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


Gay Marriage





heath
Since the word 'marriage' is already taken for hetero couples, is it really so bad to disallow 'gay marriage' as long as a Civil Union or Civil Partnership offers the same rights to homo coupls?
Soulfire
Civil union is fine, but the desecration of the holy establishment that is marriage should not happen.

Again, civil union with the benefits of marraige. Don't label it marriage, God will be displeased.
horseatingweeds
We pretty well beat the snot out of this dead horse in "Elton and partner 'tie the knot'".
anathematic
god has more things to deal with than semantics.
LandShark
yah they can have marriage benifits, as long as they dont say they are married in a true sense
wolfhnd
Now that humans have proven they can fill every corner of the world. Maybe it would be a good idea to encourage a form of sexual conduct that doesn't add to overpopulation and at the same time reduces promiscuity.
horseatingweeds
wolfhnd wrote:
Now that humans have proven they can fill every corner of the world. Maybe it would be a good idea to encourage a form of sexual conduct that doesn't add to overpopulation and at the same time reduces promiscuity.


It's not nice to write posts just to confuse everyone!!! Wink
anathematic
wolfhnd wrote:
Now that humans have proven they can fill every corner of the world. Maybe it would be a good idea to encourage a form of sexual conduct that doesn't add to overpopulation and at the same time reduces promiscuity.


excellent. I often wonder why there isnt an alert through the media everyday about over population. Unfortunately, i know the answer.
horseatingweeds
anathematic wrote:
wolfhnd wrote:
Now that humans have proven they can fill every corner of the world. Maybe it would be a good idea to encourage a form of sexual conduct that doesn't add to overpopulation and at the same time reduces promiscuity.


excellent. I often wonder why there isnt an alert through the media everyday about over population. Unfortunately, i know the answer.


The important thing is not population, but productivity per populist. We have six billion now and half of us are suffering from some form of malnutrition. In ten years if we have ten billion….dandy, as long as less than half are starving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
Da Rossa
I don't like the term 'gay marriage', since this is assigned to hetero couples. And I personally don't like gays or lesbians for a reason (not discrimination, if you believe): they're too self merciful (don't know if this adjective is applicable in English). Most of them like being homos, but they hate the status, dispite claiming to be happy and worry-free about any type of comments. Also, homossexuality is ridiculous by other reason: it's not deniable that gays existed since the man's existance, overall the greek soldiers and some emperors from Rome, but the homossexualism is being treated as something fashionable (in my country this is evident). When there are gay parades, the media covers everything, interviews transsexuals and the reporters smile. It seems that being gay is the most beautiful thing in the world. And last, but not least, adding this to the mercy subject, when the "Big Brother reality show" took place here in Brazil, there was a gay in there. All the gay and lesbian community made a enourmous effort to vote for him, not because of other qualities, but just for being gay. Then, he earned a million Reais. (1 USD, today = 2,3 Real).

Also, it is horrible for the children that see a gay couple. Why? Because this can, in the future, stimulate the legislators to allow the 'gay civil union' with the right to adopt children. It is proven that children that grew up without mothercare have an alterated mind state regarding to the lowlevel/lack of serotonin, that combined with high testosterone may result in a impulsive man, even a serial killer.

Yes, It all seems bullshit. But I haven't questioned any opinion here posted, an the hormone subject can be easily verified in searches like, for example, wikipedia.
Bondings
Da Rossa wrote:
Also, it is horrible for the children that see a gay couple. Why? Because this can, in the future, stimulate the legislators to allow the 'gay civil union' with the right to adopt children. It is proven that children that grew up without mothercare have an alterated mind state regarding to the lowlevel/lack of serotonin, that combined with high testosterone may result in a impulsive man, even a serial killer.

First of all, they do get mothercare. If they have two female parents, one will play the role of the father, the other of the mother. If they have two male parents, again, one will play the role of the father, the other of the mother.

Secondly, that was a comparison between a child with a mother and father and one with only a father, a one-parent situation. This isn't the case for children adopted by gay couples.
Da Rossa
No, sorry but it is not the same thing.
A child grown in a male-couple environment will find it weird to watch its friends being raised by a hetero couple, as he/she will begin to wonder how the life would be if he/she is taken care by a woman. No man can play a mothers role. It would be a illusionary theatre. Also, the adopted child will certainly, one day, want to meet his bioparents, like almost every adopted child.
DX-Blog
Da Rossa wrote:
No, sorry but it is not the same thing.
A child grown in a male-couple environment will find it weird to watch its friends being raised by a hetero couple, as he/she will begin to wonder how the life would be if he/she is taken care by a woman. No man can play a mothers role. It would be a illusionary theatre. Also, the adopted child will certainly, one day, want to meet his bioparents, like almost every adopted child.

Lmfao, out what of primitive country do you come from, lol.

Gay couples can adopt childeren here, I know a guy which has 2 dads this way and he definately aint a serial killer or anything, he doesn't find it weird to have 2 dads and how others have a dad and a mom. And I asked him once whether he wants to meet his bioparents, to which he replied with: "for me my 2 dads are my bioparents".

There is practically no difference between a gay couple raising a kid or a hetero couple raising a kid. And besides that, what does tend to happen in gay couples is that only 1 works and 1 stays at home to do the house and such. Whilst with hetero couples both parents work and the kid gets ditched in daycare. I think the child in a gay couple will on average get more attention by its parents this way than any other child Wink.

As for gay marriage, it is allowed where I live already and hardly anybody has a problem with it. I don't see why other countries are prohibiting it from happening, imho it's just enforcing public discrimination by giving gay people not the same rights as hetero sexual people. If discrimination is something which those countries try to promote then for sure they'll have a lot to learn.
birell
wolfhnd wrote:
Now that humans have proven they can fill every corner of the world. Maybe it would be a good idea to encourage a form of sexual conduct that doesn't add to overpopulation and at the same time reduces promiscuity.


I´ve never thought of it like that, but it does sound like a good idea.

As for what you should call it i think Marriage is fine. The marriage is the same thing regardless of the couple being homosexual or not. If you call a gay couples marriage for "Gay Marriage" then why aren´t heterosexual couples marriages called "Straight Marriages"?
gertjang
Why shouldn't gay couples mary if they want to?
riv_
If marriage really is a holy union under God, then it can't be changed by the lawmakers, can it? God will bless it or not according to the paramaters He has laid out?
So what does the religious establishment care about the legal establishments view? They are not the same thing. They never have been?
Otherwise, marriage already been "desecrated" by the high rates of divorce and abuse etc. etc. If there's been no outrage about that, then there is no right to complain about this. THis is pure bigotry and a shining example of the misapprpriation of the institution of the church... which was designed originally to spread Christs love... not the establishment's judgment.
Harsh words perhaps. But I should probably reveal myself now as a Bible, thumping, church going Christian.
I am very concerned about Gods view of marriage. The law is irrelevant to me. And if you are not a Christian, then God's law will be irrelavant to you.
We have been instructed to love. How about we quit our "poor me, what about my rights" whining and shouting and yelling... and do what He told us to do!
DX-Blog
Marriage isn't a holy union under god, marriage is just a word which has been given a certain meaning. One of the defenitions of marriage is:
Quote:
1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law

by: MWD

As you can see, by law, not by God.

Remember that you do not have to marry in a church and there are a lot of people which don't. Why pay for some crappy bishop or whatever to give you the extra words of "God bless this union", can better spent more money on your honeymoon instead Razz.

We're living in modern times after all, this fairytale figure named God is slowly being kicked out of real life business by certain people.
Da Rossa
By certain people, well said. People like you, that believe in nothing therefore you cannot reach the fullness of happiness. Every criminal has this lack of reference, as they believe and fear nothing, they feel free to go futher in the life of crime.

The Bible is sometimes treated as an "old book", by the ones who claim that "we live in modern times", in a distorted idea that the values of the Christianism are fading. The Bible is an eternal book, the situations exposed in the books date from a fairly distant past, but nothing has changed from there to now regarding to values. This was not supposed to get the religion context, but someone mentioned "God" above.
gonzo
so you want to play the "words have no meaning" game? ok, "you are a ****** tard and I hope you explode". eh eh eh you can't be offended. remember words have no meaning
Da Rossa
gonzo wrote:
so you want to play the "words have no meaning" game? ok, "you are a **** tard and I hope you explode". eh eh eh you can't be offended. remember words have no meaning


Was this to me?
DX-Blog
gonzo wrote:
so you want to play the "words have no meaning" game? ok, "you are a **** tard and I hope you explode". eh eh eh you can't be offended. remember words have no meaning

Words have the meaning which are assigned to them and in some cases these meanings are multiple. That's why it's also complete bullshit why certain words like f u c k in example tend to be sensored out. It's a miracle bullshit aint being sensored out yet for containing shit, yet f u c k is already being gone rid of here. The words get a specific meaning though when used in a certain combination of words, it's not the word which forms the meaning to it, it's the context.

So if you talk about marriage this on itself has nothing to do with God, it's just in which context you place it.

@Da Rossa: Cut the crap with not being able to reach the fullness of happiness if you don't believe in god and especially saying that every criminal has this lack of reference. Child molestation is something which happens frequently within churches in example by bishops or whatever, now does this make the entire believers nothing more than a bunch of hypocrits? Well, for what all they do in general I would easily answer that with yes, since just about absolutely none of them follows the bible by heart.

Just putting it up for show and going to church and getting married in a church doesn't make you a believer, that's what forms you into a hypocritcal lier.
Da Rossa
This does not apply to me. I'm a Catholic, not a hypocrat.
I mean it, every criminal has a lack of reference, as they fear not the punishment, in the scope of God or even in the human laws. That's why some people keep killing around, raping, kidnapping even with the death penalty there.
Yeah, there are several cases of child abuse in churches and other religious environments, that's a shame, I feel for the victims. But it does not deny the authenticity or the seriousness of the instituition. Perverted priests were not supposed to be ordered. In fact they should be excecuted, very fair.
Besides, my statement about the profile of a gay couple raised child is not based in rumors or imaginations. It is scientifically proven. See Professor Lord Robert Winston's arcticles if you want.
MalvagioAddict
Okay, I suppose this is a bit getting serious with all the accusations being thrown about the way I see it. Let's all just agree that we have different opinions, the way I see it we'd rather have our own stand.

Here's the way I see it, of course, not every priest or members of religious organziations are guaranteed not to make the gravest of sin be it molestation, or what not, but it should not devalue the works of years of religion. They should be put on trial, the person itself, not the institution.

As with gay marriage, well why do you need to actually go to a church to be wed, when you're already receiving the rights and benefits as a partner, you don't need the chruch ceremony or civil ceremony of a marriage to make it real.

The way I see it and my stand is Matrimony is for a man and a woman to celebrate their union, there is no gray area.

Real commitment from both parties, whether is a straight or same sex relationships is the only ceremony both needs to have their partnership fullfilled not a ceremony or a piece of paper.
blackheart
To start, you obviously aren't looking at this from an unbiased opinion as you refer to homosexuals as "homo's".

Seccondly - marraige is the union of two people who are in love - of any race or denomination.

How would you like to only have something as cold as a Civil "Union" or "Partnership" with the love of your life.

Attraction to the same sex is not a choice - you're born with it. I don't know the exact science, but it's some-how to do with chemical balance and hormone levels.

They aren't hurting anyone, and it wouldn't be skin off anyone's back to allow them something as simple as marraige.

If you want to look at this from a religious perspective, God obviously has no issue with homosexuality - or he would not have created people as such. Again, it's not like they choose to be as they are.
Many homosexuals are incredibly religious, and most wish the world only good - no matter that it's full of biggots slandering who they are.

Those who are religious want to be wed in the eyes of God. It's not just about the legalities and rights.

How cold must the world be to deny something so simple, that provides a couple so much happiness? "Metro" or "homo"?

=> Jess Black
riv_
I think my point is that there is such a thing is a legal contractual marriage that is completely distinct from the other sort of marriage. WHich does also exist (whether you like it or not)
Now, the first type ought to be available to anyone as far as I am concerned.
It is a Godless union for people who are unconcerned with God. Why should anyone stop them from it?
The second... a marriage in the eyes of God, is available to those who want it, and to those who believe in GOd, and live accordingly (yes, I understand that this means someone has to decide what this means... but each religion should have the right to decide what it believes and live accordingly.)
Why does everyone have such a problem with that? Why does everyone want to make it so complicated.
I suspect it's not really about the marriage issue at all... but about people being mad at each other for years and years of wrong treatment... and just latching on to an issue as an excuse to argue, yell, and generally bash one another.
anathematic
horseatingweeds wrote:
anathematic wrote:
wolfhnd wrote:
Now that humans have proven they can fill every corner of the world. Maybe it would be a good idea to encourage a form of sexual conduct that doesn't add to overpopulation and at the same time reduces promiscuity.


excellent. I often wonder why there isnt an alert through the media everyday about over population. Unfortunately, i know the answer.


The important thing is not population, but productivity per populist. We have six billion now and half of us are suffering from some form of malnutrition. In ten years if we have ten billion….dandy, as long as less than half are starving.

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


the last thing we need is more, polluting stupid, americans.
strfry
When folks talk with a gay couple will they ask, "Are you civilly united?" Heck no, they're going to ask, "Are you married?" Marriage is a concept held by many different cultures and religions, often quite differently. So now, should we ban traditional Indian marriages because they are arranged? Or perhaps because they aren't Christian? The whole thing is frickin' silly. Marriage is a union between two people. Good 'nuff for me. Hell, there are people who worship Satan who can get married, but now two same-sex folks who are otherwise "normal" can't? WTF?
benwhite
If you think all gay people who want to be married are unreligious, you'd be very mistaken. Many gays want a place in their religious community as well, and many religious leaders are willing to give them one. Obviously, more are not.

There's something insincere about the sanctity of 'marriage' when the divorce rate in the US is like 50%. What institution are we trying to uphold? Apparently, Gay "partners" on average stay together more often. Interesting.

All the morals of the bible are still as valid today as they were back then? All of them? Including the right to own slaves? Or that if your wife cannot produce a child, you may have one with a slave instead? Or countless others that we don't use anymore because we decided that some things weren't proper for our society anymore. Some things do change.
Marston
riv_ wrote:
If marriage really is a holy union under God, then it can't be changed by the lawmakers, can it? God will bless it or not according to the paramaters He has laid out?
This is highly invalid, because Marriage is not, I repeat, not a creation of the Christian Religion. Marriage has been around since before the Bible was even thought of.
heath wrote:
Since the word 'marriage' is already taken for hetero couples, is it really so bad to disallow 'gay marriage' as long as a Civil Union or Civil Partnership offers the same rights to homo coupls?
Most modern dictionaries don't define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, they merely define it as the union of two people. Marriage has not, and shouldn't be taken for hetero couples.
horseatingweeds
anathematic wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
anathematic wrote:
wolfhnd wrote:
Now that humans have proven they can fill every corner of the world. Maybe it would be a good idea to encourage a form of sexual conduct that doesn't add to overpopulation and at the same time reduces promiscuity.


excellent. I often wonder why there isnt an alert through the media everyday about over population. Unfortunately, i know the answer.


The important thing is not population, but productivity per populist. We have six billion now and half of us are suffering from some form of malnutrition. In ten years if we have ten billion….dandy, as long as less than half are starving.

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


the last thing we need is more, polluting stupid, americans.


Yeh, more, polluting stupid, Europeans is better.

By the way, we like intelligent posts here. Not angry rantings. If you genuinely feel that Americans, in general, pollute more than the rest of the world and are less intelligent, then back it up with some substance.
madsencarl
I think that being gay is unnatural. Wierd. Odd. Men have a**es for one reason and one reason only - To sit down on the sh***er and let loose. It's an exit, not an entry.
mstreet
I think that governments should do away with the word marriage and use civil union. Leave marriage up to the different religions and churches out there.
rvec
Da Rossa wrote:

As for gay marriage, it is allowed where I live already and hardly anybody has a problem with it. I don't see why other countries are prohibiting it from happening, imho it's just enforcing public discrimination by giving gay people not the same rights as hetero sexual people. If discrimination is something which those countries try to promote then for sure they'll have a lot to learn.


I might live in the same country (holland) nothing is prohibited here (weed gay mariage...) and I am not christian but I am also against gay mariage. And I don't think it is discrimination. You give them exactly the same rights it doesn't matter if someone is gay or not they may al have a happy mariage BUT NOT WITH THE SAME SEXE. Gay's are not discriminated. They have the same rights, they may marry.

Or you should also be able to marry your cat. We are discriminating the people who love there pet. I love my fish and I want to marry her. Why can't I?
strfry
rvec wrote:
Or you should also be able to marry your cat. We are discriminating the people who love there pet. I love my fish and I want to marry her. Why can't I?


Sounds like the same arguments that were made about blacks and whites not being able to marry in some parts of the United States during more than the first half of the last century. The ol' "if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile" argument. While that's certainly a concern (I think a line must be drawn at least at the species level) I don't think it applies here anyway.

Here, we are already allowing these two people to partner together, in many countries we even allow them 100% of the same legal rights as man-woman couples. But, we won't let them "say" they are married, because... well.. because. It's a word. I think folks need to "get over it." Wink
riv_
Marston wrote:
riv_ wrote:
If marriage really is a holy union under God, then it can't be changed by the lawmakers, can it? God will bless it or not according to the paramaters He has laid out?
This is highly invalid, because Marriage is not, I repeat, not a creation of the Christian Religion. Marriage has been around since before the Bible was even thought of.

Agreed. That said, the roots of the Christianity go back to "long before the Bible was even thought of".
I'm merely arguing from the Christian perspective beacause, where I come from, the Christians seem to be the ones who are all upset over the gay marriage issue. As a Christian who is not opposed to gay marriage, I would present my point of view from the Christian perspective
I agree that marriage can be viewed as a secular union, defined purely by culture and law. I have no problem with that. As such, I agree, that it should be viewed as a lawful union between 2 people. Period.
But there is, like it or not, another kind of union that does occur. Some people choose to be married in a church by a priest. This is a different thing. This is a union under God.
If a homosexual couple wants to pursue the second kind of union, there may be issues. SOme churches can't marry homosexual couples because they don't believe that God sanctifies such unions. Fair enough. (Currently, some churches also won't marry people who aren't members of their church, or who have been divorced etc.)
I just think the legal issue is separate from the religious issue, and the religious community should back off about the law.(If I believe in God, what difference does it make to me that you don't?) And the legal community should back off about the religion. (If you don't believe in God, what difference does it make to you that I do?)
Marston
madsencarl wrote:
I think that being gay is unnatural. Wierd. Odd. Men have a**es for one reason and one reason only - To sit down on the sh***er and let loose. It's an exit, not an entry.
If it's unnatural, why are people born homosexual?
Dorsk82
anathematic wrote:
god has more things to deal with than semantics.


Amen!
MalvagioAddict
Quote:
If it's unnatural, why are people born homosexual?


Are they really born or are they actually made. There are some certain studies that claims this. I mean I'm no psycho-analyst. But I believe that up to a certain point society and a persons immediate environment has something to do with a persons particular sexual orientation.
rvec
Marston wrote:
madsencarl wrote:
I think that being gay is unnatural. Wierd. Odd. Men have a**es for one reason and one reason only - To sit down on the sh***er and let loose. It's an exit, not an entry.
If it's unnatural, why are people born homosexual?


Humans are ment to be the smarter race but some people ask unnatural weird questions Laughing

sorry i just wanted to say it. But there are also people born withoud legs or arms do you means tha't natural? It might be but it's nog good. I think the same about homosexuals. It isn't right.
Srs2388
I dont think anyone could ever convince me to change my viewpoint on this ever because I think it is so wrong
God mad Adam and Eve........not Adam and Steve
and I know i probably spelled this wrong but
what about sodom and gommora? someone probably knows what these cities were destroyed for... *bump*
I dont see why they leave marriage alone that isn't right to allow gays to be married really...... but thats just my opinion
MalvagioAddict
they did not exactly turn Sodom and Gamorrah into a pillar of salt because people were doing what you're implying they're doing.

They were done for because they didn't respect the angels that God sent to them in order to try and save the city.

marriage should definitely be out of the question as someone in the same thread previously stated they should leave the matrimonial ceremony alone and call them civil union, and thereby having the same rights as man and woman who were wed.

But it is indeed unfair for us to say that they're were born that way. it's just isn't right. Let's just respect who they are as persons not judge them on their sexual orientation.
Marston
MalvagioAddict wrote:
Quote:
If it's unnatural, why are people born homosexual?


Are they really born or are they actually made. There are some certain studies that claims this. I mean I'm no psycho-analyst. But I believe that up to a certain point society and a persons immediate environment has something to do with a persons particular sexual orientation.
What about homosexuality in other chimpanzees? I highly doubt that a person's sexual orientation can be altered by something in their immediate environment...
Soulfire
And what about the homosexual penguins at the zoo in Mass.? I really don't think that environment plays a big role. People are born that way.
justmooit
We need to come into the 21st century where we are not a god fearing society. Any way it's proved that it is not so much a choice as just as homosexuals find the normal way. We have to stop being scared of what could happen. It is not a desecretion! and as holy as it may be it is not made by god. Let us be liberated by what we should do. I am sick of people saying that it is not natural. Who are we to say what is natural. Who are we to tell people they can not be married because they are offensive to the 'true image'. Grow up.
strfry
Some people are born with both sexes. Some are born with indeterminate sexes. Not far fetched to see that some are born different sexes mentally versus physically. There's a lot of variation, from the most alpha of physical and mental males to the most feminine girly girls and everything in between. Mistakes? Maybe. I mean, obviously two same sex folks are going to create offspring to continue their genetic variation. But why not allow them to enjoy the life they've been given.

For marriage, it's just a word. Get over it.

I've been on both sides of this argument. I used to think that homosexuality was "wrong". I believed that sure, maybe they were born that way, but they should resist their deviant urges. I even compared them to folks who were born with suicidal and even homicidal tendencies. We expect such folks to resist their urges to fit into society or be punished. We don't allow people to kill other people or even themselves just because they were born that way.

Then, I came to the realization that homosexuality causes absolutely no harm to others, at all, whatsoever. It isn't all that much different from liking blondes over brunettes, or curvy women over petite, or muscular guys over stout. Consenting adults, no physical harm, seems fine to me. The only "harm" done is simply the perception of others. And they just need to "get over it."
MalvagioAddict
Well, I actually did not know that there were gay chimpanzees and penguins, it seems that we learn something new everyday.

Well one has to admit, that a lack of father figure in some cases would probably predispose a person to be gay, I mean when you have no one but a mother to be there without having at least masculine influence either in the form of uncles or cousins, I do think that they'd be more than likely to develop the tendencies. as with growing up with a bunch of sisters. like when you're an only girl with a bunch of brothers you develop some tomboyish tendencies.

Quote:
Then, I came to the realization that homosexuality causes absolutely no harm to others, at all, whatsoever. It isn't all that much different from liking blondes over brunettes, or curvy women over petite, or muscular guys over stout. Consenting adults, no physical harm, seems fine to me. The only "harm" done is simply the perception of others. And they just need to "get over it."


amen
benwhite
I imagine not having a father figure probably isn't any worse than growing up a single-parent or parents that go through a divorce---which is to say: not necessarily bad at all.

It's been shown that there are plenty of nice, tolerant children from gay parents who are just fine.

Why would anyone choose to be homosexual because their parents were? There is still a lot of hate in the world; it's a whole lot easier to be straight.

Why were the gays back when they were continuously beaten, lynched, or killed for expressing their preferences? To think someone would willingly endanger themselves in a homophobic society doesn't really make sense. It's just a part of them, a part that doesn't hurt anyone (amen). It's not a threat to the "family unit" because people who are straight will continue to be straight and have families. This "threat" implies homosexuality as a subversive culture intent on destroying the rest of humanity. Ew, yeah right.
blackheart
rvec wrote:
Da Rossa wrote:

As for gay marriage, it is allowed where I live already and hardly anybody has a problem with it. I don't see why other countries are prohibiting it from happening, imho it's just enforcing public discrimination by giving gay people not the same rights as hetero sexual people. If discrimination is something which those countries try to promote then for sure they'll have a lot to learn.


I might live in the same country (holland) nothing is prohibited here (weed gay mariage...) and I am not christian but I am also against gay mariage. And I don't think it is discrimination. You give them exactly the same rights it doesn't matter if someone is gay or not they may al have a happy mariage BUT NOT WITH THE SAME SEXE. Gay's are not discriminated. They have the same rights, they may marry.

Or you should also be able to marry your cat. We are discriminating the people who love there pet. I love my fish and I want to marry her. Why can't I?


Because you're cat isn't another human being - and I think you're a pig for what you just said. People don't choose to be homosexual or lesbian - you're born that way and there's nothing you can do to change it. Asking a gay man to love a woman would be the same as asking you to love another man.
If you're against gay marraige, then you have every right to state your opinion, but what you said's disgusting - degrading innocent people to the level of those who have intercourse with "inferior" animals.

I'm not even being harsh in saying you disgust me - even through only that post.

Arrow Jess Black.
mota
I totally agree gay marriage. In the future, there may have some high technologies which allow mans to have babies.
Soulfire
mota wrote:
I totally agree gay marriage. In the future, there may have some high technologies which allow mans to have babies.

I doubt it. Homosexuality has already been deemed unnatural by most people, and therefore not many people condone it. How do you think people will react to news like that?

I don't think it will happen, at least anytime soon.

As for the marriage thing? No, not marriage. A civil union with the same legal benefits of marriage would work, but the institution of marriage should not be desecrated like that. Whether you believe it or not, marriage is a religious thing, whether you are married in a church or not, it's a religious thing.
Bondings
Soulfire wrote:
As for the marriage thing? No, not marriage. A civil union with the same legal benefits of marriage would work, but the institution of marriage should not be desecrated like that. Whether you believe it or not, marriage is a religious thing, whether you are married in a church or not, it's a religious thing.

Marriage is by definition a civil union. If you are talking about a civil union with the same benefits of a marriage, then why not call it marriage?

By the way, some American tribes (the real Americans Wink ) treated gay man as women. They had to sit while peeing, had to wear a skirt and they married other men. There are plenty of other examples on every continent available. Here is what wikipedia says about it.
Quote:
Same-sex marriage has been documented in many societies that were not subject to Christian influence. In North America, among the Native American societies, it has taken the form of two-spirit-type relationships, in which some male members of the tribe, from an early age, heed a calling to take on female gender with all its responsibilities. They are prized as wives by the other men in the tribe, who enter into formal marriages with these two-spirit men. They are also respected as being especially powerful shamans.

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

And even if it would be a religious thing, then why shouldn't gay marriage be allowed? There are plenty of churches in America and at least a few of them accept gay marriage. Just to give you an example: http://www.uua.org/news/2003/031118.html .
Quote:
We enthusiastically applaud today's ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in favor of same-sex marriage.

Or aren't lieberals allowed to have a religion?
SunburnedCactus
Bondings wrote:
Or aren't lieberals allowed to have a religion?


Huh? Slipping into S3nd Keys-speak there? Wink
prongs_386
when people talk of christian morals and the holy gods way of things, pretty much christianity has just been derived from other religions, and ast the roots it's really been our morals, human morals that have molded religion, not god giving us morals. Religion has taken much of life and written it down in association with thier god. I suppose everyone would say god created us and the morals we have, but the way i see it, religion has been molded to cope with the current social status and whats exceptable. Homosexuality is just something which as of yet hasnt been unwritten as an evil act. In the times the bible was written everyone believed in whitches. Do we now? Whitches arent mentioned as evil by the church anymore because no one believes in them. The Church will keep changing with the flow of science etc. and it will be a happy day when they forget this quarrel of homosexuality.
Nibbler26
Da Rossa wrote:
No, sorry but it is not the same thing.
A child grown in a male-couple environment will find it weird to watch its friends being raised by a hetero couple, as he/she will begin to wonder how the life would be if he/she is taken care by a woman. No man can play a mothers role. It would be a illusionary theatre. Also, the adopted child will certainly, one day, want to meet his bioparents, like almost every adopted child.


<censored, please read the forum rules - insulting other people or groups of people is not allowed>
prongs_386
Quote:
This Can Be A Reason.. But I Think Thank Gay Marriage Shouldnt Even Be Allowed.. Whats So Good Of A Man Sticking His D*** Up Another Mans A**... Cmon.. Thats Just Sick... The World Should Have Stayed With Man/Woman... And Now Its Not Even Co - Op Relationships.. Really Disgusting If You Ask Me...

That is a rediculous narrowminded view to take, just because you are heterosexual and have no attraction to the same sex, you think it's disgusting and shouldn't be done. That is worse in my opinion than a simple religious view of it.
Nibbler26
prongs_386 wrote:
Quote:
This Can Be A Reason.. But I Think Thank Gay Marriage Shouldnt Even Be Allowed.. Whats So Good Of A Man Sticking His D*** Up Another Mans A**... Cmon.. Thats Just Sick... The World Should Have Stayed With Man/Woman... And Now Its Not Even Co - Op Relationships.. Really Disgusting If You Ask Me...

That is a rediculous narrowminded view to take, just because you are heterosexual and have no attraction to the same sex, you think it's disgusting and shouldn't be done. That is worse in my opinion than a simple religious view of it.


No Actually Your Wrong.. In My Opinion I Think It Shouldnt Be Done.. But I Dont Really Care If It Happens As Long As It 1. Dont Happen To Me.. And 2. No Gay Person Starts Acting Gay With Me.. Im Serious.. I Would Not Like To Be Touched In A Gay Way By The Same Sex.. Now If It Was A Girl I Liked.. Then We Dont Got A Problem Lolz.... Laughing
prongs_386
i don't think it should matter, if a girl touches you and you don't like it then you tell them to back off, exactly the same as a guy. It's sexual assault whether its a guy or a girl so it shouldn't matter.
Marston
prongs_386 wrote:
i don't think it should matter, if a girl touches you and you don't like it then you tell them to back off, exactly the same as a guy. It's sexual assault whether its a guy or a girl so it shouldn't matter.
This is totally unrelated to the rest of the thread... Keep it pertinent, man.
prongs_386
Quote:
This is totally unrelated to the rest of the thread... Keep it pertinent, man.

But it is related, the issue isn't just gay marriage, it is equality for homosexuality. Marriage is just one of the things people have been talking about.
tengsoon
Hey dudes, i think there really isn't much point talking or debating our heads off here if we are missing the big picture.

The truth and stats are in your face if you would do some research. There is really a huge number of gays out there and (sometimes i really wonder they were BORN gay or they BECAME gay, but this is out of this forum) if you think that your community is clean of gays, you could be so wrong. In fact, many of us might even have kids who are gays no matter how much parenting we put into it. Its just happening despite all the suppression and stuff in many places. Why??

Many "gays" are not born gays, they simply think that its cool just to be one, cool to be this sensitive new person, a person of the new age. I'm not kidding, this is what they told me: as a gay you fell more "free" in your thinking, you are no longer bound by traditional you are a guy, you are a girl mentality. This is what makes its cool.

As long as this thinking is encouraged (indirectly by the traditional values and suppression and literature and movies), the number of people becoming gay add to those who are born gay is bound to increase exponentially no matter what laws or nonsense people do.

This is how REVOLUTIONS take place people, can you see it coming, thinking spread beneath suppression, finally too many people share the common vision and a revolution sweeps us all.

Although i don't like gays, but well at this rate we are going(stupid laws and suppression as opposed to respect and "de-cool"ing it), the tipping point could be in my lifetime.
Texas Al
If you think homosexuality is wrong, don't do it.

If you think same sex partnerships are wrong, don't get involved in one.

If you don't want your child to be gay, pray to God not to give the kid a combination of genes that will make him or her predisposed to homosexuality. Or adopt a child that's old enough that they already know whether they're gay or straight.

If your child turns out to be gay anyway, either...

1. Try to force them to be straight, thereby guaranteeing that they will eventually not only rebell against you and be gay anyway, but that they will hate your religion and everything else you stand for.

2. Interpret the fact of their gayness despite your prayers as a message, or challenge, from God. Raise the child with love and acceptance, to fulfill their own potential instead of your plans for them.
Marston
prongs_386 wrote:
Quote:
This is totally unrelated to the rest of the thread... Keep it pertinent, man.

But it is related, the issue isn't just gay marriage, it is equality for homosexuality. Marriage is just one of the things people have been talking about.
Your post had nothing to do with equality for gay people, or gay marriage... Wink
zeebo323
Gay marriage is a choice, not a priviledge. They should have the right, just like we have the right to marry people we want to spend the rest of our life with. This is just getting out of hand I think everyone should be equal and have the same rights and homosexuals have that lifestyle because thats the way they chose to live their life, it's none of our business to interfere with that.
joscode
horseatingweeds wrote:
anathematic wrote:
wolfhnd wrote:
Now that humans have proven they can fill every corner of the world. Maybe it would be a good idea to encourage a form of sexual conduct that doesn't add to overpopulation and at the same time reduces promiscuity.


excellent. I often wonder why there isnt an alert through the media everyday about over population. Unfortunately, i know the answer.


The important thing is not population, but productivity per populist. We have six billion now and half of us are suffering from some form of malnutrition. In ten years if we have ten billion….dandy, as long as less than half are starving.

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


Overpopulation is a myth. Consider the dimensions of the state of Texas in relation to the world's population. We could comofortably fit every single human being in the state of Texas and it would be less dense than the State of New York. Most of the world's starvation is cause by dictators and tyrants who don't allow food supplies into their starving nations.

As far as the Gay Marriage, all marriges should be Gay (happy), but cannot be marriage if it is homosexual/lesbian. You really cannot call a bicycle a car, if you did, you would be lying--even if you belived it to be true.
strfry
joscode wrote:
As far as the Gay Marriage, all marriges should be Gay (happy), but cannot be marriage if it is homosexual/lesbian. You really cannot call a bicycle a car, if you did, you would be lying--even if you belived it to be true.


Please... marriage is, at its simplest, "an intimate or close union". You have attributed your own narrow meaning to the word rather than its general usage. Marriage can even be used with reference to completely inanimate, inorganic objects. Heck, it's even used for vague concepts. "The Palm V is a great example of a marriage of form and function."

Your bicycle/car analogy just doesn't equate. Perhaps bicycle/car both being vehicles would be better.

[Also, for completeness: "Lying" connotates intent, so when one doesn't know they are telling an untruth, we don't usually say they are "lying" but rather that they didn't know, or were misinformed, perhaps even ignorant, but not a lier.]
crdowner
I was raised in a two parent family - one mother and one father. My parents have been married for over 35 years now. Both of my parents worked and I had about as much "alone" time with one parent as I did with the other. I also have a brother and a sister. All that being said, I am a gay man. I was attracted to men before puberty. I certainly did not choose to be gay. Why would anyone choose to be discriminated against, to live in fear of being gay bashed, and to not have the same basic rights that heterosexuals have? Even today in 2006 my employer can fire me just for my sexual orientation.

I agree that the media has made being gay out to be glamorous but I can tell you that it has not been glamorous for me. I was brought up in a Southern Baptist church being told my whole life that being gay is wrong. This is why suicide among gay teens is higher than any other group. I prayed MANY times to be straight. I thought that I was destined to be celebate but why should I not enjoy the companionship of another person just because of my sexual orientation?

Many religious groups refer to Leviticus and the destruction of Sodom and Gamora as evidence of homosexuality being "wrong". The same chapter that talks about a man lying with a man being an abomination to God also talks about a man having sex with a woman during her period and several other unclean acts. Much more is said about these acts than about a man lying with a man. No one ever seems to mention this though. Sadam and Gamora was destroyed (as previously noted) because the residents did not respect the angels. These men tried to force themselves on the angels. This constitutes rape not consentual sex. And, let's not forget that the Bible was written my men and translated NUMEROUS times by men.

Whether marriage started off as a religous ceremony or not is irrelevant today. Marriage is now a legal issue. Couples are married not only by priests and pastors but also by justices of the peace. A marriage ceremony may be in a church, in a home, in Vegas, or numerous other places. A marriage done by a priest in a church is legally EXACTLY the same as a marriage done by a justice of the peace in a casino. Mr. Bush and the conservatives like to throw around "protecting the sanctity of marriage". Sanctity refers to religion and Mr. Bush has no business mixing religion and marriage.

Straight men seem to have more issues with gays than straight women. I do not want to have sex with ANYONE who does not want to have sex with me. There is no need for straight men to be uncomfortable around gay men. Gay men are not going to rape them.

From what I hear, straight men like to have anal sex with straight women. Why is this practice so accepted in the hetero community when sex between two men is not? I can not speak for most gays but my partner (of 8 years) and I rarely have anal sex. We provide pleasure to each other in other ways.

Gays often get blamed for child molestation when it is straight men who commit the vast majority of molestations. Anybody who is perverted enough to force themselves on another person - especially a child, should be put under the jail.

I do not want to offend anyone in these forums. I just want to clear up some of the misconceptions that people have.
lyndonray
i don't know what the hell the big deal is. as far as I am concerned do whatever the hell you want as long as it doesn't have an adverse effect on anyone's physical, mental and spiritual well-being. now how the hell is two dudes getting married going to kill me? you know what i mean. yes i understand the whole sanctity of marriage and all that good stuff. but don't we all have the right to have a share of that sanctity or whatever. i think it's just selfishness. A simple attitude of, "no, this is mine and you can't have any of it".

besides most hetero couples out there don't even know that there is a sanctity to marriage. look at the divorce rates!! Gay people would probably respect marriage more because it means a whole lot more to them. it's not an automatic given. They have to overcome a lot more to get married, therefore they would appreciate it more.

Also, my theory is, if you are sooo homophobic, take a very good look at yourself. There might just be a closet trying to kick you out, so to speak. So you might need to get out of it!!
blackheart
To crdowner,

Anyone offended by a post as genuine and reasonable as that shouldn't be on these forums.
blackheart
rvec wrote:
Marston wrote:
madsencarl wrote:
I think that being gay is unnatural. Wierd. Odd. Men have a**es for one reason and one reason only - To sit down on the sh***er and let loose. It's an exit, not an entry.
If it's unnatural, why are people born homosexual?


Humans are ment to be the smarter race but some people ask unnatural weird questions Laughing

sorry i just wanted to say it. But there are also people born withoud legs or arms do you means tha't natural? It might be but it's nog good. I think the same about homosexuals. It isn't right.


Oh okay, so everyone born with a "handi-cap" should be discriminated against and have laws passed against their ever getting married.
And of course, it would make all the logical sense in the world if people without arms or legs couldn't get married.

Also, would you consider someone without an arm - in the exact wording - "not right"?
strfry
I find it slightly odd that folks in favor of "civil unions" aren't in favor of just letting them say they're "married". What do you think they are going to tell people? "We are civilly united?" What do you think their friends are going to refer to them as? If they are celebreties, what do you think reporters with refer to them as? Maybe.... married? Then what? Start a trademark infringement lawsuit or something?
diyarbekri
160. The people of Lut rejected the apostles.

161. Behold, their brother Lut said to them: "Will ye not fear ((Allah))?

162. "I am to you an apostle worthy of all trust.

163. "So fear Allah and obey me.

164. "No reward do I ask of you for it: my reward is only from the lord of the Worlds.

165. "Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males,

166. "And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!"

167. They said: "If thou desist not, O Lut! thou wilt assuredly be cast out!"

168. He said: "I do detest your doings."

169. "O my Lord! deliver me and my family from such things as they do!"

170. So We delivered him and his family,- all

171. Except an old woman who lingered behind.

172. But the rest We destroyed utterly.

Qur'an (The Poets 26)
The English Translation Of The Holy Qur'an by Abdullah Yusuf Ali.
http://web.umr.edu/~msaumr/Quran/
Texas Al
Haven't you just committed a sin by posting this?

It's not in the original Arabic! You have altered the Inalterable Word.
nealio1000
gays should be allowed to marry. if it weren't for all those stupid republicans in the south who say it is against the bible. First thing it doesn't sya anything abotu gay marrage it says that they can't "do it" (im not against that either). Second thing if heterosexual couples are allowed to marry why nto homosexuals too? Lastly the bib;e was written almost 2000 years ago do you really think that what people believed then should still be believed now. people learn from their mistakes.
Texas Al
nealio1000 wrote:
people learn from their mistakes.


LOL. Some people. And to learn from mistakes, they first have to get used to admitting that they make them.
Texas Al
Sigh.

Well, all I can say is that anybody will be allowed to marry anybody else on my little renewably-powered, self-sufficient survivalist compound (someday when I build one).

And anybody who doesn't like it will be welcome to live on the outside with the other idiots who thought divine intervention or economic forces they don't even understand properly would take care of them.
rwojick
The government data bases are all fouled up with one man and one woman in the marriage so if they combine man to man and woman to woman it will hide the errors in their data base even better.

It is an Enron kind of thing...
horseatingweeds
joscode wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
anathematic wrote:
wolfhnd wrote:
Now that humans have proven they can fill every corner of the world. Maybe it would be a good idea to encourage a form of sexual conduct that doesn't add to overpopulation and at the same time reduces promiscuity.


excellent. I often wonder why there isnt an alert through the media everyday about over population. Unfortunately, i know the answer.


The important thing is not population, but productivity per populist. We have six billion now and half of us are suffering from some form of malnutrition. In ten years if we have ten billion….dandy, as long as less than half are starving.

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


Overpopulation is a myth. Consider the dimensions of the state of Texas in relation to the world's population. We could comofortably fit every single human being in the state of Texas and it would be less dense than the State of New York. Most of the world's starvation is cause by dictators and tyrants who don't allow food supplies into their starving nations.

As far as the Gay Marriage, all marriges should be Gay (happy), but cannot be marriage if it is homosexual/lesbian. You really cannot call a bicycle a car, if you did, you would be lying--even if you belived it to be true.


Well said jascode. It must be a key to such dictators, as well as their goons to keep the population too weak to fight back.

As for what you say about gay marriage and bicycles, … You ignorant bigot!!!! Bicycles are machines just like every other machine. Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean it’s wrong!!! Hating bicycles is wrong. Bicycles deserve the same rights as cars and black people!!! They were born that way.
XxGunner
i dont think gay marriage should be allowed since its just disgusting in my veiw... Razz
Soulfire
While gay people must have rights to, marriage (whether you believe it or not) is a religions institution and should not be desecrated. If same-sex people would like to "marry," why not make a civil union give the same legal benefits as marriage?

That would be the best thing in my opinion. It would satisfy both sides. They aren't married, but they are united, and enjoy the legal benefits of marriage without actually being married... but they're united.

I hope this makes sense.
crdowner
Hi soulfire,

I have no problem with civil unions but let me ask you something. How is a "marriage" that is performed by a justice of the peace or some other secular person a religious institution? If gays should only be allowed to have civil unions, let's call "marriages" performed by secular persons civil unions as well. I wonder if heterosexual couples would feel discriminated.
horseatingweeds
crdowner wrote:
Hi soulfire,

I have no problem with civil unions but let me ask you something. How is a "marriage" that is performed by a justice of the peace or some other secular person a religious institution? If gays should only be allowed to have civil unions, let's call "marriages" performed by secular persons civil unions as well. I wonder if heterosexual couples would feel discriminated.


It’s rely not as complicated as our relentless double posting on this subject, the colorful parades, and rhyming redirects would make is sound.

Marriage: a union between a man and a woman.
Symmetrical: having mirrored like sides.
Homosexual: having a sexual drive to attempt procreation with your own sex.
Square: having four equal sides.
Double: increasing by two.

These are all words. Only words. However, these are words that many very important things are hinged upon.

If someone is really concerned about “gay rights”, as our friend Soulfire has pointed out,

soulfire wrote:
While gay people must have rights to, marriage (whether you believe it or not) is a religions institution and should not be desecrated. If same-sex people would like to "marry," why not make a civil union give the same legal benefits as marriage?


they would be concerned about “gay rights”. In other words, they would be concerned about equality between two separate types of unions. One, a union between man and woman, and two, a union between two humans.

This argument only reduces the credibility of homosexuals and their “gay rights”.

This is all only my opinion though.
crdowner
Source: Merrimn-Webster online dictionary

Marriage:
(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

Homosexual:
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex

Note that marriage is recognized by "law" not religion.

Note that homosexual is about desire (or attraction) not about procreation.

If you are going to debate a topic, try to use correct information that supports your opinion(s).
horseatingweeds
crdowner wrote:
Source: Merrimn-Webster online dictionary

Marriage:
(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

Homosexual:
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex

Note that marriage is recognized by "law" not religion.

Note that homosexual is about desire (or attraction) not about procreation.

If you are going to debate a topic, try to use correct information that supports your opinion(s).


GOOD WORK crdowner!!! A+ for googling

However, please read whole post.

horseatingweeds wrote:

This is all only my opinion though.


Extra special technical definitions have little to do with my point. My point was of general definition.

Additionally, thank you for making the point that mariage is important outside of religion. I would continue with this and that about peoples need ing marriage in their societies to survive and so mariage have been a sacred (no religious) instituation forever, for important reasons.
strfry
Soulfire wrote:
marriage (whether you believe it or not) is a religions institution and should not be desecrated


Ah, but you see that is your belief and is not upheld in today's society en-masse. Now, if you said baptism is a religious institution, no problems there as that is generally accepted. But to say marriage is wholly religious is already no longer a true statement in society.

Soulfire wrote:
If same-sex people would like to "marry," why not make a civil union give the same legal benefits as marriage?


Because, quite simply, you are now just trying to take a word from someone. "Your union is 100% equivalent to mine, but you can't say you're married." Why not?

But furthermore, do you really think civilly united couples are going to say they are civlly united, or do you think they will say they are married? And that they'll be referred to as being married by all those who know them? And, what can be done to keep them from saying they are married anyhow? In legal terms, the trademark "marriage" is so diluted as to be indefensible.
Marston
strfry wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
marriage (whether you believe it or not) is a religions institution and should not be desecrated


Ah, but you see that is your belief and is not upheld in today's society en-masse. Now, if you said baptism is a religious institution, no problems there as that is generally accepted. But to say marriage is wholly religious is already no longer a true statement in society.
Well said, I agree.

XxGunner wrote:
i dont think gay marriage should be allowed since its just disgusting in my veiw... Razz
Bigotry isn't funny, jerk.
tengsoon
WOw, crdowner, thanX for clearing the air for us.

What a lot of people are seeing are just their own selfish and egocentric views, they just don't see that gays are just the same as anyone of us, you guys also have FEELINGS and emotions.

Do spare some empathy and understand how its like.

I mean they just happen to like guys just like how i happen to like this gal across the street. There isn't even much sexual attraction involved, its just, erm like that...

Haha, the stuff about how they are going to rape you or enter each other's backdoor is probably all in your "disgusting" imagination. Its all conceived by this filthy mind that tried to judge someone else's life.


About marriage, love should be in the centre of a marriage (ideally), so as long as that * element is there i don't see a problem calling it a union no matter what kind of sematics, law or religious "rules" there are.
ABurja
I for gay marriage, 'cause of one simple reason.
We, and society, has got nothing to do interfering and managing peoples private lives. Now I my self am not attracted do the thought of marrying another man, but that’s my opinion, and I can't demand to have it forbiden for that reason.

I do not like techno, should we forbid it? NO
If people want to do something, and it does not hurt anybody, let dem and leave them alone!
kutegoddezz
I really think that legalizing gay marriage is great for the economy. I think it's only fair because love is love.
gonzo
anathematic wrote:
semantics.


Pedantic as I'm sure you'll miscontrue this that word is not properly perjorative. Perhaps you're familiar with the common phrase "God is in the ______s"?

Wink
Lennon
Genesis wrote:
27 So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

And that's human nature. I see the issue as unnatural.
blackheart
Lennon wrote:
Genesis wrote:
27 So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

And that's human nature. I see the issue as unnatural.


Although I'm sure I've already said this - if same sex attraction were somehow offensive to God, then he would not have children born with the chemical make-up such that they would later be attracted to the same sex.

Stop quoting the bible, and look at how He works in the world as it is now... alot has changed over the past few thousand years, believe it or not.

If you've only heard the ancient word, then clearly you are deaf to him when he speaks to you now.

I'm not religous - because for all religion's merits it has been corrupted by men over time - but I have faith.
Do homosexual people have faith? I'd say no more or less than heterosexuals.

Should homosexuals be allowed to marry the one they love in the eyes of the God they believe in? Of course so... I mean, why the hell not?
Lennon
Homosexuallity is not a result of chemical reactions. It's the environment you've been raised in, where you find your role models, where you learn your values, your environment, from day 1 to your adult years. Psychology. I could say that we learn mistakes from others, and we misinterpret people, we misinterpret our own feelings, and we can have conflicting and confusing values e.g. feelings versus reason.
Marston
Lennon wrote:
Homosexuallity is not a result of chemical reactions. It's the environment you've been raised in, where you find your role models, where you learn your values, your environment, from day 1 to your adult years. Psychology. I could say that we learn mistakes from others, and we misinterpret people, we misinterpret our own feelings, and we can have conflicting and confusing values e.g. feelings versus reason.
Sorry, that's wrong. Please, using your theory, explain how we end up with homosexual animals...?
Lennon
I believe in attraction to the same sex but I don't believe it's natural. Animals only act on instinct, including attraction. But we have intellect that can distinguish instinct from purpose.
Valleyman
Lennon wrote:
I believe in attraction to the same sex but I don't believe it's natural. Animals only act on instinct, including attraction. But we have intellect that can distinguish instinct from purpose.


Only on instinct, exactly right. What is instinct but preprogrammed natural behaviors?

And just quickly, as long as I'm posting, for all those people using the "descration of marriage" argument: You're wrong. Marriage is not a religious institution, it is an institution of the state. Thus, with the whole "seperation of church and state", your argument doesn't work.
horseatingweeds
Valleyman wrote:
Lennon wrote:
I believe in attraction to the same sex but I don't believe it's natural. Animals only act on instinct, including attraction. But we have intellect that can distinguish instinct from purpose.


And just quickly, as long as I'm posting, for all those people using the "descration of marriage" argument: You're wrong. Marriage is not a religious institution, it is an institution of the state. Thus, with the whole "seperation of church and state", your argument doesn't work.


Indeed, but must I reminder you again my friend that, If a state's (state meaning social entity) population due to their religious beliefs, deem something sacred (sacred not meaning religious) the state must also. That fact that an institution is important to a religion does not negate the states responsibility.

Also, I am glad that you make the point the marriage is not simply a religious institution. That fact that "marriage" is a political, social, legal or religious institution and defined very specifically is well enough to demand its definition to be maintained.

If an individual is genuinely concerned about the rights of those finding themselves in love and committed to an individual of their own sex would not waste their time and credibility on changing some definition but would fight to add rights to civil unions.
blackheart
Lennon wrote:
I believe in attraction to the same sex but I don't believe it's natural. Animals only act on instinct, including attraction. But we have intellect that can distinguish instinct from purpose.


How can wat get's your blood boiling not be natural?

And so what, homosexuals should just lead unhappy, loveless lives because they have intellect enough to "know" that they're "unnatural"?
Lennon
I see homosexuality as a problem, not a right.

Need a Reason...
Natural selection involves a purpose with direction, homosexuality serves no purpose to the global community and is unnatural. the only purpose it serves is instead just between the two concerned. If anyone feels these tendencies then I see opportunity to work on those feelings and not to be overwhelmed by them. Attraction is a good way to build relationships, it helps us form bonds with other people. Hence we have "girl-stuff" and "it's a guy thing" for same sex bonding, which I think is a healthy expression of your gender roles. When people are overwhelmed by masculinity or femininity of the other person there's an oppurtunity to learn these roles, they become role models. homosexuals may become confused by these roles, or just may never learn these roles in the first place.

Even though i see it as a problem based on psychology, science and religious morals, I cannot deny the right to feel attraction towards the other. I encourage those feelings to be embraced, in the right circumstances and in a controlled and reasoned fashion. Anger should not be bottled up, rather allow it to be released in control bursts. These same sex feelings should be expressed in a friendly, non-sexual context.
blackheart
Lennon wrote:
I see homosexuality as a problem, not a right.

Need a Reason...
Natural selection involves a purpose with direction, homosexuality serves no purpose to the global community and is unnatural. the only purpose it serves is instead just between the two concerned. If anyone feels these tendencies then I see opportunity to work on those feelings and not to be overwhelmed by them. Attraction is a good way to build relationships, it helps us form bonds with other people. Hence we have "girl-stuff" and "it's a guy thing" for same sex bonding, which I think is a healthy expression of your gender roles. When people are overwhelmed by masculinity or femininity of the other person there's an oppurtunity to learn these roles, they become role models. homosexuals may become confused by these roles, or just may never learn these roles in the first place.

Even though i see it as a problem based on psychology, science and religious morals, I cannot deny the right to feel attraction towards the other. I encourage those feelings to be embraced, in the right circumstances and in a controlled and reasoned fashion. Anger should not be bottled up, rather allow it to be released in control bursts. These same sex feelings should be expressed in a friendly, non-sexual context.


Lmfao - don't you people get it?

Lennon - how about you NEVER masturbate, or have sex EVER in your life, unless you are having sex with your partner for the SOLE purpose of having a child. Let's say 4 times in your ENTIRE lifetime.

Because, if you indulged, it would (of course) only benefit the two (or should I say one) involved, not the entire species.


No matter what ignorant conservatives might throw at you, there is always going to be sexual attraction between people. If a man is born with a set of hormones that mean he finds other men attractive - then that's how he's born.
Even if he's brought up right, and ends up marrying a woman, he wil still never be truly sexually fulfilled. Because if he had been allowed to explore his sexuality - he would have found the sex much better. Also, a forced heterosexual relationship often leads to emotional issues later in a relationship. Often a divorce when the homosexual partner "realises" their sexuality.

It's as absurd to say a homosexual doesn't have the right to love someone of the same sex, as it would be to say that YOU have no right to love someone of the same sex.

And ontop of what I've said above - it isn't just physical attraction that a homosexual finds in someone of the same sex - it's emotional.


Step into their shoes. Imagine you're trapped in the body of someone of the opposite sex. Pretend someone's telling you what is and isn't allowed to turn you on. That you'll never be allowed to have true love of marry. That you saw someone post half the posts you just posted, bullshitting about it only being about the way "you were brought up".
ldnet
come on guys we need some homosexuals in this world, WE HAVE A POPULATION CRISES ON OUR HANDS LOL
blackheart
Lennon wrote:
I see homosexuality as a problem, not a right.

Need a Reason...
Natural selection involves a purpose with direction, homosexuality serves no purpose to the global community and is unnatural. the only purpose it serves is instead just between the two concerned. If anyone feels these tendencies then I see opportunity to work on those feelings and not to be overwhelmed by them. Attraction is a good way to build relationships, it helps us form bonds with other people. Hence we have "girl-stuff" and "it's a guy thing" for same sex bonding, which I think is a healthy expression of your gender roles. When people are overwhelmed by masculinity or femininity of the other person there's an oppurtunity to learn these roles, they become role models. homosexuals may become confused by these roles, or just may never learn these roles in the first place.

Even though i see it as a problem based on psychology, science and religious morals, I cannot deny the right to feel attraction towards the other. I encourage those feelings to be embraced, in the right circumstances and in a controlled and reasoned fashion. Anger should not be bottled up, rather allow it to be released in control bursts. These same sex feelings should be expressed in a friendly, non-sexual context.


I would also like to add that allowing babies with deformities or dissabilities is bad for the evolution/natural selection of our species as a whole as well. (Because they grow up, and mostly breed with the rest of us, which then over the next half millenia passes the "bad" gene though the better half of the species. Weakening our genetic make-up as a collective whole.).

You against letting them live and have sex, as well? Should we just knock'em'down at birth coz it's the best thing to do for the rest of us?
Lennon
My christian view of love is the desire to do the right thing for yourself, for your friends/partner/family, and for God. Love is gentle, love is patient, love is kind. Love is not just feelings of attraction, it is a complete self-giving of your feelings, your time, your guidance, your support, your faith in God, for better and for worse.
These same-sex feeling are truly love of your neighbour/friend, and that involves emotions and physical feelings. Any notions of SAME-SEX SEXUAL ATTRACTION ARE SELF-CONCEIVED by false interpretation of your feelings. You have a right and a need to love those people your attracted too.
There are hormones for being attracted to women and men, the exact same hormones, not separate hormones that you're stuck with for life. it's how the hormones are turned on. hormones are stimulated by impulses in the brain, interrelated with psychology that is yet undefined. this psychology is where the problem lies.
I'm not saying that a married couple should only have sex in order to procreate. It's there for taking anytime and it's the ultimate bonding experience, and should be used wisely. It doesn't have to be used for procreation, in marriage it can also be used anytime to express those deep feelings. The concept religion teaches is not to abuse the gift of sexuality.
blackheart
Lennon wrote:
My christian view of love is the desire to do the right thing for yourself, for your friends/partner/family, and for God. Love is gentle, love is patient, love is kind.


Did I say it wasn't?
Lennon wrote:
Love is not just feelings of attraction, it is a complete self-giving of your feelings, your time, your guidance, your support, your faith in God, for better and for worse.


Why cannot a woman feel this for a woman, or a man for a man?

Lennon wrote:
These same-sex feeling are truly love of your neighbour/friend, and that involves emotions and physical feelings. Any notions of SAME-SEX SEXUAL ATTRACTION ARE SELF-CONCEIVED by false interpretation of your feelings. You have a right and a need to love those people your attracted too.


No. If you were homosexual, false interpretation would be forcing yourself to love someone of the opposite sex.
A homosexual woman could no more love a man than you - whom I presume to be a heterosexual man - could.

Lennon wrote:

There are hormones for being attracted to women and men, the exact same hormones, not separate hormones that you're stuck with for life. it's how the hormones are turned on. hormones are stimulated by impulses in the brain, interrelated with psychology that is yet undefined. this psychology is where the problem lies.


Although we all have the same hormones, it is the level of hormones that determine sexuality. I.e. women have more eostrogen than men, and men more testosterone then women.
Psychology does play a part. How-ever, there are just as many homosexual people who (for psychological reasons) think they're straight, as there are heterosexuals that think they're homosexual.

Lennon wrote:

I'm not saying that a married couple should only have sex in order to procreate. It's there for taking anytime and it's the ultimate bonding experience, and should be used wisely. It doesn't have to be used for procreation, in marriage it can also be used anytime to express those deep feelings. The concept religion teaches is not to abuse the gift of sexuality.


Homosexuals don't abuse sexuality, they use it to express the same deep feelings.

And I know you weren't saying all that about married couples (directly), but that was the logic you were pushing onto the logic at hand.

One cannot help being homosexual anymore than having red hair. It's genetics. Dominant/recessive genes. Random manifestation both at birth and in foetal developement.
ChrisCh
i think same-sex marriage should be legal. whether or not people are in a heterosexual relationship or a homosexual relationship i think people still deserve to be happy and spend their lives with the one they love as their spouse... i spose u still call it that 4 gay people Razz

i think the problem with homophobics is that they're too insecure about themselves to be able to be happy for others.
blackheart
^ lol - Amen to Chris ^

but i'd say more ignorant than insecure
Carupieara
I don't understand what the homophobics are insecure about. Not finding someone to mate with? Well, even if the whole world was heterosexual that would still be a distinct possibility for some.
strfry
Lennon wrote:
Genesis wrote:
27 So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

And that's human nature. I see the issue as unnatural.


You do realize that many, many people do not believe in the religion you do?
Lennon
blackheart wrote:

Lennon wrote:

There are hormones for being attracted to women and men, the exact same hormones, not separate hormones that you're stuck with for life. it's how the hormones are turned on. hormones are stimulated by impulses in the brain, interrelated with psychology that is yet undefined. this psychology is where the problem lies.


Although we all have the same hormones, it is the level of hormones that determine sexuality. I.e. women have more eostrogen than men, and men more testosterone then women.
Psychology does play a part. How-ever, there are just as many homosexual people who (for psychological reasons) think they're straight, as there are heterosexuals that think they're homosexual.

One cannot help being homosexual anymore than having red hair. It's genetics. Dominant/recessive genes. Random manifestation both at birth and in foetal developement.


You'll like this bit.
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~psy411/include/download?id=3

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6T2X-4G54HFC-1-1&_cdi=4930&_user=78294&_orig=search&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2005&_sk=999129998&view=c&wchp=dGLbVlb-zSkWz&md5=46a398ff6851c009bba3b5bdbddca183&ie=/sdarticle.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6WM0-4D58BGP-3-1&_cdi=6920&_user=78294&_orig=search&_coverDate=04%2F01%2F2005&_sk=999609997&view=c&wchp=dGLbVlb-zSkWz&md5=fc264f216f86de65f3028999d089a55d&ie=/sdarticle.pdf

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
and finally

You are right about the source of masculinity, the hormones, but there is absolutely no evidence for gene inheritance (an active gay man inheriting it from an active gay father is rare but there are plausible scenario's)/

See the journals and the Vatican's official response to the debate.
Valleyman
horseatingweeds wrote:
Valleyman wrote:
Lennon wrote:
I believe in attraction to the same sex but I don't believe it's natural. Animals only act on instinct, including attraction. But we have intellect that can distinguish instinct from purpose.


And just quickly, as long as I'm posting, for all those people using the "descration of marriage" argument: You're wrong. Marriage is not a religious institution, it is an institution of the state. Thus, with the whole "seperation of church and state", your argument doesn't work.


Indeed, but must I reminder you again my friend that, If a state's (state meaning social entity) population due to their religious beliefs, deem something sacred (sacred not meaning religious) the state must also. That fact that an institution is important to a religion does not negate the states responsibility.

Also, I am glad that you make the point the marriage is not simply a religious institution. That fact that "marriage" is a political, social, legal or religious institution and defined very specifically is well enough to demand its definition to be maintained.

If an individual is genuinely concerned about the rights of those finding themselves in love and committed to an individual of their own sex would not waste their time and credibility on changing some definition but would fight to add rights to civil unions.


First their not changing the definition; they may be using a different one, but they're not redefining the word. Besides that's basically what they are doing, adding rights to civil unions, just under a different name.

As to the sanctity of marriage, declaring marriage sacred would equate to religious favoritism, favoring those relgions which hold marriage sacred. You could make the argument that marriage is ingrained into our society and thus should not be changed, but you can't argue "sacred".
horseatingweeds
Valleyman wrote:
.....


I don't see what real bearing it has on the issue, but if you don't like the word sacred I can us another for the same point.

If enough people in a state feel that something is important the state must also. The fact that these individuals believe the thing is important because of religious reasons does not make it religious favoritism.

However, just for an interesting perspective on your argument, suppose homosexuality was considered a “religion”. Also suppose the definition of marriage where to be changed for their sake. Now that would be religious favoritism.

Valleyman wrote:
First their not changing the definition; they may be using a different one, but they're not redefining the word.


I do not see how you would come to this conclusion or what you are trying to say in this statement. Please explain. It is my current understanding that our society and the world have held that marriage equates to man and woman. Also, that a great majority of our current society hold and wish to maintain this definition.

I don’t understand how it would work if it were changed of a different definition used. Would all document before the change be regarded with the new definition? This could not be! Would there be a pre and post change definition?

I still contend that any attempt to augment the word marriage is not in the interests of homosexuals but only the homosexual agenda, who’s interests are of its own.
Marston
horseatingweeds wrote:
If enough people in a state feel that something is important the state must also.
Rolling Eyes So, just because the KKK still operates in the U.S.A, the state is fine with the racist slaying of black people? Clearly what you're saying is a fallacy.
horseatingweeds
Marston wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
If enough people in a state feel that something is important the state must also.
Rolling Eyes So, just because the KKK still operates in the U.S.A, the state is fine with the racist slaying of black people? Clearly what you're saying is a fallacy.


Enough, in this statement and in the contents was meant as something of a majority, where the thing wanted does not remove rights from others.

Also, your example is very poor and contradictory. More than enough people believe it important that citizens do not slay each other. The KKK is a very small group and shrinking.

There are also enough people that hold the constitution important which protects the KKKs right to assemble and carry on like they do. We certainly wouldn’t allow them to change any definitions.

If you want the saying we teach the kids its “majority rule with minority rights”.
crdowner
Just having the majority is not enough. We have seen this time and time again in history. Most Americans claim to be Christian but we our courts decided to make school prayer illegal and that abortion was OK. If these issues were brought before the citizens for a vote, I doubt the results would have been the same. The majority of the south wanted to keep slavery but the north decided against it. Most people (both men and women) thought that women and blacks should NOT be able to vote.

The majority can be (and often is) wrong.
blackheart
Lennon wrote:
blackheart wrote:

Lennon wrote:

There are hormones for being attracted to women and men, the exact same hormones, not separate hormones that you're stuck with for life. it's how the hormones are turned on. hormones are stimulated by impulses in the brain, interrelated with psychology that is yet undefined. this psychology is where the problem lies.


Although we all have the same hormones, it is the level of hormones that determine sexuality. I.e. women have more eostrogen than men, and men more testosterone then women.
Psychology does play a part. How-ever, there are just as many homosexual people who (for psychological reasons) think they're straight, as there are heterosexuals that think they're homosexual.

One cannot help being homosexual anymore than having red hair. It's genetics. Dominant/recessive genes. Random manifestation both at birth and in foetal developement.


You'll like this bit.
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~psy411/include/download?id=3

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6T2X-4G54HFC-1-1&_cdi=4930&_user=78294&_orig=search&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2005&_sk=999129998&view=c&wchp=dGLbVlb-zSkWz&md5=46a398ff6851c009bba3b5bdbddca183&ie=/sdarticle.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6WM0-4D58BGP-3-1&_cdi=6920&_user=78294&_orig=search&_coverDate=04%2F01%2F2005&_sk=999609997&view=c&wchp=dGLbVlb-zSkWz&md5=fc264f216f86de65f3028999d089a55d&ie=/sdarticle.pdf

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
and finally

You are right about the source of masculinity, the hormones, but there is absolutely no evidence for gene inheritance (an active gay man inheriting it from an active gay father is rare but there are plausible scenario's)/

See the journals and the Vatican's official response to the debate.


Gay suicide rates are higher BECAUSE there are so many people out there constantly telling them that they're "unnatural" and "against god" and what-ever-else
I mean, do you see people getting bashed for being straight?

Genetically, I didn't mean purely direct inheritance. I'm saying that their levels of what-ever chemically are determined at birth, by some combination in a section of their 42 chromosomes.
So no matter how well you raise them, you can't change some-one's DNA.

Also, there could be absolutely no instance of homosexuality in the past, but if two recessive chromosomes indicative of low testorone were to be passed onto the one male child, the chances that their brain would develope in a "feminem fashion" whilst in the womb would be much higher.
horseatingweeds
crdowner wrote:
Just having the majority is not enough. We have seen this time and time again in history. Most Americans claim to be Christian but we our courts decided to make school prayer illegal and that abortion was OK. If these issues were brought before the citizens for a vote, I doubt the results would have been the same. The majority of the south wanted to keep slavery but the north decided against it. Most people (both men and women) thought that women and blacks should NOT be able to vote.

The majority can be (and often is) wrong.


Thank you for the reiteration but I believe it was unnecessary.

Quote:
majority rule with minority rights


horseatingweeds wrote:
Enough, in this statement and in the contents was meant as something of a majority, where the thing wanted does not remove rights from others.
Lennon
blackheart wrote:


Genetically, I didn't mean purely direct inheritance. I'm saying that their levels of what-ever chemically are determined at birth, by some combination in a section of their 42 chromosomes.
So no matter how well you raise them, you can't change some-one's DNA.

Also, there could be absolutely no instance of homosexuality in the past, but if two recessive chromosomes indicative of low testorone were to be passed onto the one male child, the chances that their brain would develope in a "feminem fashion" whilst in the womb would be much higher.


Genetics are more complex than dominant and recessive. In high school biology students learn about dominant recessive to demonstrate heridity. In reality, dominant produces one protein like brown eye pigment, and recessive produces a totally different protein, like blue eye pigment. the sex hormones are not dominant-recessive. you may be right about the level of hormones determined by birth, I can't say. but the arousal of these hormones is purely psychological, and is affected by pornography, and sexual desire. I do not see arousal the same as attraction, I think friendly bonding on one level is psychological approval and acceptance, but sexual arousal by other people follows a different mechanism. Also, you're right to say that hormones determine the level of masculinity and femininity, and these traits are the most sought after in approval and acceptance, not necessarily arousal. Being a guy that i am, I will find types of girls attractive as companions, and other guys I will find cool, and others non-attractive, simply based on their traits. Just because I find them great, it doesn't mean I'd want to make love to everyone like that.
Being the girl that you are, i'm sure you've your types of persons you get along with, friend/ bonding etc., but then on another level you have friends but wouldn't go out with them. Attractive but not aroused.

In homosexuality, I find that these roles are confused, homosexuals find themselves really admiring their peer same-sex friends. Just friends, but shouldn't be aroused like that, the arousal factor using a different mechanism affected by pornography and sexual desire. in that sense I see homosexuality as a problem.
Marston
... Actually, there's no reason for sex hormones not to be dominant-recessive. I haven't read anything, anywhere, about them not being dominant-recessive.
strfry
horseatingweeds wrote:
crdowner wrote:
The majority can be (and often is) wrong.


Thank you for the reiteration but I believe it was unnecessary.

Quote:
majority rule with minority rights


horseatingweeds wrote:
Enough, in this statement and in the contents was meant as something of a majority, where the thing wanted does not remove rights from others.


It seems the reiteration was necessary. You claim laws should not change because the majority do not want them changed. Examples were given where that is wrong: slavery, voting, and there are others.

Your second statement serves to confuse, you seem to use it to further your argument, but actually strengthen the other side. "Where the thing wanted does not remove rights from others." Well, giving homosexuals the right to marriage removes no rights from anyone else.
Lennon
It's a bad analogy to use dominant recessive for every gene. Dominant Recessive theory only describes how both are expressed equally, but the proteins compete against each other, one being more active or higher concentration than the other. As far as we are aware, testosterone and oestrogens do not compete against each other. We know this because the testosterone receptors and reaction mechanisms are different than oestrogents. In the case of the eye dominant-recessive, the color pigments clash, and brown is always the strongest color. But the eye scenario is even more complex, with 6 or 7 different pigments, not just brown blue and green.

anyhow, psychologists and geneticists and neuroscientists will all stay clear of ethical debates about whether homosexuality is natural. It seems the only people who are is the vatican, lawyers etc..
strfry
horseatingweeds wrote:

If enough people in a state feel that something is important the state must also. The fact that these individuals believe the thing is important because of religious reasons does not make it religious favoritism.


It could, but I'd agree with you on this one, as in this case I'd say it isn't. Unfortunately, we do pass a lot of religious favoritism laws in the United States, the simplest being the "dry county", or no sale of beer on Sundays until noon, etc. Here, I don't see it as religious favoritism just because so many different religions are fighting on the same side of the issue. However, it should be considered descrimination.

horseatingweeds wrote:

However, just for an interesting perspective on your argument, suppose homosexuality was considered a “religion”. Also suppose the definition of marriage where to be changed for their sake. Now that would be religious favoritism.


No, a change based on one particular religion, or segment of society, or whatever is not automatically favoritism. It is can be considered righting a wrong and has often been done in the past.

horseatingweeds wrote:

It is my current understanding that our society and the world have held that marriage equates to man and woman. Also, that a great majority of our current society hold and wish to maintain this definition.


That might be where you are wrong. Or perhaps just too localized with your own friends who believe as you do. Most people I've run into either don't really care one way or the other, or think it's silly to restrict someone else's activity based on another's beliefs. But no, I don't have any scientific poll to back my view that the majority of society (here, I mean the world) is fine with married same-sex couples. There are many countries that are allowing it though, and the number is growing.

But again, what a majority in a society want and what is right can be two different things.

horseatingweeds wrote:

I don’t understand how it would work if it were changed of a different definition used. Would all document before the change be regarded with the new definition? This could not be! Would there be a pre and post change definition?


? You lost me here. No definition has changed. At least not in the dictionary I have here. Check m-w.com -- looks fine. Check dictionary.com -- seems fine as well. I don't feel like checking all the dictionaries I could find, but they are all probably fine. And, if not, dictionaries and documents update with the times all the time and with no world ending conclusions.

horseatingweeds wrote:

I still contend that any attempt to augment the word marriage is not in the interests of homosexuals but only the homosexual agenda, who’s interests are of its own.


Hmmm. Your point here eludes me. Of course the "homosexual agenda", whatever the heck that is, would have the interests of homosexuals at the forefront of their minds. Wouldn't that be their purpose?

The flip-side of your statement would be:

sarcasm wrote:

I still contend that any attempt to restrict the word marriage is not in the interests of religion but only the religous agenda, who's interests are of its own.


See? It really doesn't /say/ anything not already known and pretty durned obvious.
strfry
In response to Lennon's posting of the Vactican's position on gay marriage, found at: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Wow, I read the whole thing, point by point. Tried to find some real "meat". There just isn't much there.

Part I is religious in nature and only applies to those of that Faith, but it's good for "strengthening the base" I suppose.

Part II is quite odd to me. It seems to be a rallying cry. Anyway, no real points were made here, just propoganda. It states that homosexuality, homosexual unions, and the civil authorities that allow them are all wrong, but it provides no proof as to why. So we'll move on.

Part III

6. One sentence that caught me by surprise was, "Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex." Talk about a circular argument. Homosexual unions are bad because they are unions of the same sex. Oookaaay...

They state that homosexuality is "contrary to the common good" and that "homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage" without providing any proof. No examples of how this could occur. Contrary to the common good how? What "basic moral values" are they talking about? Devaluation of marriage in what way? No specifics, so it's hard to debate.

7. Gimme a break. Here, the Vatican says gay people can't reproduce, so they shouldn't be able to marry. Sterile people can't reproduce either. The last paragraph here is the old argument that kids with gay parents grow up "wrong". That is a whole other debate, and pertains to whether gays should be able to adopt or not; it hasn't nothing to do with gay marriage directly, so let's move on.

8. They are again arguing that allowing gays to marry will somehow slow-down, or devalue same sex marriages at a detriment to society. They offer no reasons why. How does allowing people to publicly marry, be happy, and probably give more to society since they don't feel oppressed going to somehow keep other people from wanting to marry? No proof. The opposite opinion here is that by letting gays marry we will promote their developing stable relationships and, with greater recognition, subdue hateful acts against them, allowing them to be much more productive members of society.

9. Once again they say don't let them marry because their purpose is not reproduction. I've already addressed the silliness of that. If you find out after you get married that you are sterile, should your marriage be annulled?

They also add that other legal rights currently granted as a cause of being married can be acquired other ways. True in many cases, not true in others. There are a lot of countries and a lot of laws. Those laws already reflect the existence of married couples. Which is easier, rewriting all those laws or allowing same-sex marriages? Also, if you change all those laws to included a same-sex partner, then all you are doing is preventing gays from one legal institution: marriage. How is spending all that time and effort to prevent one legal claim of stature good for society?

Part IV is just telling Catholic politicians what to do.


Anyway, not a lot of "meat" in that statement. I'm sure those already in their camp are impressed, but it does nothing to further the debate.
horseatingweeds
strfry wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
crdowner wrote:
The majority can be (and often is) wrong.


Thank you for the reiteration but I believe it was unnecessary.

Quote:
majority rule with minority rights


horseatingweeds wrote:
Enough, in this statement and in the contents was meant as something of a majority, where the thing wanted does not remove rights from others.


It seems the reiteration was necessary. You claim laws should not change because the majority do not want them changed. Examples were given where that is wrong: slavery, voting, and there are others.

Your second statement serves to confuse, you seem to use it to further your argument, but actually strengthen the other side. "Where the thing wanted does not remove rights from others." Well, giving homosexuals the right to marriage removes no rights from anyone else.


Homosexuals do have the right to marry.

Let my try to explain things again for you.

The bases for a democracy is that all the people get together and decide what is best for the community. When deciding; there are rules to protect people who represent minorities.

Majority rule with minority rights, a law must be just, constitutional and enforceable.

Example: In early America in the beginning there was only majority rule and no minority rights. All the people got together one day and made a law that said they did not have to pay their loans back to their lenders (the lenders being the minority and the borrowers being the majority). The young legislation then quickly saw this flaw in democracy and added some rules to fix it.

Majority rule with minority rights, a law must be just, constitutional and enforceable.

To make your case you must first overcome the fact that the current definition of marriage is in favor of the majority and the fact that changing its definition, or that of any such word, would encroach on the rights of citizens.

Then you must prove at least one of the following.

The current definition of marriage is:
In the favor of the majority
Encroaching upon the rights of citizens
Unjust
Unconstitutional
Unenforceable

And just for your info. I’m not just SAYING this stuff. They are integral parts of the US gov’t system.
strfry
horseatingweeds wrote:

Homosexuals do have the right to marry.


Are you referring to the right to marry someone of the opposite sex? Or the right to marry the person they love and would actually like to form a marital bond with? Because they may have the first, but not the second. There was a time in the U.S. when blacks couldn't marry whites. They had the right to marry other blacks though. Was that okay?

horseatingweeds wrote:

Let my try to explain things again for you.


Sure, but I don't think we're ever going to get through to one another. Smile

horseatingweeds wrote:

...snip...


I have no idea what your point with all the last part was. Are you for or against gay marriage?

I'm stating the marriage laws in most states in the U.S. infringe on the rights of people to marry whomever they are in love with, regardless of their sex. They are looking to make a federal law to make this rights infringement standard across all states. I think that is wrong.
horseatingweeds
strfry wrote:
......


Good work, a very valid argument. Not about black oppression though.

In the case of blacks not being aloud to marry whites the issue was segregation and bigotry mostly on the part of individuals. The definition of a pinnacle word did not require augmentation. Throughout history marriage has not meant man and woman of the same race, simply man and woman.

Members of the homosexual agenda regularly attempt to parallel their “struggle” with that of racial equality. This is a separate subject but I find it very demeaning to the civil rights struggle.

strfry wrote:
I have no idea what your point with all the last part was. Are you for or against gay marriage?

I'm stating the marriage laws in most states in the U.S. infringe on the rights of people to marry whomever they are in love with, regardless of their sex. They are looking to make a federal law to make this rights infringement standard across all states. I think that is wrong.


My point was to explain how laws are decided in the US based on majority decision with regard to citizen rights.

This is the best argument maintained for the augmentation of the marriage definition. The thought that the definition its self is infringing upon the rights of those finding themselves wanting a relationship identical to marriage but with a member of the same sex are not currently able to have that relationship and call it marriage. In other words not calling a homosexual couple that wants to be married a married couple is discrimination.

Besides being the best argument the gay agenda has, it is also far flung, borderline ridiculous and discrediting to homosexuals. Calling something what it is or not what it isn’t is not discrimination. Will we then change the definition of husband and wife?

One actually concerned with the rights of gay citizens would not be advocating such ridiculousness. That person would be more concerned about allowing additional rights of unions in general.
strfry
horseatingweeds wrote:
...


Ah, understood now on your arguments. It took a while, but I think I see what your point is.

True, my real desire is to see gays treated with equality, the word is not the ultimate point. However, considering how much law is based around the word marriage, it would seem a simpler, much more cost effective solution to simply include gay couples in the legal definition of marriage. We should also be mindful that the idea of separate but equal have not proven to be a good thing for society.

In consideration of your definitions of husband and wife; we luckily don't have laws (that I'm aware of) that directly apply to a husband or to a wife. Having a husband and husband or a wife and wife would cause little legal troubles. It would be interesting to read up on the civil rights struggle of women in the U.S. Luckily for them the definition of man seems to encompass women, or they would have to rewrite a lot of law?

By the way, I don't equate the struggles of gays with the struggles of blacks in this country. But, there are many similarities in kind if not degree. To continue down the path of inequalities I would think of as demeaning to the civil rights struggle.
shollaA
Well, if geys and lesbians wish to get married to one another, perhaps they should be allowed if it is acceptable in thir cultures. However, what makes me sick is the idea that gay people will wish to adopt and raise children! I THINK THAT SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED. If they want children, let them produce it! Mad
Lennon
Exactly my point.
Gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children.
I know a case in Australia where a gay couple adopted a child. Only thing was that the gay couple was 4 gay men, and the authorities failed to see this. Gay parenting is not good for the child in developing gender and self-awareness roles without both mother and father.

P.S. The Vatican provides no proof since religion is a purely faith based and would be foolish if it tried to offer proof.
strfry
Lennon wrote:
Exactly my point.
Gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children.
I know a case in Australia where a gay couple adopted a child. Only thing was that the gay couple was 4 gay men, and the authorities failed to see this. Gay parenting is not good for the child in developing gender and self-awareness roles without both mother and father.


I know a case where a heterosexual man and woman physically and mentally abused their children up until one died and their kids were taken away from them. In other words, an anecdote does not indicate statistical evidence. Anyway, the original subject was whether gays should be allowed to marry wasn't it? Single people can adopt, so gays can already raise children if they want.

Lennon wrote:

P.S. The Vatican provides no proof since religion is a purely faith based and would be foolish if it tried to offer proof.


From the Vatican document in question wrote:

Since this question relates to the natural moral law, the arguments that follow are addressed not only to those who believe in Christ, but to all persons committed to promoting and defending the common good of society.
Lennon
Natural Moral Law: always do the right thing, never do the wrong thing. The right/wrong ideals are written in our souls and we are always concious of what we think is right/wrong. Gay Marriage is against natural moral law since it's unnatural, and when you consider gay parenting there is no excuse but to say kids need both father and mother. To be raised by gay parents is like being conceived a test-tube baby. It's unnatural. Homosexuality is a problem, a confusion of gender roles and a misinterpretation of the attraction that is merely friendlyness but assumed to be sexual. However, homosexuality is a real feeling of attraction, can be sexually stimulating, just like the way we taste foods and learn to like them, purely psychological. The hormones are abused by pleasure from same-sex intercourse and stimulation. There is no proof either stating that homosexuality is natural or unnatural until science determines exactly how homosexuality develops, and I expect this to be described by peer pressure and enviromnental upbringing.
strfry
I note that you, several times, state that it is "unnatural" and then finish with the fact we don't entirely know yet. A little preemptive I think. I hope, for your sake and their sake, you never have gay children. Of course, you may be convinced such a thing is not possible with "proper" upbringing, so that may seem an empty nightmare.

I wonder which is better, a unadopted child, bounced from foster home to children's home to foster home, or a child adopted by gay parents? Should single parents be allowed to keep their children? Maybe they should turn them over to mother-and-father-complete families upon divorce? That'd certainly keep the divorce rate down.

I guess my point is that folks should open their minds a bit. Accept the fact that not everything fits your morals. Not everybody believes in what you do. You make think they are wrong, but if they aren't harming you, infringing on your rights, then just leave them be.

This "Natural Moral Law" is again something that comes in so many degrees. There are many who think using man-made medicines are playing God. The majority rules (in most places) regarding moral law, but it would seem that a shift is happening as more countries are accepting gay people as people.

I'm sorry I've let this topic go on so long, as it's really getting nowhere. But I hope I've opened the minds of some of the lurkers out there. I'll let this be my last post on the subject and let whoever wants it get the last word.

Thanks all for reading, debating, and mostly, for not personally attacking one another!
blackheart
12 REASONS WHY GAY MARRIAGE SHOULD NOT BE LEGALISED

(this can be found on 12reasons.com)

1.) Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.

2.)Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.

3.) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.

4.) Straight marriage will become less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5.) Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.

6.) Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.

7.) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America (or [insert your country here]).

8.) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.

9.) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.

10.) Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11.) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.

12.) Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.
SNES350
blackheart wrote:
...

This is off-topic, but that entire post was a copy+paste without using the quote tag, which is against Frihost rules.

The "issue" isn't much of an issue to me; let them have their rights. If they prove capable of raising normal children, let them raise children. As people have already said, allowing single adults to adopt children while not allowing same-sex couples to adopt is hypocritical. Theoretically, single parents are less capable of raising children (the parent typically must support the child, leaving less time for interaction/care) than couples, be them same-sex or not. With two parents one may work and the other care for the child, or both may work to provide a better lifestyle for the family.
enervate
In my opinion, being raised by gay parents is no different to being raised by religious parents. In fact, I'd much rather be raised by gay parents, because gay parents are far more open minded and don't go around filling their child's head with ancient "laws" based on an ancient "book".
blackheart
SNES350 wrote:
blackheart wrote:
...

This is off-topic, but that entire post was a copy+paste without using the quote tag, which is against Frihost rules.


I should have used quote tags, but it just didn't occur to me when I posted it (I wasn't trying to rip it off, I quoted the source) - but how is it off topic?

(Note: topic title - Gay Marriage)
horseatingweeds
SNES350 wrote:

The "issue" isn't much of an issue to me; let them have their rights.


That’s just the trouble. There is not right to give. It is presented by the “gay agenda” as a right. Currently, homosexuals are not being discriminated against by any marriage law.

Changing the definition of “marriage” would only serve to legitimatize something that needs no more legitimization. It is what it is. A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. A civil union is a union between two citizens.

An agenda truly concerned about “gay rights” would be more concerned with rights given to civil unions.

I feel that this ridiculous effort is discrediting to homosexual relationships and the people finding themselves in them. They already have the idiots that dance around and act like 13 year old girls and giggle about shopping. The parades don’t help either.

As for homosexuals adopting children, this is not a gay rights issue. It is a child welfare issue and should be treated as such. No need for parades. Just lots of milk, juice, cereal, macaroni and cheese ect.
prongs_386
good work blackheart, very funny.

there is an effort to make marriage involve gay couples and not just allow them a civil union, because they want homosexuality to be accepted as a standard sexuality. Marriage is the joining of two people, and that should include whatever sexuality you are. While they can only havea civil union, they are still treated unfairly. I accpet a church not marrying gays because they believe it to be immoral, but in the real world as part of a countries law, marriage should include all sexualities.
horseatingweeds
prongs_386 wrote:
good work blackheart, very funny.

there is an effort to make marriage involve gay couples and not just allow them a civil union, because they want homosexuality to be accepted as a standard sexuality. Marriage is the joining of two people, and that should include whatever sexuality you are. While they can only havea civil union, they are still treated unfairly. I accpet a church not marrying gays because they believe it to be immoral, but in the real world as part of a countries law, marriage should include all sexualities.


Unless that countries people see it as immoral.....
Lennon
We have to respect free will. If people want to be gay, they might as well. If suffering patients want to be relieved of their sufferering then let them die. If old people think they're life is complete and want to die, then let them die, it's their right too. If two people agree to kill each other and there's noone else involved, then let them kill each other. It's their right to freedom too. If a guy wants to rape a girl, with the same intent as a rapist against random girls, and the girl accepts the offer, then that's their right and freedom. Yes, each one of these cases has came up. One example is when two guys talked over the internet and agreed that one was to die and the other would eat off the dead body (one was suicidal and the other was a cannibal, and they agreed). Since noone else was involved, and they both agreed, then surely this couldn't be murder. People have as much freedom now as they want. If people want to indulge in pornography, then let them, it's their choice. If people want to pay for a prostitute, then that's their choice. If people want to stay at home all day and do nothing and live off unemployment benefits, we might call that scum but that's their choice, let them. If people want a nude beach in their area, a strip club, it's their choice.
Who dares to challenge people's freedom. Who dares to tell other people what's right and what's wrong. Why should we stick out noses in other people's affairs.

The Pro-Choice Campaign is missing the point.
blackheart
Lennon wrote:
We have to respect free will. If people want to be gay, they might as well. If suffering patients want to be relieved of their sufferering then let them die. If old people think they're life is complete and want to die, then let them die, it's their right too. If two people agree to kill each other and there's noone else involved, then let them kill each other. It's their right to freedom too. If a guy wants to rape a girl, with the same intent as a rapist against random girls, and the girl accepts the offer, then that's their right and freedom. Yes, each one of these cases has came up. One example is when two guys talked over the internet and agreed that one was to die and the other would eat off the dead body (one was suicidal and the other was a cannibal, and they agreed). Since noone else was involved, and they both agreed, then surely this couldn't be murder. People have as much freedom now as they want. If people want to indulge in pornography, then let them, it's their choice. If people want to pay for a prostitute, then that's their choice. If people want to stay at home all day and do nothing and live off unemployment benefits, we might call that scum but that's their choice, let them. If people want a nude beach in their area, a strip club, it's their choice.
Who dares to challenge people's freedom. Who dares to tell other people what's right and what's wrong. Why should we stick out noses in other people's affairs.

The Pro-Choice Campaign is missing the point.


Gay Marriage does not involve death or the role-play of rape, or scabbing money off a country's tax-payers. (Or at least, not more or less than in heterosexual marriage). It involves two people solidifying their love for each other through marital vows - where is the "evil" you seem intent on weeding out?

Rethink your logic. I can't miss a point that isn't there.
Bondings
Lennon wrote:
We have to respect free will. If people want to be gay, they might as well. If suffering patients want to be relieved of their sufferering then let them die. If old people think they're life is complete and want to die, then let them die, it's their right too. If two people agree to kill each other and there's noone else involved, then let them kill each other. It's their right to freedom too. If a guy wants to rape a girl, with the same intent as a rapist against random girls, and the girl accepts the offer, then that's their right and freedom. Yes, each one of these cases has came up. One example is when two guys talked over the internet and agreed that one was to die and the other would eat off the dead body (one was suicidal and the other was a cannibal, and they agreed). Since noone else was involved, and they both agreed, then surely this couldn't be murder. People have as much freedom now as they want. If people want to indulge in pornography, then let them, it's their choice. If people want to pay for a prostitute, then that's their choice. If people want to stay at home all day and do nothing and live off unemployment benefits, we might call that scum but that's their choice, let them. If people want a nude beach in their area, a strip club, it's their choice.
Who dares to challenge people's freedom. Who dares to tell other people what's right and what's wrong. Why should we stick out noses in other people's affairs.

The Pro-Choice Campaign is missing the point.

To be honest, I agree with every thing you mentioned there apart from the unemployment benefits. And about the raping, if the girl agrees then it's not called raping, but "having sex together", "making love" or in some cases "trying to make a child".
Lennon
The point is in the moral attitude. Where is the moral attitude, all I'm hearing is consent, free will and freedom. It's easy to give consent and freedom to most of the things above, the question is how do we decide if it's a good or a bad thing.
Bondings
Lennon wrote:
The point is in the moral attitude. Where is the moral attitude, all I'm hearing is consent, free will and freedom. It's easy to give consent and freedom to most of the things above, the question is how do we decide if it's a good or a bad thing.

That's to the person in question to decide whether he thinks it is a 'good' thing or a 'bad'. If you don't like nude beaches, don't visit them. It's easy, just like you said.

If you think that going to church every sunday is 'good', then that doesn't mean that the governement should obligate it.
Lennon
Then why does the government deal with law?
Bondings
Lennon wrote:
Then why does the government deal with law?

There are things that do harm other people, like murder.
Lennon
so where do you draw the line.
If people want stem cell research in Great Britain or the US, you have to consider law. It's not a case of studying whatever you like. There's a moral and ethical debate about everything.
Bondings
Lennon wrote:
so where do you draw the line.
If people want stem cell research in Great Britain or the US, you have to consider law. It's not a case of studying whatever you like. There's a moral and ethical debate about everything.

Of course there is a moral/ethical debate as it is hard to draw the line between what is harming other people and what isn't. But the examples you mentioned were obviously not harming anyone else.

If two gay people marry, then that doesn't harm me, while someone smoking next to me does harm me hence shouldn't be allowed or there should at least be a discussion about it.
Lennon
Ethics and law is not about just harm.
It's about right and wrong.. In Ireland you're not allowed to cheat state exams. That's not harm, it's just wrong.
and as a Catholic Country that Ireland is, homosexuality is seen as wrong by the majority, but as a minority they have been granted full rights except marriage and state recognition. But there is a massive minority in Ireland that support homosexuals, especially the young.
Bondings
Lennon wrote:
Ethics and law is not about just harm.
It's about right and wrong.. In Ireland you're not allowed to cheat state exams. That's not harm, it's just wrong.

Cheating exams is harming a lot and that's why it is forbidden. If someone hires you based on the fact that you are an engineer, while you cheated all your exams, then sure that is harming your employer. It's also harming other students that aren't cheating.

The fact that I (and you I guess) think it is morally completely wrong to cheat on exams shouldn't matter for the law.

If a husband cheats on his wife, then he might be morally wrong, but that doesn't mean he should go to jail because of it.
Lennon
I see...
well everyone has their own opinion on right and wrong. I just think we need law as a common set of standards based on moral right and wrong. You only go to jail if you offend the state (public threat or injury directly to the state). Personal injury in civil offences do not go to jail because it is assumed first that the personal parties make settlements between each other. generally the state will not get involved in civil cases but it will outline the rights of each party, including the rights of the family, the rights of married couples etc. That's the reason the gay marriage senators are looking to the state for an amendment or law.

So we need a common system to decide if homosexual marriage is right/wrong. No point in just us talking it over, it either has to come from a vote or from religious fundamental teachings. In democracy the vote always should come in, in much of the world religious teachings still hold firm in state law. Both systems are flawed with bias; democracy with a majority bias, and religious teachings on a fundamental teaching bias.

Ya see, if an abortion referendum was held for the US 50-60 years ago, abortion would have been rejected. At 30-40 years ago, it was accepted, people's opinions change, and that's because people have a greater sense of freedom now. At least the religious teaching has consistency.
Nisk
Evil or Very Mad Listen dear ladies and gentlemen! I have serious coment here. "Gay" people are fine as long as they enjoy themselves somewhere we dont , and dont want to know about! But when they parade everywhere and say they are "happy" or touch you a** in the coridors, wink at you and the like. IT IS Not ok!!!! They go around saying it's ok to be gay! That just an excuse to hide their abnormality and want/need for more of their kind. Personaly i Hat* gays and am strongly "Homo-phobic". I aint scared of' em but i DO dislike them a lot. They just want more people to be like them, thats all. And the only reason the "Church" allowed them to marry is because, they had the same interest in boys as Michael Jackson.

Vrythramax
Marriage is a good thing, gay marriage isn't. What people do behind closed doors is thier own business, but to violate the sanctity of holy matrimony....very wrong.
Marston
Nisk wrote:
They just want more people to be like them, thats all.
Possibly the most ignorant comment ever posted on the internet.

EVER
Lennon
Yes, and most people go through hell before accepting their homosexuality. I still think they should still resist like they do when they first feel those tendencies. But most of them have guts for doing what they think is the right thing, and they deserve some respect (though I can't agree with the concept I still compromise and forget my righteousness and my bias and accept them.
Soulfire
Okay, homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural. I use those terms cautiously, but it is the truth. It is not normal and not natural. They are people, however, and deserve rights like we do. Homosexuality should not be condoned, but it should be at least respected as a person's own choice (even though they might not have chosen it exactly).

The holy institution of marriage should not be desecreated though, whether you believe it or not, marriage is a religious ceremony and was created by religion.
Bondings
Soulfire wrote:
Okay, homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural. I use those terms cautiously, but it is the truth. It is not normal and not natural. They are people, however, and deserve rights like we do. Homosexuality should not be condoned, but it should be at least respected as a person's own choice (even though they might not have chosen it exactly).

The holy institution of marriage should not be desecreated though, whether you believe it or not, marriage is a religious ceremony and was created by religion.

Me wrote:
Okay, left-handed people are abnormal and unnatural. I use those terms cautiously, but it is the truth. It is not normal and not natural. They are people, however, and deserve rights like we do. Being left-handed should not be condoned, but it should be at least respected as a person's own choice (even though they might not have chosen it exactly).

The holy institution of writing should not be desecreated (by writing with your left hand) though, whether you believe it or not, writing is a religious ceremony and was created by religion.


Now the facts

Approximately 10% of the population is left-handed. To be precise, most primates are left-handed.
Approximately 10-15% of the population is gay.

A lot of human-related animals like primates are left-handed.
A lot of human-related animals like great apes, dolphins but also bisons and male sheep (6-10%) have a considerable natural gay population/behaviour.

Both writing and marriage weren't created by religion but evolved towards its current form since tens of thousands of years.
Animal
Vrythramax wrote:
Marriage is a good thing, gay marriage isn't. What people do behind closed doors is thier own business, but to violate the sanctity of holy matrimony....very wrong.


What is marriage these days anyway? Like it or not, it's a legal contract with a religious ceremony. With the current high percentage of marriages ending in divorce, it's clear that not everyone treats it as a strictly religious partnering.

People get married in Civil Ceremonies with nothing to do with the church, yet this is still classed as marriage with the same contract and the same name changes. If a homosexual couple want to get married and they are religious, why deny them the same religious ceremony that others get?

The sanctity of marriage is what you make of it - regardless of sexual orientation.
Soulfire
If they want to be "married" they should have some sort of civil union available with the same legal benefits as marriage, only then would it gain enough acceptance to be considered.

Btw, Bondings, I completely missed the relevancy of your post. So... some animals are gay? Good for them? I never said they didn't evolve like that, I believe that evolution occurs, that has been proven. It has not been proven, however, that we came from apes. That is where I disagree.
Animal
Soulfire wrote:
If they want to be "married" they should have some sort of civil union available with the same legal benefits as marriage, only then would it gain enough acceptance to be considered.


But why should they not be allowed a religios ceremony too? Homosexuals are allowed to be religious, and I'm sure there are those who believe in God. The God that they believe in must be more tolerant and open-minded than the one you believe in - does that make them wrong and you right?

I'm going to quote from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Human Rights wrote:
Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.


Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.


I think you get the idea. Marriage is a human right, and a religious ceremony. By saying that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, you are denying them their fundamental human right to marry (Article 16), and practice their religious belief (Article 18). Just because you believe that your religion should speak out against homosexual marriage, someone else of the same religion may believe otherwise - are you right because your belief is "conservative", or is the other person right because their belief is "liberal".

All I can say is that everybody, regardless of sexual orientation, has Human Rights. Your position against Homosexual marriage is not only out-dated, it's also against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - you're not acting in a spirit of brotherhood! (Article 1).
Marston
Soulfire wrote:
Btw, Bondings, I completely missed the relevancy of your post. So... some animals are gay? Good for them? I never said they didn't evolve like that, I believe that evolution occurs, that has been proven. It has not been proven, however, that we came from apes. That is where I disagree.
I believe he's saying that since homosexuality occurs in animals, it must be natural.

... Or something.
horseatingweeds
Yes, Homosexuality is natural because animals do it.

I tried to tell that to the judge when he made me pay my neighbor $750 for throwing my fesses at him for yelling at me out his window.

Apparently he did not appreciate my yelling and screaming at 4 in the morning naked from the tree I was sleeping in, in my back yard.

This is the same idiot that got me arrested for public exposure when I was marking my territory along our rose bushes…..

Anyway, since we are going to change the long held definition of marriage from man and woman to man and man woman and woman and all that, then we should change the word house to equate tree and hole in the back yard.

It is my preference to be naked and scream and yell in the tree in my back yard and in the summer, to scream and yell in the hole in my back yard. Society allows me to do these things in my “house”, but this is discrimination! My choice is to do these things in the hole and the tree. I think I should be allowed.

It might not seem “natural” for most people but for me it is. Animals do it so it must be natural.
lyndonray
Jeez horseatingweeds i don't know what to do with myself after that last post! I don't know whether to try to eat my computer or just rub myself up against it.

I can't understand why so many people give themselves high blood pressure because some people want to get married. most straight people don't even give marriage the respect it deserves and they can go around getting whenever they feel like it. So gay people getting married will further compromise that already compromised sanctity of marriage? Please!! just let steve and adam get married. Trust me it won't killl you!!
Bondings
Soulfire wrote:
Btw, Bondings, I completely missed the relevancy of your post.

I tried to show that you can use the same arguments you used, to forbid writing with your left hand.

Soulfire, marriage existed before christianity on almost every continent and had a slightly different ceremony in every tribe. In some of them, for a long time, it was made by a religious entity like a priest, but certainly not everywhere.

In countries where there is actually a separation between church and state, the actual marriage (marriage is a civil union) is done in the city/municipality while only afterwards you can have a religious ceremony in your church.
horseatingweeds
Bondings wrote:

Soulfire, marriage existed before christianity on almost every continent and had a slightly different ceremony in every tribe. In some of them, for a long time, it was made by a religious entity like a priest, but certainly not everywhere.

In countries where there is actually a separation between church and state, the actual marriage (marriage is a civil union) is done in the city/municipality while only afterwards you can have a religious ceremony in your church.


This is great! So why would be change such an obviously important institution to legitimize a life style that needs no more legitimacy and is basically a privilege of our advanced society.

As for the question of homosexual sex for HUMANS being natural, more specifically anal sex, I think the rectal damage and urinary infections refute any naturalness about it.

As for homosexuality, I think I have made this point in another topic, but I have observed three types of homosexuals, behavioral wise. I will list them in the order that I was introduced.

1. Sexual deviants: My first experience knowing a person who participated in homosexual sex was my best friend in eighth grade. He would have sex with anything and any one. His behavior amazed me. He was molested by his father though. He even had sex with his dog. This is not natural. Neither is a grown man dancing around giggling about cloths and shopping.
2. Legitimate: I have certainly meet some couples that live together and even raise children. This seems to be the healthiest way for them to live. Sadly, this is far from being the majority.
3. Posers: These are the people who, without the nostalgia of the homosexual life style, would not call them selves such. Homosexual in the US are loved and treasured regardless of the make believe plight. Also, being a homosexual instantly makes you a member of this elite group.
Animal
horseatingweeds wrote:
So why would be change such an obviously important institution to legitimize a life style that needs no more legitimacy and is basically a privilege of our advanced society.


Your perception of legitimacy is obviously very different to that of others.

horseatingweeds wrote:
As for the question of homosexual sex for HUMANS being natural, more specifically anal sex, I think the rectal damage and urinary infections refute any naturalness about it.


So do you believe that heterosexual couples who engage in anal sex should be burned at the stake? Is it more or less legitimate for them to do it than homosexuals?

I'll agree that homosexual males can be over-the-top and often cause me to be a bit uncomfortable around them, but they are still human and should therefore have the same rights and opportunities as anyone else in the world.

horseatingweeds wrote:
Neither is a grown man dancing around giggling about cloths and shopping.


And sorry to say it, but this comment sounds awfully like stereotyping and homophobia.
horseatingweeds
Animal wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
So why would be change such an obviously important institution to legitimize a life style that needs no more legitimacy and is basically a privilege of our advanced society.


Your perception of legitimacy is obviously very different to that of others.


Certainly, but how is a civil union more lagitimate than marriage?

Animal wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
As for the question of homosexual sex for HUMANS being natural, more specifically anal sex, I think the rectal damage and urinary infections refute any naturalness about it.


So do you believe that heterosexual couples who engage in anal sex should be burned at the stake? Is it more or less legitimate for them to do it than homosexuals?

I'll agree that homosexual males can be over-the-top and often cause me to be a bit uncomfortable around them, but they are still human and should therefore have the same rights and opportunities as anyone else in the world.


Were the hell are you from? Do they still BURN people there? What an odd question.

Animal wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
Neither is a grown man dancing around giggling about cloths and shopping.


And sorry to say it, but this comment sounds awfully like stereotyping and homophobia.


Don't be sorry. Just realize that what you are saying is just an idle comment often directed toward people who do not support the gay aggenda. I am all the the rights of gays and I bet I know more gays than most people. We get along fine. My point is that a grown man acting like a thirteen year old girl is unnatural.
Animal
horseatingweeds wrote:
Certainly, but how is a civil union more lagitimate than marriage?


It's not. Neither is more or less legitimate, so why should anybody be denied the right to one and not the other if it's what they want to do?

horseatingweeds wrote:
Were the hell are you from? Do they still BURN people there? What an odd question.


Well... not exactly. But the way you argue against Gay Marriage does make you sound like you're against gay people themselves. Burning at the stake... it's more an expression. Poor choice, sorry.

horseatingweeds wrote:
Just realize that what you are saying is just an idle comment often directed toward people who do not support the gay aggenda. I am all the the rights of gays and I bet I know more gays than most people. We get along fine. My point is that a grown man acting like a thirteen year old girl is unnatural.


Yeah, just to clear something up... I'm not gay, so I'm not arguing here about my own rights. The impression that you gave was that you were stereotyping homosexuals and it does sound a bit like homophobia. As I said, some very "over-the-top" gay men make me feel quite uncomfortable, and I think that's a common reaction, particularly amongst heterosexual men. What I really have a problem with, however, is people who use their religious beliefs to justify their reasons for bigotry, and preach that bigotry on a wide scale.

This happened many years ago, where many White Christians saw themselves as above black people, believing that they were inferior and did not deserve the same rights. People who use the same logic to justify anti-homosexual commentary are no better. See my previous post regarding the declaration of human rights. A person is a person, and regardless of colour, ethnicity and sexual-orientation, they deserve exactly the same rights. Claiming that you are correct based on your religion and religious beliefs is, quite frankly, wrong.
horseatingweeds
Animal wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
Certainly, but how is a civil union more lagitimate than marriage?


It's not. Neither is more or less legitimate, so why should anybody be denied the right to one and not the other if it's what they want to do?


They aren't.

horseatingweeds wrote:
Just realize that what you are saying is just an idle comment often directed toward people who do not support the gay aggenda. I am all the the rights of gays and I bet I know more gays than most people. We get along fine. My point is that a grown man acting like a thirteen year old girl is unnatural.


Animal wrote:
Yeah, just to clear something up... I'm not gay, so I'm not arguing here about my own rights. The impression that you gave was that you were stereotyping homosexuals and it does sound a bit like homophobia. As I said, some very "over-the-top" gay men make me feel quite uncomfortable, and I think that's a common reaction, particularly amongst heterosexual men. What I really have a problem with, however, is people who use their religious beliefs to justify their reasons for bigotry, and preach that bigotry on a wide scale.

This happened many years ago, where many White Christians saw themselves as above black people, believing that they were inferior and did not deserve the same rights. People who use the same logic to justify anti-homosexual commentary are no better. See my previous post regarding the declaration of human rights. A person is a person, and regardless of colour, ethnicity and sexual-orientation, they deserve exactly the same rights. Claiming that you are correct based on your religion and religious beliefs is, quite frankly, wrong.


I emphatically and totally agree.
Prudens
NO GAY!
Marston
Prudens wrote:
NO GAY!
Bigotry... Rolling Eyes
horseatingweeds
Prudens wrote:
NO GAY!


<sarcasm>Productive posting, way to go!</sarcasm>

Don't post this crap "Prudens"
prongs_386
Animal wrote:


Yeah, just to clear something up... I'm not gay, so I'm not arguing here about my own rights. The impression that you gave was that you were stereotyping homosexuals and it does sound a bit like homophobia. As I said, some very "over-the-top" gay men make me feel quite uncomfortable, and I think that's a common reaction, particularly amongst heterosexual men. What I really have a problem with, however, is people who use their religious beliefs to justify their reasons for bigotry, and preach that bigotry on a wide scale.


I agree as well, i knew a guy who was apparantly gay, stated it openly and just acted really over the top. It wasn't too comfortable to be around him and i really didnt like him. I found out recently that he was never gay at all and just putting it on. Starved for attention or something similar.

Even though he wasnt gay that behaviour was just over the top and stereotypical, which is often a bad image which is given to all homosexuals. The fact is, that is a stereotype and every other gay person ive known have been completely fine to be around.
The only problem with homosexuality i say is the stereotypes surrounding it.
Related topics
Gay movement is growing and it is Futile to fight or argue
Gay Marriage
What are your thoughts on gay marriage?
Gay Marriage
Gay Marriage
12 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong (Lol...)
Don't believe in Gay Marriage? Then Read this.
Bush wants marriage reserved for heterosexuals
Pope restates gay marriage ban after California vote
Proof that not allowing gay marraige is unchristain
Obama, Santorum and Gay Rights
Gay marriage and the church
New Zealand legalizes Gay Marriage
Divorce, anullment and gay marriage.
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

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