little boys in church. Getting abused by their priests. That’s who the Code applies to. Read the entire book, not just the parts you want to see.



Now, you can get incredibly nit-picky and technical on me, but allow me ask you this. What is the mission, the point of Christianity? To spread the word and love of God to ALL PEOPLES OF EARTH! Gays ARE people, in case you haven’t realized this. Ok then, you say, let’s throw religion aside for now. A non religious argument would be that being gay is wrong, straight marriage procreates, and has been around for a long time, a very long time (so long in fact, and it hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal).



And, what is with people for gays not being able to adopt children? Is it that a child needs two differently sexed parents? Then don’t allow single parents the chance to adopt. But, you don’t mean it that way, you mean that if a baby is raised by gays, then they will do their utmost to make it gay, or it just simply will become gay with it’s upbringing. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children (Since straight parents only raise straight children). I really don’t see your argument making any sense here.



Maybe, just maybe, we should stop being afraid of anything different, like gays. We might actually become closer as Americans, and as people of the world, if we all understand, those no matter who you are, or where you are from, we all laugh, cry, eat and drink, and most importantly of all, we are all loved by God. Equally.
hassine
recently i've watched at euronews this subject, and elton john has affirmed that he will marry his lover... imagine that....
S3nd K3ys
What does gay marriage have to do with race?

Rolling Eyes
SunburnedCactus
Well, it may involve "inserting your ethnicity"...

Laughing Laughing
raver
well i would like to add another thing.....beeing "gay" is not a modern term....homosexuality has been around us from ancient times....remember the greeks? How about Plato? Or Socrates? in the greek society homosexuality was accepted and was an every day thing not a special topic like in our own days. Every philosopher had students. At the end of their training the students had sex with their teacher to enhance their intelectual capability. Their was also a saying in those times that would be translated in english into something like this: Having sex with women is only for procreation. Having sex with men fullfils one" ...excuse my english...it is not my native language ...
So if the founding fathers of democracy were adepts of homosexuality why shoudn`t we accept it? Hard to say...
I am an open minded person....and my opinion is this...
Marriage is an act of uniting one person to the one he loves (under the sign of God). But who can say that god is against gay marriages? After all people (priests) say what is good or bad in his name. People that are narrow minded. Times will change though, they already are...

If you liked my post feel free to donate me some frih$ Very Happy
S3nd K3ys
SunburnedCactus wrote:
Well, it may involve "inserting your ethnicity"...

Laughing Laughing


"ethnicity", what an odd name for your 'johnson'. Laughing
ocalhoun
S3nd K3ys wrote:
What does gay marriage have to do with race?

What does race have to do with ethnicity?
Point taken though.

raver wrote:
But who can say that god is against gay marriages? After all people (priests) say what is good or bad in his name.

1: the Bible tells us what God is for and against, NOT priests!
2: the Bible in no uncertain terms condemns homosexuality.
OutlawSpirit
gay marriage is wrong... i believe


race = human beings, ethnicity = ethnic background (black, white, asian, etc)
S3nd K3ys
ocalhoun wrote:

What does race have to do with ethnicity?
Point taken though..


Doh!

My bad. Glad you got my point, though. Just a poor choice of words on my part. Wink
SunburnedCactus
Back to semantics class for you! Razz
Bondings
OutlawSpirit wrote:
gay marriage is wrong... i believe

May I ask why? It's always funny to hear the various reasons. "It's obvious" is the most popular one. Wink
SunburnedCactus
Oh it's soo naughty! Very Happy
S3nd K3ys
Bondings wrote:
OutlawSpirit wrote:
gay marriage is wrong... i believe

May I ask why? It's always funny to hear the various reasons. "It's obvious" is the most popular one. Wink


I don't have a problem with gay couples. I think it often leads to more offensive behaviour, (pedofiles, bestiality etc).

I am strongly against gay marriage. IMNSHO, Marriage should be defined as one man and one woman.

Civil Unions are a good alternative. Give them all the bene's of married couples, just not the title.
ocalhoun
Gay people can go and do whatever they want, I don't care.
However, they can't get married to the same gender, because that's not what marrage is.
Can they do the impossible? No, because if they can do it, it is possible. (same concept)
Can they get married, No, because if they do then it is not marrage.
Also, while I'm at it, homosexuality is a curable disorder.

The government does not have the right to define marrage at all.
Soltair
I'm amazed how far human intolerance goes...

Quote:
Also, while I'm at it, homosexuality is a curable disorder.


HEY! What is that shit Mad ? It would be exactly like if I told you "Hey! You have blond hair! Let's cure you, you must be stupid because of this!"

What you guys are doing with Bible is exactly like with Coran... Who wrote these books? People. With their qualities and their wronger sides. And as people, they wrote things that are susceptible to be interpreted. But it is still man writting, WANTING to translate what they THOUGHT god wanted.

It's people like you that slows human development as a responsible creature.

Signed: An angry Soltair
Hayloe
not alot of people will agree with me but i think its unnatural and wrong
Vofman
What the hell....?

Did you know that 99% of all people I talk to on this subject are fundmentalists of an imaginary God? That means, since there is no proof of a God, that outside of religion, they have no argumental stance against gays AT ALL?! This happends to mean that if there is no God, or he DOESN"T hate gays, then they are ruining the lives of others because of their superstition, and being hypocritical, because Christians are supposed to love and help all peoples, unless of course, gays aren't people, but I think that they are....
raver
ocalhoun wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
What does gay marriage have to do with race?

What does race have to do with ethnicity?
Point taken though.

raver wrote:
But who can say that god is against gay marriages? After all people (priests) say what is good or bad in his name.

1: the Bible tells us what God is for and against, NOT priests!
2: the Bible in no uncertain terms condemns homosexuality.


do you really want to start a discution about who actually wrote the bible? Wink
CMA
S3nd K3ys wrote:
I don't have a problem with gay couples. I think it often leads to more offensive behaviour, (pedofiles, bestiality etc).


And why would that be? Rolling Eyes I'd like to hear a logical explanation to that...

Soltair wrote:
I'm amazed how far human intolerance goes...

Quote:
Also, while I'm at it, homosexuality is a curable disorder.


HEY! What is that shit Mad ? It would be exactly like if I told you "Hey! You have blond hair! Let's cure you, you must be stupid because of this!"

What you guys are doing with Bible is exactly like with Coran... Who wrote these books? People. With their qualities and their wronger sides. And as people, they wrote things that are susceptible to be interpreted. But it is still man writting, WANTING to translate what they THOUGHT god wanted.

It's people like you that slows human development as a responsible creature.

Signed: An angry Soltair


Amen to that Cool
And by the way, I have nothing against same-sex marriages. I don't see how that would change or put limitations on my life in any way... Rolling Eyes
KHO
l'm a christian, so l concider this morally wrong. l would advise against it to any who would listen, yet l understand that sometimes the will of the flesh is too much for one to handle, and then you end up getting too deep in to get out on your own.
KHO
raver wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
What does gay marriage have to do with race?

What does race have to do with ethnicity?
Point taken though.

raver wrote:
But who can say that god is against gay marriages? After all people (priests) say what is good or bad in his name.

1: the Bible tells us what God is for and against, NOT priests!
2: the Bible in no uncertain terms condemns homosexuality.


do you really want to start a discution about who actually wrote the bible? Wink

Yes, l think l would actually, the Bible may have been written by apostles and priests of sort, but that was first of all a different time then now, and the priests then were much different then some of the corrupt priests we have now, and they quoted the words of God. Those were priests who would gladly die martyrs, unlike some of the snivaling cowards we have in the church today.
Soltair
What does Christianism has to do with all this? I'm christian too. So what? You must be against because of this? Then I think that, as for muslims, we'll have to create two casts... You're just trying to demonize a religion that is barely starting to become more human, a religion that should prone tolerance and equality.
raver
KHO wrote:

Yes, l think l would actually, the Bible may have been written by apostles and priests of sort, but that was first of all a different time then now, and the priests then were much different then some of the corrupt priests we have now, and they quoted the words of God. Those were priests who would gladly die martyrs, unlike some of the snivaling cowards we have in the church today.

Ok first let me tell you one thing... the priests *cough apostles *cough that wrote the bible would have really apreciated the modern pc`s for only one reason: CTRL + C, CTRL + V or copy paste for all of you tehnologically challanged. Try to research some things before you start a discution, for example...the cristian bible is a copy of the BIBLE of sumer, as in SUMERIA, only that it was written thousands of years before this bible.
Also you do agree that the bible now has been much modified to suit the needs of the church and it`s attempts to dominate the poor souls that believe in GOD. The church is a manipulation device and that is all. Don`t get me wrong, i believe in god, but i don`t believe that his rules are those that other people tell us.
Also, since when is corruption a modern term? Corruption is almost as old as prostitution, so it`s like the second oldest "job" in the world Wink
Vofman
I don't believe in God, yet I am a Christian. This is possible because I believe that I understand the bible. The bible is a book written thousands of years ago, by men trying to explain what was going on in their world. Since they were not as advanced as us, they figured that there must be some higher power controlling them and the world. The bible is also simply a book of stories, not literal in meaning, but they are to help people live better lives.
ocalhoun
raver wrote:
do you really want to start a discution about who actually wrote the bible? Wink


Sure, why not?
S3nd K3ys
ocalhoun wrote:
raver wrote:
do you really want to start a discution about who actually wrote the bible? Wink


Sure, why not?


I agree. That would be a very good discussion.
Asheboy
im for it theres nothing wrong with gays or lesbians there all cool
freedomandjustjuice
wow some really horrible things stated here. my favourite bit was the one about gays leading to increased beastiality though, HAHAHA, when was the last time you read about someone being arrested for interfereing with animals? i've seen it once and i don't think they specified the sex of the horse!!!

Bring back the bloody labotomy for you religous nutters!!

SEB
Jeslyn
Ugh, I can't stand when people say "The Bible says homosexuality is wrong" - The Bible says a lot of things. It also says that if someone trespasses on my land, they should be stonned; so the next time a child looses a soccerball in my yard, I will throw rocks at them.
The Bible also says that if a child curses their parents - the child should be killed, which in that case - a lot of teens, myself included, would be dead.

That whole "The Bible says so" stuff is a weak argument. There's nothing wrong with being gay, its not as if they're running around trying to convert everyone to homosexuality, or sacraficing goats. Until someone is being hurt or taken advantage of, then there should be no problem with it.
Dark_Jedi06
They can do whatever the hell they want, just don't try anything on me. Wink
Carupieara
ocalhoun wrote:

Also, while I'm at it, homosexuality is a curable disorder.


OMG Shocked Is "being straight" a curable disorder too???
ocalhoun
No, being straight is what I'd refer to as "normal"
You should try it.
Sappho
ocalhoun wrote:
No, being straight is what I'd refer to as "normal"
You should try it.


Normal? By whom? By the society? I would rather refer to something as normal if it feels right. :/ Does it make any harm to others? Is there any other reason than "trying to be normal" just to be in "harmony" with society? I guess not.
S3nd K3ys
Sappho wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
No, being straight is what I'd refer to as "normal"
You should try it.


Normal? By whom? By the society? I would rather refer to something as normal if it feels right. :/ Does it make any harm to others? Is there any other reason than "trying to be normal" just to be in "harmony" with society? I guess not.


Quote:
How a particular sexual orientation develops in any individual is not well understood by scientists. Various theories have proposed differing sources for sexual orientation, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors and life experiences during early childhood. However, many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors.


It IS theoretically curable. Wink

I've heard of lawyers attempting to protect pedofiles/bestialiters under the theory that there is something physically/menally wrong with them which makes them commit the crimes.
Sappho
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Sappho wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
No, being straight is what I'd refer to as "normal"
You should try it.


Normal? By whom? By the society? I would rather refer to something as normal if it feels right. :/ Does it make any harm to others? Is there any other reason than "trying to be normal" just to be in "harmony" with society? I guess not.


Quote:
How a particular sexual orientation develops in any individual is not well understood by scientists. Various theories have proposed differing sources for sexual orientation, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors and life experiences during early childhood. However, many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors.


It IS theoretically curable. Wink

I've heard of lawyers attempting to protect pedofiles/bestialiters under the theory that there is something physically/menally wrong with them which makes them commit the crimes.


I am not questioning the couse of sexual orientation i am just saying there is nothing wrong with it. Pedofiles/bestialites arent the same, couse its a one way affection where most likely the other side isnt feeling the same towards the pedofile. But where do i harm anyone when i go out with a girl which also likes to be with me? I hope u see my point, and being "cured" just couse someone will feel better that i am "normal" isnt quite going to make it as an argument to do so. :/
Carupieara
ocalhoun wrote:
No, being straight is what I'd refer to as "normal"
You should try it.


Wow! Quick retort!

So its like this - being right handed is also "normal" while being left handed is, well, a curable disorder.
S3nd K3ys
Carupieara wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
No, being straight is what I'd refer to as "normal"
You should try it.


Wow! Quick retort!

So its like this - being right handed is also "normal" while being left handed is, well, a curable disorder.


In my haste to try to get my son to be equally good with both hands, he switched from being right handed to left handed. Basically, I convinced him to be left handed.

On another note, I had a gay couple with a child living next door to me. The boy was 5 years old when their mothers bought him a play cook-stove and Barbie dolls for Christmas. He always wore clothes with a distinct eminine touch.

How do you think he'll turn out?
SunburnedCactus
Macho beyond belief. Cool
S3nd K3ys
SunburnedCactus wrote:
Macho beyond belief. Cool


Agreed. (s)He'll be the 'butch' in the relationshiop I'm sure. Shocked
Sappho
Carupieara wrote:
So its like this - being right handed is also "normal" while being left handed is, well, a curable disorder.


Ok a little off-topic but rather a fun fact.

Did u know that in communist countries, like the one i am living in (even thou now we are post-communist one) it was considered abnormal to be left handed? So it was forbidded to write with left hand and teachers in all primary schools were enforcing this rule trying to "cure" this "disorder". :/
Bondings
Sappho wrote:
Carupieara wrote:
So its like this - being right handed is also "normal" while being left handed is, well, a curable disorder.


Ok a little off-topic but rather a fun fact.

Did u know that in communist countries, like the one i am living in (even thou now we are post-communist one) it was considered abnormal to be left handed? So it was forbidded to write with left hand and teachers in all primary schools were enforcing this rule trying to "cure" this "disorder". :/

I had a teacher who was forced to write with his right hand. He's probably retired now, but not that long. So these kind of things happened in all countries, even democracies.
ocalhoun
Sappho wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
No, being straight is what I'd refer to as "normal"
You should try it.


Normal? By whom? By the society? I would rather refer to something as normal if it feels right. :/ Does it make any harm to others? Is there any other reason than "trying to be normal" just to be in "harmony" with society? I guess not.


What is defined as normal is what the vast majority of people are.
The vast majority of people are right-handed, therefore being left-handed is abnormal.
Another example:
The vast majority of people are quite dense, therefore being dense is normal.
Jeslyn
Sappho wrote:
Carupieara wrote:
So its like this - being right handed is also "normal" while being left handed is, well, a curable disorder.


Ok a little off-topic but rather a fun fact.

Did u know that in communist countries, like the one i am living in (even thou now we are post-communist one) it was considered abnormal to be left handed? So it was forbidded to write with left hand and teachers in all primary schools were enforcing this rule trying to "cure" this "disorder". :/


Josef Mengele also considered blue eyes to be "normal" and attempted to cure the "disorder" of brown/dark eyes by using various dyes and experiments. Needless to say, it didn't work out very well.
Soulfire
No, not for marriage.

While they are people and have rights, marriage is a religious institution (whether you believe it or not). It should not be desecrated.

However, a civil union of some sort with the same legal benefits of marriage shouldn't be out of the question.
Carupieara
Bondings wrote:
Sappho wrote:
Carupieara wrote:
So its like this - being right handed is also "normal" while being left handed is, well, a curable disorder.


Ok a little off-topic but rather a fun fact.

Did u know that in communist countries, like the one i am living in (even thou now we are post-communist one) it was considered abnormal to be left handed? So it was forbidded to write with left hand and teachers in all primary schools were enforcing this rule trying to "cure" this "disorder". :/

I had a teacher who was forced to write with his right hand. He's probably retired now, but not that long. So these kind of things happened in all countries, even democracies.



My youngest cousin was left handed. But my aunt forced her to use her right hand. Its something she never did get over. If you observe her closely you'll see the struggle. I can't quite explain it in words. And I can't never forgive my aunt.
Carupieara
Everybody is making a big deal out of marriage being a religious institutions and all but look at the celebrities. They are breaking the sanctity of marriage. With 55 hrs, 6 days, 3 weeks etc weddings. So much for being "straight"......
SunburnedCactus
Carupieara wrote:
Everybody is making a big deal out of marriage being a religious institutions and all but look at the celebrities. They are breaking the sanctity of marriage. With 55 hrs, 6 days, 3 weeks etc weddings. So much for being "straight"......


That's not about being straight. That's about the use of marriage as a publicity tool. Still sad to see.
swormer
Soulfire wrote:
No, not for marriage.

While they are people and have rights, marriage is a religious institution (whether you believe it or not). It should not be desecrated.

However, a civil union of some sort with the same legal benefits of marriage shouldn't be out of the question.



I am surprised at this post. Usually when I read these forums I don't like much that Soulfire has to say. Please don't take it personally, some people just bug me when they are talking about religious things. This post on the other hand makes perfect sense. Would homosexuals be happy with being allowed civil unions that entitle them to the same legal benefits of marriage?
horseatingweeds
Jeslyn wrote:
Ugh, I can't stand when people say "The Bible says homosexuality is wrong" - The Bible says a lot of things. It also says that if someone trespasses on my land, they should be stonned; so the next time a child looses a soccerball in my yard, I will throw rocks at them.
The Bible also says that if a child curses their parents - the child should be killed, which in that case - a lot of teens, myself included, would be dead.


Indeed it does say those things. Did you read the Bible to find this out?

I would have quoted something juicier, like "the bible says not to allow women to speak in church or braid their have".

It does say that in fact. There is no need for interpretation here. However, the bible is not a long list of dos and don'ts.

It says this in 1st Corinthians which is a letter Paul wrote to the church in Corinth (church meaning body of believers, not Catholic Co.) The Roman have always enjoyed religion and had a habit of partaking in several and mixing them up. In Corinth there was a shrine to some goddess that I can't remember the name of. Part of the worship of this goddess involved the priestesses making a loud spectacle of themselves singing and dancing. Additionally, worship was also made through prostitution.

The letter was meant to instruct and encourage the Corinthian Christians as well as warn them not to mix Christianity with false teachings. So we can cut a part out of the letter and wave it around foolishly in an attempt to discredit a book that has served as a foundation for our current way of life, or we can read the whole letter and realize Paul was telling the Corinthians to make sure that they were completely distinguishable from the goddess worshipers.
Bondings
swormer wrote:
I am surprised at this post. Usually when I read these forums I don't like much that Soulfire has to say. Please don't take it personally, some people just bug me when they are talking about religious things. This post on the other hand makes perfect sense. Would homosexuals be happy with being allowed civil unions that entitle them to the same legal benefits of marriage?

The thing is that marriage is a civil union. And a civil union with the same rights as marriage should be called marriage, in my opinion. At least it is in my country.

And I don't understand why marriage is a religious thing as it is a part of every culture and forms of marriage existed long before most current religions started. Even gay marriage existed longer.
XSTG
I do not understand why so much people are against gay marriage. Let them be! It is not their fault (well..) if they are like that. If you discovered you were gay, I don't think you would be laughing. I have nothing against them, let them marry if they want, if love is true between them. Even the sex of the partners won't change love. I say, stop complaining about Gay marriage and start having some true oppinion about something else more important...
TeK
I don't have a problem with gay marriage. I mean if two men or two women want to get married I say let them. I mean it's not if you can stop them from living like they are married anyway.... I say let people marry who they want to and not who you want them to, that way marriage will be based on love (well except when lust and money is involved ^_^) and not on gender.
XSTG
ocalhoun wrote:

Also, while I'm at it, homosexuality is a curable disorder.


Well being against it is a curable disorder.

As I said, love cannot be stopped. Let them be. If they want to marry themselves because they love, it's their choice. We people have nothing to say in this. How can you be that stupid!?? A CURABLE DISORDER? I'm relieved. Sexual allegeance is a taste. What if I said this:

"You like vegies?? AAAH! Oof, it's a curable disorder."

"You're for republicans/democratics!? It's a curable disorder...."

"You don't listen to rock!? It's a curable disorder...."

Come off it. What if a boy that loves a girl or inverse was strange and not the homosexuals?
As I already said, if you discovered you were gay, you wouldn't laugh, a lot of people discovers it in puberty. You would be shy because ******* people would laugh of you. If you loved another and you couldn't marry him because he was the same sex as you, what would you say!
Nodrog
Im all for it. If its not dangerous and it makes you happy why not?
psycosquirrel
Split vote 19-19 with my vote.

I am against gay marriage because marriage is a religious thing. I think there should be a legal bond equivalent to marriage, except without the religous aspect, for gay couples.
Bondings
psycosquirrel wrote:
Split vote 19-19 with my vote.

I am against gay marriage because marriage is a religious thing. I think there should be a legal bond equivalent to marriage, except without the religous aspect, for gay couples.

Why is marriage a religious thing? It is completely a legal bond. If it wouldn't be then how can atheists marry? By the way, if marriage would be religious, then it wouldn't have legal aspects at all.
S3nd K3ys
Bondings wrote:
psycosquirrel wrote:
Split vote 19-19 with my vote.

I am against gay marriage because marriage is a religious thing. I think there should be a legal bond equivalent to marriage, except without the religous aspect, for gay couples.

Why is marriage a religious thing? It is completely a legal bond. If it wouldn't be then how can atheists marry? By the way, if marriage would be religious, then it wouldn't have legal aspects at all.


Marriage is defined in the Bible. It IS a religious thing for the vast majority of Americans. Why do you think they get married at, um.. Churches? By, um.. Priests?
althalus
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Bondings wrote:
Why is marriage a religious thing? It is completely a legal bond. If it wouldn't be then how can atheists marry? By the way, if marriage would be religious, then it wouldn't have legal aspects at all.


Marriage is defined in the Bible. It IS a religious thing for the vast majority of Americans. Why do you think they get married at, um.. Churches? By, um.. Priests?
I support gay marriages.. I don't see what's so wrong with it. What people do should be their own business.. I wouldn't come up to you, straight or not, and tell you you can't marry the person you love "just because", that would be rediculous.

Also, I'm an atheist, but I still have the optiion to marry someone, should I so desire. I wouldn't go to church to have it performed, I'd go to [insert other random non-religious place you can marry at] instead. So religion really have little do to with it, even though, to some, it has everything to do with it.. All in personal beliefe, I guess..
Sappho
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Bondings wrote:
psycosquirrel wrote:
Split vote 19-19 with my vote.

I am against gay marriage because marriage is a religious thing. I think there should be a legal bond equivalent to marriage, except without the religous aspect, for gay couples.

Why is marriage a religious thing? It is completely a legal bond. If it wouldn't be then how can atheists marry? By the way, if marriage would be religious, then it wouldn't have legal aspects at all.


Marriage is defined in the Bible. It IS a religious thing for the vast majority of Americans. Why do you think they get married at, um.. Churches? By, um.. Priests?


Just couse they stole it doesnt make it only theirs. Does it?
Carupieara
psycosquirrel wrote:
Split vote 19-19 with my vote.

I am against gay marriage because marriage is a religious thing. I think there should be a legal bond equivalent to marriage, except without the religous aspect, for gay couples.



So heterosexual men and women who have never adhered to the rules or laws of any religion can get married just cause marriage is a "religious thing" and of course it also asks the participants to be straight. While a God fearing, religious, gay people cannot get married cause God ordained marriage to be a "religious thing" for the straight.

Thats, straight eye for the queer guy, huh?
Hero
Quote:
While a God fearing, religious, gay people cannot get married cause God ordained marriage to be a "religious thing" for the straight.


Exactly.
Carupieara
Hero wrote:
Quote:
While a God fearing, religious, gay people cannot get married cause God ordained marriage to be a "religious thing" for the straight.


Exactly.



I didn't get it - are you for or against the notion?
Hero
I am against gay marriage. If this gay couple really was "God-fearing," then I don't know how they could excuse their homosexuality when it is clearly a sin, according to their own God.
James007
Live and let live...

You don't have the right to forbid anything remember. Or you could think you are better than someone else of course...

James Smile
Hero
I am not "forbidding" anything, only pointing out that "God-fearing homosexuals" is a contradictory term.
James007
Hero wrote:
I am not "forbidding" anything, only pointing out that "God-fearing homosexuals" is a contradictory term.

I was speaking in General, not specifically to you Smile
ainieas
Hero wrote:
I am not "forbidding" anything, only pointing out that "God-fearing homosexuals" is a contradictory term.


So a person can't believe in God and accept who he really is at the same time?
Valleyman
Hero wrote:
I am not "forbidding" anything, only pointing out that "God-fearing homosexuals" is a contradictory term.


How so? Oh, I think I see, you're assuming that all people who are "god-fearing" necessarily fear your god, the one you say forbids homosexuality. Has it occured to you that this is a foolish assumption? That there are other religions besides Christianity? Or, better yet, that there are indeed some sects of Christianity that don't forbid homosexuality? And then, of course, you have a few actual Christians, who actually understand the idea of the new covenant that was made with Jesus, which overrides the teachings of the Old Testament. Beyond this is the fact that the classic Old Testament argument uses Leviticus, which is ludicrous because no one follows the regulations laid out therein, because they are absolutely insane.

To all those who use religious arguments against homosexuality and refuse to acknowledge the arguments above, we have the fact the religion has no bearing on matters of state, so it's an invalid argument, at least in the case of changing laws (let your dogmatic religion dictate your personal opinions if you wish, be realize it means nothing to the sate).

For those who say that marriage is a relgious institution and thus your relgion is a valid argument I would like to point out that marriage is not a religious institution, it is an institution of the state and thus the above argument applies. If you want to say that marriage should be removed from law, go right ahead, that's another matter entirely.

Finally, for those of you using secular arguments. First of all, our closest genetic relatives (Bonobo Chimps) engage in homosexual sex more often than heterosexual sex, ruling out the idea that its not natural. Second, the ancient Greeks thought that homosexuality was perfectly alright. In fact, in Sparta love between men was considered the highest form of love. This rules out the idea that homosexuality is some sort of new abberation in the human species. Finally, the slippery slope argument is a poor one as well, as there is no evidence to support it. If, like you say, things get progressively worse there should be no heterosexuals, we would have slid down the slope already and would all be rampant pedophiles, or the like.

Thank you for reading.
horseatingweeds
Valleyman wrote:
Hero wrote:
I am not "forbidding" anything, only pointing out that "God-fearing homosexuals" is a contradictory term.


For those who say that marriage is a relgious institution and thus your relgion is a valid argument I would like to point out that marriage is not a religious institution, it is an institution of the state and thus the above argument applies. If you want to say that marriage should be removed from law, go right ahead, that's another matter entirely.


Entirely, however if the citizens, through their religion or what ever else hold a standard then this standard translates into a state standard. So I would say it does have barring.

Valleyman wrote:
Finally, for those of you using secular arguments. First of all, our closest genetic relatives (Bonobo Chimps) engage in homosexual sex more often than heterosexual sex, ruling out the idea that its not natural. Second, the ancient Greeks thought that homosexuality was perfectly alright. In fact, in Sparta love between men was considered the highest form of love. This rules out the idea that homosexuality is some sort of new abberation in the human species. Finally, the slippery slope argument is a poor one as well, as there is no evidence to support it. If, like you say, things get progressively worse there should be no heterosexuals, we would have slid down the slope already and would all be rampant pedophiles, or the like.


The argument concerning the monkeys I feel is invalid to this point. These monkeys, like many mammals are simply asserting dominance or have become frustrated are on the lower hierarchy and are resorting to the male monkeys out of desperation. This is very different from human homosexuality.

With regard to the Greeks, particularly the Spartans, I would hesitate to use their sexual behavior as I guide to natural behavior. It was certainly not anything that would be deemed acceptable in current society.

The slippery slope argumant is rarely valid.......
Rolling Eyes
Valleyman
horseatingweeds wrote:
Valleyman wrote:
Hero wrote:
I am not "forbidding" anything, only pointing out that "God-fearing homosexuals" is a contradictory term.


For those who say that marriage is a relgious institution and thus your relgion is a valid argument I would like to point out that marriage is not a religious institution, it is an institution of the state and thus the above argument applies. If you want to say that marriage should be removed from law, go right ahead, that's another matter entirely.


Entirely, however if the citizens, through their religion or what ever else hold a standard then this standard translates into a state standard. So I would say it does have barring.


Perhaps in that sense, but the idea is that marriage is not a religious institution and thus not subject to the whims of religion, for those who are arguing that it is.

horseatingweeds wrote:
The argument concerning the monkeys I feel is invalid to this point. These monkeys, like many mammals are simply asserting dominance or have become frustrated are on the lower hierarchy and are resorting to the male monkeys out of desperation. This is very different from human homosexuality.


Different, perhaps, but not in the way you describe. Homosexual sex is commited by all memebers of the species at all social levels for numerous reaons. As said here:
Wikipedia wrote:
plays a major role in Bonobo society, being used as a greeting, a means of conflict resolution and post-conflict reconciliation, and as favors traded by the females in exchange for food. Bonobos are the only non-human apes to have been observed engaging in all of the following sexual activities: face-to-face genital sex (most frequently female-female, then male-female and male-male), tongue kissing, and oral sex. This happens within the immediate family as well as outside of it. Bonobos do not form permanent relationships with individual partners.

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

horseatingweeds wrote:
With regard to the Greeks, particularly the Spartans, I would hesitate to use their sexual behavior as I guide to natural behavior. It was certainly not anything that would be deemed acceptable in current society.


Why? They're human too, and are considered by many to be one of the most advanced ancient civilizations. Besides, regardless of how it would be looked on now, my point was more that this disproved the idea that homosexuality was a recent aberation from the norms of society. This proves that it is something which has been occuring for thousands of years and has been, at times, socially accepted.

horseatingweeds wrote:
The slippery slope argumant is rarely valid.......
Rolling Eyes


That I can agree with.
horseatingweeds
Valleyman wrote:


horseatingweeds wrote:
The argument concerning the monkeys I feel is invalid to this point. These monkeys, like many mammals are simply asserting dominance or have become frustrated are on the lower hierarchy and are resorting to the male monkeys out of desperation. This is very different from human homosexuality.


Different, perhaps, but not in the way you describe. Homosexual sex is commited by all memebers of the species at all social levels for numerous reaons. As said here:
Wikipedia wrote:
plays a major role in Bonobo society, being used as a greeting, a means of conflict resolution and post-conflict reconciliation, and as favors traded by the females in exchange for food. Bonobos are the only non-human apes to have been observed engaging in all of the following sexual activities: face-to-face genital sex (most frequently female-female, then male-female and male-male), tongue kissing, and oral sex. This happens within the immediate family as well as outside of it. Bonobos do not form permanent relationships with individual partners.



Interesting, I would rather see a link to an actual article from someone observing these behaviors before I would bet $8 on it. Regardless, I see the point you are reaching for but monkeys monkeying around does little to prove naturallity of homosexuality.

I think we need to define natural first. In the usual sense of nature it certainly is not natural. In nature a creature that replaces procreation or even waists energy on an act that serves only to fulfill the feeling of procreation is certainly not natural, natural meaning fit, and fitness meaning adding your genes to the gene pool.

In the sense that two people feeling in love and wishing to express it, I imagine this would certainly feel natural to some, and the feeling of natural by some definition equals natural.

Additionally, let me add that concluding that homosexuality is unnatural does not discredit it as a valid life style. Much of what humans do in modern society is completely unnatural. Look at us now. I am having a discussion with who knows who by typing little symbols that is converted into big medicine.

There is also the mater of sodomy. In particular anal sex, which does damage to the colon and causes urinary infection.


horseatingweeds wrote:

With regard to the Greeks, particularly the Spartans, I would hesitate to use their sexual behavior as I guide to natural behavior. It was certainly not anything that would be deemed acceptable in current society.


Valleyman wrote:
Why? They're human too, and are considered by many to be one of the most advanced ancient civilizations. Besides, regardless of how it would be looked on now, my point was more that this disproved the idea that homosexuality was a recent aberation from the norms of society. This proves that it is something which has been occuring for thousands of years and has been, at times, socially accepted.


Certainly, homosexual sex is nothing new. In our current time it is much more easily embraced. We currently need little procreation to maintain our societies.

The Greeks; and more so the Greek city state of Athens, is a very poor representation of what we currently regard as homosexuality. The famous Athenians were land locked and surrounded by enemies. This forced them to take drastic measures. Every male became a professional soldier to the extent that even on their wedding night, after consummating their marriage, they where expected to sleep in the barracks. These men spent nearly every hour with each other.

The legend is that every infant was left out on a special rock in the city their first night of their lives. If the infant lived it was strong enough to enter their society. It was then never held or nurtured and immediately ate normal food.

As impossible as this is, it does attest to the fact that any weakness was unbearable and children where euthanized.

These men where said to love one another and engage in orgies and such but where fare from being homosexual.

Procreation for them as well as all Greeks was of utmost important. With the average life expectancy of a Greek being 25 or 30 every woman would have needed to birth five or so children to maintain the society. Homosexuality was more of a privilege of the wealthy and not a life style choice. This short age also afforded immunity from many long term ill effects or possible the ill effects where another attributing factor.
eday2010
I'm not against two gays being "married", but I am against it being called marriage. Civil union is fine, or make up a word for it. But I believe marriage should just mean a man and woman. Otherwise, I don't care about what they do.

And for those wondering, that doesn't mean I accept it; I just tolerate it.
Xanify
People should be able to marry whoever they want, regardless of gender or (*looks at thread title*) race.

Most of the arguments against gay marriage boil down to religious prohibition. Screw that. Don't perform gay marriages in church if you don't want to, but don't stop them from getting married in a courthouse.
sudipbanerjee
What is the need of marriage? Mainly a partner for living the life, Sex for physical and mental pleasure ( you can get these without marriage but that is a different matter). Beside physical and mental pleasure sex is also related to reproduction. Can you give anyone example of gay couple with child? So, it is not natural. So I think it is wrong.
ankitdatashn
Bondings wrote:
May I ask why? It's always funny to hear the various reasons. "It's obvious" is the most popular one. Wink


That was simply pure humour!, I liked it Smile

You proved Humour is always invented by a person and discovered by the listener.

As far as the topic is concerned right now I don't have any strong opinion so I'll prefer to stay mum.
Related topics
"Domain Insert"
insert data to mySQL database problem
SQL Insert
Error, insert query failed - My nick is'nt a db friend =/
Want to insert videos on my website...any ideas?
how to insert data into mysql base from a web page
Need to know what Phpbb databases to insert when registrati
The myth of positive discrimination
Only whites can be racist
insert external rss in a page
How do I insert a picture into my post?
Data Mining From tables and then insert into MySQL
mysql insert into multiple tables at once?
finding highest entries - select and insert statements - eff
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.