Gay Marriage

[Lordofzrings]

WEll me and my friend were discussing gay Marriage (no niether of us are gay) and we found some pretty strong points.In fact many of them will help solve the worlds problems....

...Whats so bad about gay Marriage In fact i think its pretty good, I mean, if your straight and you cant find a girl, wouldnt gay people help? Theres 2 less guys to not get a girl, leaving 2 free girls right? that adds more to your chances....

Also people are complaining about overpopulation. Wouldnt more gay people help that? I mean gay people cant have any kids! Theres less people to have kids, then theres less people ion the word, hell if a gay couple wants to have kids, they can always adop, wouldnt that solve another problem? Overcrowding in orphanages...

Another thing, Gay people are less violent in most cases than "Playahs" so there will probably be less crime as well.

Whatabout the immoral part?
It goes against the bible ETC......
Hell, if you arent gay, what does it matter, if you dont like beer because its immoral will you drink it? No. If you dont like Adult entertainment becasuse its immoral will you watch it? No. If you think gay people are immoral will you be gay? No.

OPnmce again im straight, and i just felt like having a pointless rant....post if you find anything to support or reject this thread, i suppose...

[T3km4n]

I always joke about homosexuality, but really I don't find it such a bad thing. I have nothing against gays, except they make good jokes. I also make fun of myself and everything else in the world. It's fine.

[T3km4n]

Okay what I said doesn't have much relation but it's fine. Go Gay Marriage. Andema High School Football Rules.

[speaker4thedead]

Dont have anythig against it as long as a man dont come up to me and propose :)

[Hatchet Klown]

eh, I dont have a problem with civil unions but I am against them marrying in the eyes of god; for the sole purpose that the bible explicitly forbids homosexuality clearly, and it defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

[Teacher]

Most of the arguments that I have heard about the subject are from the religious side. I personally don't have a problem with it. States are slowly but surely allowing the same sex marriages but I think there is still a while to go before everyone agrees to it. Maybe when President Clinton and her lover take over the White House. :confused:

[Office_Shredder]

eh, I dont have a problem with civil unions but I am against them marrying in the eyes of god; for the sole purpose that the bible explicitly forbids homosexuality clearly, and it defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Umm..... marriage in the eyes of the government is not marriage in the eyes of god. Nobody says that a priest has to marry two gay people and recognize it as valid in the eyes of god. And the bible isn't a good source of laws for governing.

Lordofzrings, I have to be honest, I can't tell if your pro gay marriage points are satire or not

[Hatchet Klown]

Well, considering 11 states have banned gay marriage, and the supreme court is now swinging conservatively I have a feeling more will follow. ;)

OS, a legal "marriage" in the states eyes is called a civil union. Marriage is used to define the religious union. As previously said, I dont support homosexuality in any way but let them have their civil unions.

[Jeffery]

eh, I dont have a problem with civil unions but I am against them marrying in the eyes of god; for the sole purpose that the bible explicitly forbids homosexuality clearly, and it defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Ahh, so you don;t believe in the Constitutional guarantee of Freedom of Religion?


Why should YOUR view on what religion says dictate everyone elses?

If I was a non-christian, and did not believe in the bible, why should the law only be dictated by your religion?

[Hatchet Klown]

I believe in my constitutional gurantee to freedom to believe and speak what I want also. Because I BELIEVE it doesnt mean it is going to happen. I think Hillary should be shot and killed ASAP, doesnt mean its going to happen.

People can believe anything they want under the constitution, so dont bring that shit into this. Not to mention I am a firm supporter of adding a constitutional amendment ;)

[S_K_O_F]

GEEZ! Not this stupid discussion again.

[Kreator]

I'm not gay, but I don't have anything against gays, becuase it should be their choice if they wanna marry their own gender, not the government's. I think you made some pretty good points Lordofzrings.

[Jeffery]

I believe in my constitutional gurantee to freedom to believe and speak what I want also. Because I BELIEVE it doesnt mean it is going to happen. I think Hillary should be shot and killed ASAP, doesnt mean its going to happen.

People can believe anything they want under the constitution, so dont bring that shit into this. Not to mention I am a firm supporter of adding a constitutional amendment ;)
Don't being it into it?

The very CORE of the crap you spew is EVERYTHING to do with the constitution. Your Nazi beliefs that only those who follow your religion deserve to have rights is exactly that, a Nazi belief.

[Memnarch]

Good point. Also, remember that thing about seperation of church and state? Religion should not influence legislation. As for the topic of this thread, I have no problem. I found some of Lordofzrings points to be rather humorous. Same sex marriage will always be an issue, although I find it to be one of little to no consequence. Let people live their lives how they want. It is theirs to live.

EDIT: The point I was referring to was in post #9 by Jeffery.

[Hatchet Klown]

Not really, all of the major religions preach against homosexuality. Homosexuals just took and edited those religous documents editing them by taking out anything remotely anti-homosexual. I don't call that a religion, I call it butchering religious documents. I could take the bible and write "Mike Casper will rule the world" and you would call it a new religion? C'mon!

[S_K_O_F]

I don't believe that marriage should be defined by the government. I believe that marriage is a religious term used to describe a religious union. If there is truly to be a seperation of church and state, the government CANNOT define marriage.

So, what I am saying is that marriage license shouldn't exist in their current form.

But, perhaps the states should adopt civil union licenses.

[Hatchet Klown]

The government must define marriage to either include or exclude homosexuality. Religions are against the concept of same-sex marriage but radical appeals judges are forcing the issue to allow it. That is where the breach of seperation of church and state happens.

Why can a state not declare that they dont want homosexual marriage to occur? It's their state right. Eleven states have done so, but judges are overturning their referendums. Therefore the federal government must step in and make a decision one way or the other.

[S_K_O_F]

The government must define marriage to either include or exclude homosexuality. Religions are against the concept of same-sex marriage but radical appeals judges are forcing the issue to allow it. That is where the breach of seperation of church and state happens.

Why can a state not declare that they dont want homosexual marriage to occur? It's their state right. Eleven states have done so, but judges are overturning their referendums. Therefore the federal government must step in and make a decision one way or the other.

There should be no laws governing something that is defined by religion. This whole gay "marriage" debate should be left up to the religions themselves.

Let the government call their "marriage" something else...say Civil Unions.

I am a Christian, and a Conservative. And I think that if we are ever truly going to have a "seperation of church and state" then the government has no right to tell the religions what to do. And Marriage should not be governed by the government.

This debate would no longer be happening. Let the government define their civil Union so that any person can be united with any other person. Hell, let them define it to allow a person to unite with anything they want for all I care. Isn't that true secularism? But STOP trying to define something that is already defined.

[speaker4thedead]

Gay marragies still aint allowed in the UK

[uniquinous]

I have to admit, the "gay people are less violent" argument is a new one to me. :)

Homosexuals just took and edited those religous documents editing them by taking out anything remotely anti-homosexual. I don't call that a religion, I call it butchering religious documents.
I do have to respectfully disagree with you HK. Every religion that came about from the basis of another religion tends to take the pre-existing documents and alter them as desired to create the new religion. Note the drastic differences between Christianity and Judaism (it's general progenitor). The changes came about from altered changes. The 4th commandment, for example, states "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy" - this was completely downregulated in Christian teaching, along with Kosher rules, the belief of one unified (no trinity) god, etc etc. They are slight variations that ignore, stress, or create (through New Testiment) a new religion.

At the end of the day religion boils down to interpretation. I would imagine, judging by your school, that you disagree with a lot of the above. On a random aside, many of my college friends would yell out "Whens the popa gonna die?" everytime they drove by the main crosswalk on Lancaster. :p

Anyway, point being is that religion is nothing more then the interpretation you make of it, as seen by the very evolution of religion. :) You can say all you want about their marriage before the eyes of *your* god, but you can't put those ideas upon *their* god as well.

[WaCk-HeAd]

I wanted to take part in this discussion at first, but figured that since homosexuality is not even a topic of conversation in The Netherlands anymore, my liberal opinion would be rather clear.

Though I must say, you guys really make me more and more nationalistic at times.

And then to think I actually hate Nationalism.

Hehehe

[uniquinous]

screw you hippie liberal!

[WaCk-HeAd]

screw you hippie liberal!

*hugs tree*

[Hatchet Klown]

There should be no laws governing something that is defined by religion. This whole gay "marriage" debate should be left up to the religions themselves.
Tried that, the people say these religions are being prejudice.

Let the government call their "marriage" something else...say Civil Unions.
They are already called civil unions. The government will not remove civil unions from anyone because they recognize their civil liberties.

I am a Christian, and a Conservative. And I think that if we are ever truly going to have a "seperation of church and state" then the government has no right to tell the religions what to do. And Marriage should not be governed by the government.
Consider that Christianity, Judaism and Islam flat out condem homosexuality... Buddhism and Hinduism are open to interpertation depending on area and sect (It isnt mentioned anywhere specifically, so any "mention" is open to interpertation)

None of the major religions accept homosexuality, so when the homosexuals butcher religions as I have previously mentioned they are (at least in my eyes) only making a cult. When has the government not had the ability to restrict cults?

[uniquinous]

*hugs tree*
*hugs wack*

[Teacher]

I thought about jumping into this also, but since I'm not religious I felt I would ensure I didn't inadvertantly disrespect someone by my thoughts.

So I will just leave it as this, In the U.S. marriage is a Tax Break, and in some countries a punishment for shoplifting. (I'll try to find the comedians for this quote)Jeffrey? A little help Mr. Snoop. :p

[Cuathon]

The government must define marriage to either include or exclude homosexuality. Religions are against the concept of same-sex marriage but radical appeals judges are forcing the issue to allow it. That is where the breach of seperation of church and state happens.

Why can a state not declare that they dont want homosexual marriage to occur? It's their state right. Eleven states have done so, but judges are overturning their referendums. Therefore the federal government must step in and make a decision one way or the other.
they cant ban civil unions of gays. they have the same rights as heteros. they cant even ban gay marriage. some groups of christianity might believe that the bibile does not forbid gay marriage. there are too many splinters of various religions. it should be up to the individual officials of churches whether or not they perform gay marriages.(i.e. religious and not civil unions, since civil unions shoudl not be restricted by sexual orientation.)

[Cuathon]

Tried that, the people say these religions are being prejudice.


They are already called civil unions. The government will not remove civil unions from anyone because they recognize their civil liberties.


Consider that Christianity, Judaism and Islam flat out condem homosexuality... Buddhism and Hinduism are open to interpertation depending on area and sect (It isnt mentioned anywhere specifically, so any "mention" is open to interpertation)

None of the major religions accept homosexuality, so when the homosexuals butcher religions as I have previously mentioned they are (at least in my eyes) only making a cult. When has the government not had the ability to restrict cults?

cults are just small religions. i am agaisnt religious tax breaks to "major religions". any religious group should get them, or none.

[Hatchet Klown]

they cant ban civil unions of gays. they have the same rights as heteros. they cant even ban gay marriage. some groups of christianity might believe that the bibile does not forbid gay marriage. there are too many splinters of various religions. it should be up to the individual officials of churches whether or not they perform gay marriages.(i.e. religious and not civil unions, since civil unions shoudl not be restricted by sexual orientation.)
Civil unions arent restricted in any way. I said that homosexuals should be get joined legally, just not in the eyes of god... :rolleyes:

[Cuathon]

i know. although im sure some people wish to ban civil unionns as well. the main point was that they should be allowed to be amrrie in the eyes of god.

[Hatchet Klown]

Why? What they want is the government to force christian ministers to marry them against the beliefs of that religion. And as I said, I personally feel their "religion" is nothing more than a dolled up cult.

[WaCk-HeAd]

*hugs wack*

*runs*

IIIEEEEWWWWW

Homo!! :wink2:

[Cuathon]

the minister should be able to decide, read my other posts :)

[Realist]

I don't believe that marriage should be defined by the government. I believe that marriage is a religious term used to describe a religious union. If there is truly to be a seperation of church and state, the government CANNOT define marriage.

I agree.

eh, I dont have a problem with civil unions but I am against them marrying in the eyes of god; for the sole purpose that the bible explicitly forbids homosexuality clearly, and it defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Where?

[Hatchet Klown]

Where?
Directly from my bible:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22)

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13)

"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel" (Deuteronomy 23:17)

"Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites will inherit the kindom of god" (I Corinthians 6:9)

[Cuathon]

thats a bigoted view.

[S_K_O_F]

It really can't be contested that the Old Testament forbids homosexuality. It is pretty clear. It is actually the only activity that is said to be an abomination...in other words, it is disgusting to God.

Only the New Testament can be contested.

[Realist]

Have you read all of Leviticus to learn everything else it prohibits? :)

In any case, you still haven't shown where in the Bible marriage is defined as between a man and a woman...and by the way, both the OT and NT accept polygamy.

[Hatchet Klown]

He asked me where the bible explicitly forbids it, I showed him.

Use common sense, if it forbids you to have sex with or even think of homosexual acts, it will allow you to marry?

EDIT: And yes, have read all of leviticus.

[Office_Shredder]

Civil unions arent restricted in any way. I said that homosexuals should be get joined legally, just not in the eyes of god... :rolleyes:

First, only a few states allow gays to formcivil unions. Second, you don't get a civil union license, you get a marriage license. Stop trying to monopolize marriage as a religious thing, as it clearly is not in modern society. Third, being married under the eyes of the state does NOT mean getting married under the eyes of god, and nobody has ever said that it means that. Fourth, if Hunduism and Buddhism don't explicity state that gay marriage isn't OK, then it means it's acceptable by them (nowhere in the bible does it say you're allowed to hop up and down on one foot, but that doesn't mean it's forbidden)

[Realist]

It is actually the only activity that is said to be an abomination...in other words, it is disgusting to God.

This is definitely false..."abomination" is one of the OT's favorite words.

[S_K_O_F]

First, only a few states allow gays to formcivil unions. Second, you don't get a civil union license, you get a marriage license. Stop trying to monopolize marriage as a religious thing, as it clearly is not in modern society. Third, being married under the eyes of the state does NOT mean getting married under the eyes of god, and nobody has ever said that it means that. Fourth, if Hunduism and Buddhism don't explicity state that gay marriage isn't OK, then it means it's acceptable by them (nowhere in the bible does it say you're allowed to hop up and down on one foot, but that doesn't mean it's forbidden)

Ok...you are correct. In that case, Homosexual marriage is actually perfectly fine in the bible. They just can't have sex.

[S_K_O_F]

This is definitely false..."abomination" is one of the OT's favorite words.

EDIT- This was also incorrect. I did a little research and my statement was wrong.
Let me rephrase...It is the only act that is described as an abomination to God.

There are a few other sins that are described as disgusting to God.

[Hatchet Klown]

First, only a few states allow gays to formcivil unions. Second, you don't get a civil union license, you get a marriage license. Stop trying to monopolize marriage as a religious thing, as it clearly is not in modern society. Third, being married under the eyes of the state does NOT mean getting married under the eyes of god, and nobody has ever said that it means that. Fourth, if Hunduism and Buddhism don't explicity state that gay marriage isn't OK, then it means it's acceptable by them (nowhere in the bible does it say you're allowed to hop up and down on one foot, but that doesn't mean it's forbidden)

That is why I said it isnt mentioned for the better or worse explicitly. There are passages that you can judge for yourself as to whether it is referring to homosexuality. I did say it is open to interpertation... never said those two banned homosexuality.

[Cuathon]

i love that! woops mean to quote skofs first post.

[Realist]

EDIT- This was also incorrect. I did a little research and my statement was wrong.
Let me rephrase...It is the only act that is described as an abomination to God.

There are a few other sins that are described as disgusting to God.

Here's a good link.... (http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:eVBDT6BZQR8J:www.religioustolerance .org/hom_bibh2.htm+old+testament+abomination&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1)

[Draquist]

Hmm...If the government is so against religion in politics, why do they use the bible as an excuse to ban gay marriage?

[Hatchet Klown]

It depends on the party in power. Traditionally the liberals are for total seperation of church and state, while conservatives are for using the bible as an aide.

I personally find no fault in using the bible since our country was founded on religion, but that's just me.

[S_K_O_F]

Hmm...If the government is so against religion in politics, why do they use the bible as an excuse to ban gay marriage?

This is exactly my point. Marriage has always been defined by religious institutions. Let the government call it something else, debate over, Homosexuals get the same rights as Heterosexuals, everybody is happy.

[S_K_O_F]

It depends on the party in power. Traditionally the liberals are for total seperation of church and state, while conservatives are for using the bible as an aide.

I personally find no fault in using the bible since our country was founded on religion, but that's just me.

Oh...you did it now. Now it is time for Realist to explain to us all how our government WASN'T founded on religious beliefs.

123...GO!

[Hatchet Klown]

If we were to allow civil unions in all states then they would get the same rights. But no, THEY want to be MARRIED... So they are pushing the issue to where religous groups and conservatives are getting to their breaking point.

[S_K_O_F]

Here's a good link.... (http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:eVBDT6BZQR8J:www.religioustolerance .org/hom_bibh2.htm+old+testament+abomination&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1)

You will notice that I corrected myself already.

[S_K_O_F]

If we were to allow civil unions in all states then they would get the same rights. But no, THEY want to be MARRIED... So they are pushing the issue to where religous groups and conservatives are getting to their breaking point.

Religious institutions cannot be forced to allow homosexual marriage. You wanna talk about seperation of church and state, you can start right their.

[Cuathon]

oh but it was sort of. those morons came oveer here to not be persecuted and then persecuted those folloowing them. :)

hatchet? if they did that, i'd secede. no way in hell i'd live in a country where the bible could be the basis for laws. i'd also secede if they ban gay marriage.(what next, banning atheism?)

really if they want to be married in the eyes of god, they should just make their own branch of christianity.

[Realist]

Oh...you did it now. Now it is time for Realist to explain to us all how our government WASN'T founded on religious beliefs.

123...GO!

I'd rather just link to older posts of mine. (http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=605488&postcount=38) :)

You will notice that I corrected myself already.

I noticed. Wasn't arguing, just enlightening the lurkers.

[Hatchet Klown]

The constitution never barred combination of church and state. That is a common misconception of the first amendment. The whole "seperation of church and state" came from Thomas Jefferson. That wasnt said until 1802, and was done so in a letter to the Baptists.

[S_K_O_F]

I'd rather just link to older posts of mine. (http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=605488&postcount=38) :)



I noticed. Wasn't arguing, just enlightening the lurkers.

Having seen these debates in these forums no fewer than 10 times, I can pretty much predict how they will pan out.

We got this far pretty fast this time. This thread will die in another page or two now.

[Cuathon]

its still a good idea. i dont want any theocratic principles applied to my govenrment.

@skoffer: we ran out of new arguements, rehashng old ones is always fun anyway.

[Realist]

Use common sense, if it forbids you to have sex with or even think of homosexual acts, it will allow you to marry?

You keep on adding things. :\ Where does the Bible forbid you from thinking of homosexual acts?

EDIT: And yes, have read all of leviticus.

Do you follow it?

[S_K_O_F]

its still a good idea. i dont want any theocratic principles applied to my govenrment.

@skoffer: we ran out of new arguements, rehashng old ones is always fun anyway.

You better get to Congress and demand that they don't have in-session prayers then. And you better start campaigning to ban anyone who is not athiest from getting in to office. Because we don't want those religious bastards influencing our government!!!

Maybe that should be the next amendment. "If you believe in a higher power, you cannot be a part of the governmental body. In case you would be tempted to use your religious beliefs to influence your law making decisions!"

[Realist]

The constitution never barred combination of church and state.

our country was founded on religion

Do you see no difference between these two statements? :)

[Hatchet Klown]

I believe it was best said by George Washington:

"Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle"

[Cuathon]

nah, your going to far. i mean i dont want laws that make no sense. i.e. they must have some sort of secular benefit. at the current stage, homosexuality isnt going to damage the position humans have on the planet. it wont truly negatively affect our society. therefore there is no longer a reason to prohibit it. religions are too stable. im of the school that thinks religions were used to expedite stable societies or personal power (depending on the person who implemented them.)

i dont care if they are in office, individuals arent a problem. (i dont think they should pray in session, at least, not as a part of it. they can pray as individuals.)

[Hatchet Klown]

The congress wont sit there and base the laws off the bible, but if you elect a christian man to congress I damn well assure you he will apply those morals to his law making. It's an indirect way of religion effecting us, but we are keeping our religious principles.

[S_K_O_F]

nah, your going to far. i mean i dont want laws that make no sense. i dont care if they are in office, individuals arent a problem. (i dont think they should pray in session, at least, not as a part of it. they can pray as individuals.)

Wait Wait Wait...So, if one or two people are religious, it is OK. But if a larger portion, lets say even a majority, are religious, then that is not OK?

OK, so, basically what you are saying is that the democratic process has failed. If our public officials no longer represent the people of the land, then how are we still a democracy?
Or maybe it hasn't failed and our public officials DO represent the people. So, that would suggest that a majority of the people in the US base their principles off of religious beliefs?

OMG!!!

This is all hypothetical, though. There is NO possible way that a majority of the US population could ever be religious.

Here is what I am getting at. If you want to live in a country whose laws are not influenced by religious ideals, then you are on the wrong planet.

[Cuathon]

read my edited post skoffy, i musta edited it while you were writing yours.

[S_K_O_F]

read my edited post skoffy, i musta edited it while you were writing yours.
My post still stands. If you don't want your laws to be influenced by religious beliefs, then you are in the wrong country.

I actually think China has pretty much banned all religion, you could go their. But then, you wouldn't get a choice in your laws anyway.

[Cuathon]

ugh, i just cant articulate what i mean. okay, laws should have some sort of real benefit. banning homosexuality at this point is silly. it wont have a large negative impact on society. (just ignore that other post. i think this will explain what i mean)

the first sentence in hatchet's post is what i mean. i dont wanna live somehwere where that is what happens.(the part before the comma)

[Hatchet Klown]

That wont happen, but to bar religion entirely from state is absurd.

[S_K_O_F]

ugh, i just cant articulate what i mean. okay, laws should have some sort of real benefit. banning homosexuality at this point is silly. it wont have a large negative impact on society. (just ignore that other post. i think this will explain what i mean)

the first sentence in hatchet's post is what i mean. i dont wanna live somehwere where that is what happens.(the part before the comma)

OK.

There isn't much difference between a law being "based" off of the bible and a law being influenced by a religious belief which is based off the bible.

What I am saying is as long as there are religious men and women in our government, our laws are going to be "based" off of what the bible has laid out to be right and wrong for us. As long as there are a majority religious voters, there are going to be religious men and women in government.

[Cuathon]

it's ahappened before hatchet(though not in the US since its founding.) but in many other countries theocracy is/was a reality.

im pretty sure that many chrisitian sects believe that non-chrisitans will go to hell. its this type of intolerence that makes me dislike organized religion.
assuming that you dont believe that religion was a tool for popualtion control or a survival trait, many of my points(on religion) you will disagree with no matter what.

[S_K_O_F]

it's ahappened before hatchet(though not in the US since its founding.) but in many other countries theocracy is/was a reality.

im pretty sure that many chrisitian sects believe that non-chrisitans will go to hell. its this type of intolerence that makes me dislike organized religion.
assuming that you dont believe that religion was a tool for popualtion control or a survival trait, many of my points(on religion) you will disagree with no matter what.

Many??? All Christian "sects" believe that non-christians will be forbidden from entering the gates of heaven when they die. Why is that offensive to you if you are not religious? If you don't believe in an afterlife, then you should not be offended.

[Cuathon]

well, i wasnt sure if it was all. it doesnt really offend me. i just dislike this idea. anyhow, im not sure if im agnostic or atheist. currently i dont think that any of the gods of organized religion are real. so i mighta confused you a bit. some religions i simply dont want to believe in them.(f.e.- i dont like the idea of a god that confines people to hell if they dont believe in him.)

[Office_Shredder]

I personally find no fault in using the bible since our country was founded on religion, but that's just me.

We're so founded on religious beliefs, that we're legally bound not to be a christian nation by the treaty of Tripoli

In fact, we could be jewish, we could be hindu, but we CAN'T be christian. Makes you think, huh?

[gryph89]

So were calling marriage sacred after a country who makes : The Bachlor, The Bachlorete, Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire, Joe Schmo...as entertainment...

I could care less if they marry or not. Let them do what they want. People bitch and moan and complain too much, shutup, and do YOUR job, not the job of someone else

[S_K_O_F]

well, i wasnt sure if it was all. it doesnt really offend me. i just dislike this idea. anyhow, im not sure if im agnostic or atheist. currently i dont think that any of the gods of organized religion are real. so i mighta confused you a bit. some religions i simply dont want to believe in them.(f.e.- i dont like the idea of a god that confines people to hell if they dont believe in him.)

So, "IF" a god does exist, and the people that "he" created do not believe in him, then he should just be cool with that?

What incentive does a god have to save people who do not believe in him? Especially when he created them for his own glory? For example, if a group of people worship a god everyday, and spend their lives spreading their beliefs of that god to others, are they not "more" entitled to a reward from that god?

This is a very human way of thinking. But if all religions are human creations then it is logical to assume that most think this way. Christianity, Islam, hinduism, etc. All claim rewards that you wouldn't get if you didn't follow them.

Basically what I am getting at is this...you either accept religious beliefs or you don't. But not accepting religious beliefs and then being pissed that you might not get the same rewards makes no sense. How can you be pissed that Christians claim they get a reward, when you don't even believe in that reward?

This is what I am saying.

[Cuathon]

well currently i dont believe. im not pissed either. really, why cant i just be consigne to oblivion? why do i need to be burned for eternity? i dont want to go to heaven, my beliefs about immortality(that you would eventually get bored etc.) prevent this. i simply dont think that we must be punished. now if we did other things in ohr life besides not believeing in him, it MIGHT be reasonable, but otherwise we should just cease.

note:this is applicalbe only if god is real.
also, i think its stupid that he thinks we should just be able to grab the one true religion out of hundreds that have existed. not only(if he exists) did he set up all the cndiitons of our existence he made us. so if he is perfect he knows what we will do before we are born.(this is infact a major component of some chrsitianity(that we are damned or saved before we are even born.)

[Ächilles]

You know what would solve this?

UFC 62: Straight vs. Queer

[S_K_O_F]

You know what would solve this?

UFC 62: Straight vs. Queer

I would definately watch that. But I think more men would be ashamed to lose to a gay guy than a woman.

[WaCk-HeAd]

You know what would solve this?

UFC 62: Straight vs. Queer

*signs up for Queer UFC*

It would rock so much to have the Queer Ultimate Fighter title.

[Hatchet Klown]

Gay guys would lose, lesbians would destroy the straight women.

[S_K_O_F]

Gay guys would lose, lesbians would destroy the straight women.

OOOOOH! Here comes the stereotype police!

[WaCk-HeAd]

Hahahahahahaha

[Hatchet Klown]

:D What can I say, I've seen quite a few "brolock" lesbians.

[Man's Laughter]

First, only a few states allow gays to formcivil unions. Second, you don't get a civil union license, you get a marriage license. Stop trying to monopolize marriage as a religious thing, as it clearly is not in modern society. Third, being married under the eyes of the state does NOT mean getting married under the eyes of god, and nobody has ever said that it means that. Fourth, if Hunduism and Buddhism don't explicity state that gay marriage isn't OK, then it means it's acceptable by them (nowhere in the bible does it say you're allowed to hop up and down on one foot, but that doesn't mean it's forbidden)

Exactly. Whether or not everyone's willing to accept it, the definition of Marriage is changing.

1. legal relationship between spouses: a legally recognized relationship,established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners
MSN Encarta

I personally find no fault in using the bible since our country was founded on religion, but that's just me.

Founded on Religion? Maybe, but also founded on the FREEDOM of Religion. Not specifically, of course, but it is one of the base freedoms guaranteed by the Government. Working a personalized Religion into law in such a way boarderline, if not completely, transgresses against this Freedom.

That wont happen, but to bar religion entirely from state is absurd.

If not impossible. However, letting Religion influence the law in such a direct manner is just as absurd.

So, "IF" a god does exist, and the people that "he" created do not believe in him, then he should just be cool with that?

If "he's" not forcing us to believe in "him", and "he" only leaves a silly, uncertifiable book as proof, then... Yes.

[Poop Slinger]

Hmm...If the government is so against religion in politics, why do they use the bible as an excuse to ban gay marriage?

Because they're always looking for the loop hole. Gee why is government looking down on gay marriages. They get $50 a pop per marriage license, but give a 8% tax break to married couples. The real reason.. lets look at who is representing us? Senators and Representatives who have come home to find their daughters and sons in orgies and in the arms of the same sex. Who have their wives friends all up an arms over the subject. Who are busy downloading kiddie porn and throwing back Jimmy Bean. Congress is and all always will be 20 years behind the times. If congress was full of 20-30 year olds, gay marriage would go through. And people wouldn't care. But we have too many strong religious following reps up there who all believe as some of these posts state, its an abomination. But really who cares? Let them eat cake.. or tossed salad.

If they are gay they already have different thoughts on life and what is acceptable. Why do we condemn that? Are we still looking for a community to oppress since we lost our precious slaves?

If anyone is stupid enough to want to be with someone for the rest of their life whether its same sex or opposite, let them. Its their life to throw away. The government just need to figure out how this will be an advantage for them instead of a disadvantage. Think of all the benefits people get from marriage.

Citizenship.
Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse. Free one time gift of 250,000.
Cheaper taxes.
Receive Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receive public assistance benefits.
Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.


The government cares because it effects all their lobbyists. But has no leg to stand on but to use religion as its "WHY NOT!" Let be realistic. It has nothing to do with immoral. It has to do with the way government has put in place rules to allows marriage couples to get benefits.

[Cuathon]

they can try to push laws through because it follows their religious morality. but they better be able to give another good reason besides: the bible says so.

Originally Posted by S_K_O_F
So, "IF" a god does exist, and the people that "he" created do not believe in him, then he should just be cool with that?

Originally posted by Teacher
If "he's" not forcing us to believe in "him", and "he" only leaves a silly, uncertifiable book as proof, then... Yes.

Originally posted by rep system

you have given out too much reputation in the past 24 hours


Cuathon :@$#@^&@^%&*@$%^**%!&@%&@$&&%%

[Man's Laughter]

Originally posted by Teacher
If "he's" not forcing us to believe in "him", and "he" only leaves a silly, uncertifiable book as proof, then... Yes.

Hey!

[S_K_O_F]

If "he's" not forcing us to believe in "him", and "he" only leaves a silly, uncertifiable book as proof, then... Yes.

OK...just wanted to make sure I was able to think like an athiest.

[mushroom_girl]

Love is an emotion. A feeling. It does not describe what gender, race, or religion a person should be.

1. A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
2. A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.
3.
1. Sexual passion.
2. Sexual intercourse.
3. A love affair.
4. An intense emotional attachment, as for a pet or treasured object.
5. A person who is the object of deep or intense affection or attraction; beloved. Often used as a term of endearment.
6. An expression of one's affection: Send him my love.
7.
1. A strong predilection or enthusiasm: a love of language.
2. The object of such an enthusiasm: The outdoors is her greatest love.
8. Love Mythology. Eros or Cupid.
9. often Love Christianity. Charity.
10. Sports. A zero score in tennis.

Nowhere do I see where it says who to love.

Just one thing...what's your problem with two men or two women loving eachother? What's wrong with two people getting married not under any religion? I could see people getting upset if they were Catholic and a gay couple wanted to get married in their church, because the Bible does say that that is not allowed, but what does the church have to do with all marriages?

A person who is gay is as capable of love as I am. So why can't they be allowed to express their love the same way we can?

Get over yourselves. Times are changing, and so are things that are acceptable. If you are not capable of being open-minded then you will not make it very far in the future.

[-arrow-head->]

America is a free country for all people to have equal opportunities. If it doesnt affect you then why would you oppose gay marriage?

From the colbert report and daily show, this isnt unusual. The aboltion of slavery was opposed but over time it was abolished. Women Suffrage was met with opposition, but it was allowed. Gay marriage is being met with opposition, but over time it will be accepted.

[uniquinous]

I posted this in the Christian Thread but will repost here:

-----------------------------------------
B: I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.
JJ:I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does. Leviticus 18:22

B: Chapter and verse.

I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, and always clears the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?

While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath, Exodus 35:2, clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?

Here's one that's really important, 'cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes us unclean, Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?

Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side?

Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?

Think about those questions, would you? One last thing, while you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tightass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.


-West Wing
-----------------------------------------

I keep hearing "but they can't in the eyes of god" and ask again: "who's god"? When a doctor is asked to perform a surgery s/he disagrees with, they are allowed to turn it down no matter what. The same moral principle should be held to religion and the individual beliefs of each spiritual leader.

[ReTodd]

I firmly believe that homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else. If two people are in love and want to be married, that is fine by me, provided I get to watch the drama unfold throughout the bitter divorces. When homosexuals get divorced, is it flamboyant? That would be hysterical to watch :good:

Could anyone explain the logic of how this is a slippery slope issue? I don't see how this leads to poligamy or people marrying their pets/relatives.

I have no problems with gay people and they never hit on me because I am ugly and don't take care of myself. At least that's what my gay friend tells me.

[EmelGreenLeafer]

I for one is against gay marriage, i don't think a man and a man, and a woman and a woman should be allowed to get married. First, god made it man and woman, if man and man and woman and woman start getting married, its the end to the world, no new baby's would come. Second, its disgusting, not being racist, i just think this should NOT be allowed. If this continue, there will be judgement for those who continue it by god.

Say no to gay marriage people. (lesbians too)

[Poop Slinger]

As I posted it is slippery slope, of loophopes, tax deductions, company benefits, and benefits from big corporations who pretty much run the government behind the scenes, with their money. A lot of marriage rules went into place as way to make up for the unfair treatment of woman. Payback as you will.

Otherwise. The only slippery slope is the baby oil on the back side. ;)

And what is this love you speak of? Marriage is about stupidity not love. Love is the feeling you have after/during sex, while eating chocolate, drinking a 7-11 slurpie to fast, or a great roller coaster ride. Stupidity is thinking that the person you're with at the moment has any effect in outcome of those interactions.

[WaCk-HeAd]

and man and man and woman and woman start getting married, its the end to the world,

Illiteracy aside, this is completely true.

We have been allowing gay marriage for a while now, and we're pretty much done for. Our population used to be around 16 million, now we're only here with 4 homosexuals and me. So yeah... I'm pretty much screwed.

So just ban gay marriage, because if you don't allow it all the homosexuals will suddenly turn straight and make babies. A lot too.

[mushroom_girl]

First, god made it man and woman, and man and man and woman and woman start getting married, its the end to the world, no new baby's would come.
Well not everyone is gay. If He exists, God did make us with differences and free will to do what he please. If he truely didn't want anyone to be gay, they he didn't have to make us that way. Like your personality traits, you are born with homosexual tendencies, you just don't usually realise it until later on.
Second, its disgusting, not being racist, i just think this should NOT be allowed. If this continue, there will be judgement for those who continue it by god.
Well if God doesn't exist or if he just agrees that love is an emotion, won't you feel pretty damn stupid for saying that.

Remember, the Bible was NOT written by a holy being. It was written by men. Technically, the Bible is a book of fiction. I'm not saying that what you believe is wrong, but the Bible cannot be proven the truth until God comes to us and tells us that himself. At least not for me.

Until God comes down here and tells us that gay marriage is wrong, then I will continue to be an open-minded hippie.

[WaCk-HeAd]

I will continue to be an open-minded hippie.

*high fives*

[Draquist]

Be my hippy liz! We can be Hippy's together! :bigsmile:

[monkus]

I for one is against gay marriage, i don't think a man and a man, and a woman and a woman should be allowed to get married. First, god made it man and woman, and man and man and woman and woman start getting married, its the end to the world, no new baby's would come. Second, its disgusting, not being racist, i just think this should NOT be allowed. If this continue, there will be judgement for those who continue it by god.

Say no to gay marriage people. (lesbians too)

First, wow, no new babies will come. Should we also therefore ban marriage between two people if one is sterile? Also, gay couples can adopt babies, taking kids away from the harsh realities of the adoption system and actually giving these kids a good uprising.
Second, we should ban things that are disgusting? Does that mean ugly people can't marry either? And, sorry to be a bit of a chauvinistfor a second, but there's no way you can say that all lesbian sex is disgusting. If you really think that, I think Jeffery has some videos to show you :p


Wack: Your post kicked ass.

Mushroom: Agreed, but let's not turn this into a "let's argue about the bible" thread.

Also, I am wholly convinced that being homosexual is not a choice. We had a guest speaker in school about homophobia, and he said, "With the difficulty today of being gay, the discrimination, the prejudice, and the overall hate you see, not one person would ever choose to be gay. If given the choice, every single person in the world would want to be straight." There is no choice, so why be prejudice against people for an involuntary quality?


Edit: Draq, try and take my liz again and you'll be posting by blowing through a straw onto a keyboard.

[Draquist]

Pssh Monk...Dont make me show you the rep Liz gave me :bigsmile:

[Cuathon]

emerald, i ahev no respect for you anymore.

uni i love you.

[mushroom_girl]

Mushroom: Agreed, but let's not turn this into a "let's argue about the bible" thread.
Well it's hard to talk about gay marriage and not bring the bible into it. But I'll try just for you. :blush2:

[Cuathon]

cause monkus is so manly. *swoon*
:)

[S_K_O_F]

I for one is against gay marriage, i don't think a man and a man, and a woman and a woman should be allowed to get married. First, god made it man and woman, if man and man and woman and woman start getting married, its the end to the world, no new baby's would come. Second, its disgusting, not being racist, i just think this should NOT be allowed. If this continue, there will be judgement for those who continue it by god.

Say no to gay marriage people. (lesbians too)

It is unfortunate that this argument is being presented in this way.

[Cuathon]

i love you skoffers :)

[Office_Shredder]

And what is this love you speak of? Marriage is about stupidity not love. Love is the feeling you have after/during sex, while eating chocolate, drinking a 7-11 slurpie to fast, or a great roller coaster ride. Stupidity is thinking that the person you're with at the moment has any effect in outcome of those interactions.

Stupidity is being in love with a piece of chocolate

[S_K_O_F]

As I posted it is slippery slope, of loophopes, tax deductions, company benefits, and benefits from big corporations who pretty much run the government behind the scenes, with their money. A lot of marriage rules went into place as way to make up for the unfair treatment of woman. Payback as you will.

Otherwise. The only slippery slope is the baby oil on the back side. ;)

And what is this love you speak of? Marriage is about stupidity not love. Love is the feeling you have after/during sex, while eating chocolate, drinking a 7-11 slurpie to fast, or a great roller coaster ride. Stupidity is thinking that the person you're with at the moment has any effect in outcome of those interactions.

I'm not sure whether to feel sorry for you or be astonished.

So, how much of your stuff, exactly, did your ex-wife get?

[Cuathon]

office, you suck man.

[WaCk-HeAd]

Edit: Draq, try and take my liz again and you'll be posting by blowing through a straw onto a keyboard.

Huh? Your Liz? What? The rep Liz send you?

uhm, Liz? Mind explaining a thing or two?

[mushroom_girl]

Huh? Your Liz? What? The rep Liz send you?

uhm, Liz? Mind explaining a thing or two?
Hey, this thread is not about me. It's about the rights of gay people and I will not have you spamming it up with nonsense about me.

*Phew, got out of that one.*

[E unit]

lol what a thread. :rolleyes:

Ive grew up as a homophobe but i dont realy know why know, your post has got me thinking, im seeing a whole new side to homo's and homo marriage.

Some very good points. :bigsmile:

Thx 4 that. :cool:

[WaCk-HeAd]

Hey, this thread is not about me. It's about the rights of gay people and I will not have you spamming it up with nonsense about me.

*Phew, got out of that one.*

Whatever, I'm just going to decide to be gay from now on, so you can't trick me anymore!

Ha. I like guys now! Take that!

[Cuathon]

wack is so hot!

[mushroom_girl]

Whatever, I'm just going to decide to be gay from now on, so you can't trick me anymore!

Ha. I like guys now! Take that!
I could be a guy! Just say the word and I'm yours!

[Kreator]

I could be a guy! Just say the word and I'm yours!

Get over here and make out with me!

If this works for popular guys, why wouldnt it work for me?

[HorNeT]

Get over here and make out with me!

If this works for popular guys, why wouldnt it work for me?
Haha!


since when has Wack been Popular? Ha.

[WaCk-HeAd]

Yeah, I don't consider myself popular at all. I'm just the strange Dutchman, who everybody looks up to. :)

Liz, I won't believe you until I see some masculin(sp?) pictures.

[uniquinous]

since he hugged that tree :swoon:

[mushroom_girl]

Liz, I won't believe you until I see some masculin(sp?) pictures.
All for you, Wacky-dear.
http://img418.imageshack.us/img418/9918/fdkgdfhfhd7ki.png

[theAdmiralty]

the possibility of gay marriage is an illusion. the terms are contradictory. give the gays the rights that married couples have under the law of marriage, but calling it a marriage would be ignorant and would call for a revision of the term.

[Kreator]

All for you, Wacky-dear.
http://img418.imageshack.us/img418/9918/fdkgdfhfhd7ki.png

HOTT! :p

[mushroom_girl]

the possibility of gay marriage is an illusion. the terms are contradictory. give the gays the rights that married couples have under the law of marriage, but calling it a marriage would be ignorant and would call for a revision of the term.
That is one definition of the word marriage.

The other one is: A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage, a same-sex marriage.

So yeah, it's only contradictory if they get married in a religion house that forbids it.

[Man's Laughter]

the possibility of gay marriage is an illusion. the terms are contradictory. give the gays the rights that married couples have under the law of marriage, but calling it a marriage would be ignorant and would call for a revision of the term.

http://www.bikerdecals.com/Items/c105.gif
Hiss...

[theAdmiralty]

No. You're definition is the result of liberal conspiracy. Marriage can only classicaly be defined in one way when referring to people. Now if we refer to gays as inanimate objects then they can enter into a marriage, union.

Edit. Thanks Man's Laughter. If you were referring to some of my past misdeeds then I would agree with the hatred conveyed by your post. If replying to my most recent post, I feel I must rebuke thee. I also feel since I didn't make my argument a religious one that the reference to Jesus is somewhat...shaky for lack of a btter term at the moment.

[Man's Laughter]

Umm... You're joking, right? :confused:

[Poop Slinger]

I'm not sure whether to feel sorry for you or be astonished.

So, how much of your stuff, exactly, did your ex-wife get?

No ex-wife. All good. In a marriage. Just an observation. (psst shes looking over my shoulder now)

[mushroom_girl]

Admirality, why do you not accept gay marriage?

And I don't mean to single you out, you're just the last person who posted such a comment. I would just really like to hear some reasons as to why you're against it.

[Man's Laughter]

Admirality, why do you not accept gay marriage?

And I don't mean to single you out, you're just the last person who posted such a comment. I would just really like to hear some reasons as to why you're against it.

The Bible sez' so. That's just about everyone's reason against gay marriage and homosexuality in general.

[meat.eater]

The term "marriage" is generated from the religious word. That is what Admir suggest we change. That should not be the definition of marriage, and I agree. Make the basic union of persons not called a marriage, as it technically is not, and the problem will be solved.

Do I think people are too strict about it? yes. If marriage is our term for just a union, yes gays shoul dbe allowed to marry. But if they want to nail it to the board as being a religious bond, dont have it be the basic form of union. I, as a homosexual, have no problem with that. I dont understand why people dont get that. But if they are going to dictate that we dont get to be like the majority of society and get the common base for union, fuck that.

But you bet your ass a civil union for gays should have the same benefits as a marriage under God has for a man and woman.

But under the accusations that gays arent allowed to marry for living against the word of God, people who arent celebite should be allowed to marry either, or those who, simply, arent Christian. It doesnt work out that way though, its mainly predjudice by a predominately Christian government who work under the fact that America was formed by Christians. Great, yes it was. But it also advocates freedom of expression. So, the simple solution, is to no longer call teh basic union a marriage, switch the roles. the common man (meaning person) recieves a Civil Union, the specific recieves a marriage.

[theAdmiralty]

The Bible sez' so. That's just about everyone's reason against gay marriage and homosexuality in general.

You're an idiot.

In response to you mushroom.

I'm not against. I believe the gays should have thier rights. Just caught up on the marriage thing.

Edit. Meat.eater can read. Learn from him laughter.

[meat.eater]

The Bible sez' so. That's just about everyone's reason against gay marriage and homosexuality in general.

Not an entirely true comment. You havent met many homophobes, I see.

EDIT: Er... non-christian homophobes.. more specifically.

[mushroom_girl]

I'm not against. I believe the gays should have thier rights. Just caught up on the marriage thing.

Edit. Meat.eater can read. Learn from him laughter.
Ahh, oopsies. Misread.

I'm sorry. :o

[theAdmiralty]

Good. I now leave this thread and return to obscurity.

[lazygun]

Must have missed the meeting where the word Marriage recieved some kinda' new status.?.:(

[-arrow-head->]

I for one is against gay marriage, i don't think a man and a man, and a woman and a woman should be allowed to get married. First, god made it man and woman, if man and man and woman and woman start getting married, its the end to the world, no new baby's would come. Second, its disgusting, not being racist, i just think this should NOT be allowed. If this continue, there will be judgement for those who continue it by god.

Say no to gay marriage people. (lesbians too)

If gay marriage were to be allowed everyone would not turn gay. It's not a choice to be gay. If a gay person isnt allowed to marry their own sex theyre not going to get married to the opposite sex. You're logic in that makes no sense. You can't be racist against gay people. It's not possible.

[Man's Laughter]

You're an idiot.

In response to you mushroom.

I'm not against. I believe the gays should have thier rights. Just caught up on the marriage thing.

Edit. Meat.eater can read. Learn from him laughter.

Yes, of course I'm an idiot. That's it. Mmm-hmm. 1 Generalization = mental insufficiency? Your deduction skills are mediocre at best, theAdmiralty.

The term marriage was a religious term; it's losing that property faster than Bush is losing his approval rating. It's only a matter of time.

[meat.eater]

It's not a choice to be gay.

Thats what many homosexuals say, and I dont argue them - Im sure they have many conflicting feelings inside them, just as I do. But I can safely say that I chose. I am bisexual, though, so I dont know if that plays a larger role in the choice aspect, as im sure it probably does. Regardless, it was a personal choice.

Thats just another little stereotype.

[meat.eater]

The term marriage was a religious term; it's losing that property faster than Bush is losing his approval rating. It's only a matter of time.

Thats a completely asinine comment. I appriciate your passion on the matter, but that was just plain dumb to say.

You ran out of arguments.

Nevermind, I was about so say something else, but I'll keep it to myself.

[Match Strike]

eh, I dont have a problem with civil unions but I am against them marrying in the eyes of god; for the sole purpose that the bible explicitly forbids homosexuality clearly, and it defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
So should marriage be something that is controlled at all by the state? I think the government should get out of the marriage business and simply hand out civil unions to whoever wants 'em.

[mushroom_girl]

Gay "union" (since the word marriage seems to be the wrong one to use) should be allowed. Churches can forbid it, since it is against their religion, but then why should states forbid it?

Whatever happened to separation of church and state?

You're not supposed to drag religious beliefs into politics, although it does usually get involved. And heaven forbid someone get offended once and a while.

Look, not everyone is going to like everything that is done. If I could, I would make gay "union" 100% legal. Everyone has the right to be free in this country.

[†Nuke'em†]

I have one question, what is the benifit of being gay, i mean your going against the nature of the beast


umm in response to the agurement about it just being a christian problem, how many gay muslums, jews, buddists, and so on... do u see i see non

[Man's Laughter]

Thats a completely asinine comment. I appriciate your passion on the matter, but that was just plain dumb to say.

You ran out of arguments.

Unless you're talking about the part of my comment regarding Bush's political standing, you really aren't making much sense.

Ran out of arguements, you say?


Encarta's (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/marriage.html) list of definitions. One Religious reference, regardless of whether or not you follow up on the "wedlock" piece, and even the religious reverence states "civil or religious ceremony"

Dictionary.com's (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage) definitions are roughly the same, aside from the thrid article which is most assuredly a religious definition.

"Websters Dictionary; Designed for everyday use in Home, School & Office" states:
'marriage n. The state of being married; wedlock; the act of marrying or the ceremony entered into by a man and woman so as to live together as husband and wife.' So far, that's a 1.5/3 at best

Merriam Webster's (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/marriage) online dictionary states it both as a marriage between two of the opposite sex and two of the same sex, along with several with non-specific definitions.

Wiktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Marriage) has no specification to gender.


So, regardless of whether or not this is my only argument, it still holds some weight due to it's gradually shitfing definition.


As for Civil Unions, though, Civil Unions in the U.S. are not always recognized outside of the state they were recognized in [Unlike marriages], and members of a Civil Union do not always recieve the same benefits. If a Civil Union truely granted the same rights as a Marriage, the Gay Rights argument would boil down to bickering over the name.

[Cuathon]

your a moron nuke, there are no "benefits."
bi is more of a choice. homosexuality can be a choice or it cant. psychologoical issues can also cause it.

words always shift over time meat. personally i think that guys can get married if they start their own branch of chrisitianity.(if you follow my beliefs, religions werent started by god sending a message to man, they were made up to assist early society and are based on either manipulation, misunderstanding, or bullshit. so one can shift them as one sees fit.)

[mushroom_girl]

umm in response to the agurement about it just being a christian problem, how many gay muslums, jews, buddists, and so on... do u see i see non
One of my close friends is jewish, and he is openly gay. Another friend is muslim and is still keeping it a secret to most people.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who knows people who are not christian and are gay. You're being very naive in your thought about religions and homosexuals.

Benefit of being gay: being with the one you love. Same as being straight.

[†Nuke'em†]

ok thanks Cuathon but i would like you to use what you said "there are non" now a man and women relationship produces childern (yes i understand not every1 will be gay) umm another though why is this a thread?

ok mushroom (its there choice) you pose a good point but i am openly against gay marriage (though what they do in private it they own busness they don't really need to through it in every1s face) and its my choice and thought

[Man's Laughter]

ok thanks Cuathon but i would like you to use what you said "there are non" now a man and women relationship produces childern (yes i understand not every1 will be gay) umm another though why is this a thread?

A man and a man don't produce children. Look up China, you'll see that that alone can, and if it isn't, will become a benefit if we don't employ some population control [And I'm not saying only China is or will be part of this problem, but it's a pretty well-known example].

It's a thread because it's a controversial issue.

[†Nuke'em†]

yes this is a very interesting thread

[mushroom_girl]

ok mushroom (its there choice) you pose a good point but i am openly against gay marriage (though what they do in private it they own busness they don't really need to through it in every1s face) and its my choice and thought
Apparently it's not their choice, because gay marriage is not allowed yet.

Now (and I didn't misread this time) I will ask you: Why are you against gay marriage? Is it because you are a Christian and it is against the bible? Or are you just homophobic? I'd like to know just for curiosity's sake.

[ReTodd]

To every argument that goes like this:
I have one question, what is the benifit of being gay, i mean your going against the nature of the beast

I present to you our bisexual cousins, the bonobo monkey (actually a pygmie chimp) If homosexuality goes against nature how do you explain this:huh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

[meat.eater]

Unless you're talking about the part of my comment regarding Bush's political standing, you really aren't making much sense.

Ran out of arguements, you say?


Encarta's (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/marriage.html) list of definitions. One Religious reference, regardless of whether or not you follow up on the "wedlock" piece, and even the religious reverence states "civil or religious ceremony"

Dictionary.com's (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage) definitions are roughly the same, aside from the thrid article which is most assuredly a religious definition.

"Websters Dictionary; Designed for everyday use in Home, School & Office" states:
'marriage n. The state of being married; wedlock; the act of marrying or the ceremony entered into by a man and woman so as to live together as husband and wife.' So far, that's a 1.5/3 at best

Merriam Webster's (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/marriage) online dictionary states it both as a marriage between two of the opposite sex and two of the same sex, along with several with non-specific definitions.

Wiktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Marriage) has no specification to gender.


So, regardless of whether or not this is my only argument, it still holds some weight due to it's gradually shitfing definition.


As for Civil Unions, though, Civil Unions in the U.S. are not always recognized outside of the state they were recognized in [Unlike marriages], and members of a Civil Union do not always recieve the same benefits. If a Civil Union truely granted the same rights as a Marriage, the Gay Rights argument would boil down to bickering over the name.


Listen to what Im saying. If civil Unions are recognized nationally and beneifts are included, problem solved.

The word "marriage," is known by ALL PEOPLE to mean a Christian marriage under God. If you dont know that, you're an imbecile. If you dont acknowledge that, you're an imbecile. The word isnt losing "property," its being clouded by people who want to be in denial and deny its actuall meaning.

If I remember what you said it was: "it was a religious term." Newflash: Still is.

If civil union were given the same benefit, there would hardly be an argument. You're right. What have I been saying this whole time? Just that.

[†Nuke'em†]

umm both yes i am a Catholic and a homophob i'll admit but they do have a choice to be gay or straight life is all choices (i don't think it was in the stars for some1 to be gay or not) i just believe it to be a wrong immoral practice and thats my personal belief

Retodd i don't really know weres the bisexual monkeys from again?

[meat.eater]

A man and a man don't produce children. Look up China, you'll see that that alone can, and if it isn't, will become a benefit if we don't employ some population control [And I'm not saying only China is or will be part of this problem, but it's a pretty well-known example].

Not that this is eloquently worded, as it isnt, but let me get this straight...

You're arguing that Gay Marriage should be legal to help our [nationally Non-existant] over population?

What is wrong with you?

[meat.eater]

umm both yes i am a Catholic and a homophob i'll admit but they do have a choice to be gay or straight life is all choices (i don't think it was in the stars for some1 to be gay or not) i just believe it to be a wrong immoral practice and thats my personal belief

Retodd i don't really know weres the bisexual monkeys from again?

However much I hate you and people like you right now (not for your religion, but for your closed mind), I would greatly reccomend you leave, not for that reason, but for the fact you are contributing to absolutely nothing right now besides creating more animosity.

So.. go away.

[Realist]

In the US there is threat of underpopulation, not overpopulation.

Not that that's a good reason to be against civil rights, of course....

[Realist]

The word "marriage," is known by ALL PEOPLE to mean a Christian marriage under God.

Uh...that's completely ridiculous. Marriage preceded Christianity by thousands of years! I suspect even the word's roots come from before Christianity. Wow....

[†Nuke'em†]

hey don't hate me for my beliefs they are mine not yours, you are intitled to your beliefs and who am i to take them away from you but just try to understand were i come from

THANK YOU REALIST

[Man's Laughter]

Not that this is eloquently worded, as it isnt, but let me get this straight...

You're arguing that Gay Marriage should be legal to help our [nationally Non-existant] over population?

What is wrong with you?

No, I'm not. But, chances are, the population isn't going to stay the same, or decrease, consistently, before extinction. I wouldn't be surprised if overpopulation ever did become a world problem, whether due to lack of food [In turn due to a destroyed enviornment] or simply a lack of space. In saying that the a benefit of a straight marriage is to produce a child, the same thing won't always be a benefit.

[meat.eater]

Uh...that's completely ridiculous. Marriage preceded Christianity by thousands of years! I suspect even the word's roots come from before Christianity. Wow....

"Marriage" as we know it by the union definition, has been around since the beginning of time. Was it called "marriage?" I doubt it.

Christians would argue that God created man, Adam and Eve, etc. Its hard to be around before that.

Regardless, that doesnt take away from the fact that marriage is a religious term right now, in America at its core.

[ReTodd]

umm both yes i am a Catholic and a homophob i'll admit but they do have a choice to be gay or straight life is all choices (i don't think it was in the stars for some1 to be gay or not) i just believe it to be a wrong immoral practice and thats my personal belief

Retodd i don't really know weres the bisexual monkeys from again?

They come from Africa.

If homosexuality is wrong and immoral, then you must stop these immoral monkeys from commiting these monstrous and disgusting acts of homosexuality. Wait, monkeys aren't capable of choosing right and wrong, only man. I guess that means that homosexuality is natural. Game, set, and match.

[shatterstar]

The word "marriage," is known by ALL PEOPLE to mean a Christian marriage under God.

Certainly not to/by me. hence your statement is false. america is a secular country and as such any and all religious arguments for influencing legislation are void.

in the US theres a threat of an old population i think. more grandparents than us kids. i got nothing against gays and them getting married. just dont come on to me and im happy. on the religious side, isnt religion a personal choice, both on which religion and the level of adherence. Im a hindu by definition, which means im not supposed to eat meat. i do; personal choice. i deny anyone the right to tell me how i should live my religious life. by that same token i deny myself that same right to tell other poeple how to deal with God and religion. if being ga and getting married to another guy lets you sleep at night, go for it.

[meat.eater]

No, I'm not. But, chances are, the population isn't going to stay the same, or decrease, consistently, before extinction. I wouldn't be surprised if overpopulation ever did become a world problem, whether due to lack of food [In turn due to a destroyed enviornment] or simply a lack of space. In saying that the a benefit of a straight marriage is to produce a child, the same thing won't always be a benefit.

You're... stupid. [/brutally honest]

[Man's Laughter]

You're... stupid. [/brutally honest]

Brutally honest? China. Malthus' theory.

Wha? :eek:

[ReTodd]

We can solve the underpopulation problem by letting more immigrants into the country to become citizens.

I just solved gay marriage and illegal immigration:bigsmile: Take that politicians.

[mushroom_girl]

hey don't hate me for my beliefs they are mine not yours, you are intitled to your beliefs and who am i to take them away from you but just try to understand were i come from
You are entitled to your beliefs. 100% entitled. But we don't have to agree or like your opinions.

It seems that I am a much more open-minded person than you. But note that even when lesbians talk to me I am perfectly comfortable. If a girl hit on me, I'd treat it as if a boy was hitting on me. I'm not interested. That simple. That's only happened to me once though.

I dunno, maybe it's because some of the nicest people I know are gay and I don't think they deserve to be denied rights because of what gender they prefer.

[†Nuke'em†]

ok really good points mushroom i am not a homophob in the sense that a gay talking to me is going to freak me out, them hitting on me will though i also agree that people don't deserve to be denied their civil rights i just don't think that they need to make such a big thing about it i also don't have to agree with your beliefs either but hey

[mushroom_girl]

But being denied civil rights is a big deal. If you were denied the right to get married you'd be pretty miffed too.

You're also contradicting yourself. First you said that you're openly against gay marriage...and now you're saying that they deserve the right to be married? Which one do you believe? Flip-flopping sides isn't going to prove any sort of point you're trying to make.

[†Nuke'em†]

no not married, a union and ya civil rights is a huge issue but i have had a bad experience with a gay teacher (not the sexual kind of experience) he shoved it in our faces and told us it was the way to go that turned me against them (i was stupid for sterotyping) i now understand what you are saying but i don't have to like it

[meat.eater]

Ahhhhh.

This is turning into an adolescent mud slinging contest.
"They're nice, they should have rights."
"They control over population."

Neither of these matter. They matter for opinon, goodness, yes. But arguing "They're nice and deserve rights" wont get you a blink of an eye from a Supreme Court Justice.

The question is: By definition, under God (as we have printed on our Dollar bill), and signed to in the Declaration of Independence, is "marriage" PC if it is between a queer couple. the answer, by the basis of the religion (which isnt going to change, sadly) is no! Does this mean gays are less as people? No! does this mean they should get less rights? No! it just means that the government needs to provide for them as equals (From the Constitution).

No place denies queers Civil Unions. The only step of action is to provide these Civil Uniosn iwthe the same benefits! Both gays, straights, conservatives and liberals agree on that. The onlt people who dont are those that quite literally hate the homosexuals. And to them I say: move out of America and feck off.

[Realist]

"Marriage" as we know it by the union definition, has been around since the beginning of time. Was it called "marriage?" I doubt it.

What do you mean called "marriage"? :\

English didn't exist at "the beginning of time," so of course it wasn't called marriage by the first humans. :) Nor by the early Christians. Nor by any Christians in the Middle Ages outside of England, probably. But the CONCEPT existed, and has existed, and existed before Christianity. Long before.

Regardless, that doesnt take away from the fact that marriage is a religious term right now, in America at its core.

Um...not really. People of all religions and nonreligions get married in America, and formalize it in their own ways...marriage is definitely more of a social and legal term these days than a religious one.

[Man's Laughter]

"They control over population."

That wasn't my point, actually. The small ammount of the population that is homosexual isn't going to leave much of a dent in the population. I'm saying that reasoning that the reason for a straight couple is to produce a child, and therefore there is no reason to be gay, isn't that great of an argument.

[LosPollos]

i also agree that people don't deserve to be denied their civil rights i just don't think that they need to make such a big thing about it
Not make a big deal about not getting the same rights as everyone else? Wow, sorry guys, but this is where things get too stupid for me not to jump in....

So that whole womens movement thing was just an overreaction? Should they have just sat in their homes and waited for their rights to come to them?

Honestly, if the president came on TV tomarrow and announced to the country that any straight married couple would lose all non-religious benefits from their marriage(sp?) and that any same-sex married couple would recieve tax cuts, benefits, etc. wouldn't you be mad enought to speak out? Would you tell all the protesters they are making too big a deal out of it? Honestly now, don't speak such nonsense

Edit-yeah, i type slow....get over it, lol

[Northwind]

The word "marriage," is known by ALL PEOPLE to mean a Christian marriage under God. If you dont know that, you're an imbecile. If you dont acknowledge that, you're an imbecile. The word isnt losing "property," its being clouded by people who want to be in denial and deny its actuall meaning. .
C'Mon meat! While I agree with you (and SKOF) that civil unions for everyone would solve this problem and that the government should get out of the business of sanctioning "marriages", the fact is that - currently - "marriage" is both a religious and governmental term. If that weren't so, there wouldn't be all this controversy about an anti-gay-marriage amendment and so forth.

(And, in a similar vein to your (mostly correct) comments to me a couple of days ago, calling people "imbeciles" is not particularly helpful - especially when you're wrong in this instance.)

[meat.eater]

What do you mean called "marriage"? :\

English didn't exist at "the beginning of time," so of course it wasn't called marriage by the first humans. :) Nor by the early Christians. Nor by any Christians in the Middle Ages outside of England, probably. But the CONCEPT existed, and has existed, and existed before Christianity. Long before.



Um...not really. People of all religions and nonreligions get married in America, and formalize it in their own ways...marriage is definitely more of a social and legal term these days than a religious one.

But the term, not the concept, as I stated in the previous post you quoted, the word "marriage" was created by the Christian faith. It is therefore a Christian union under God.

Im not arguing it hasnt morphed into peopel using it as any sort of union of any sort of people, but it's really not, and shouldnt be. Basically, if it was onyl a christian term, and the basic for of union was "Civil Union,' thsi argument wouldnt be happening.

If you want to argue the word "marriage" or how "marriage" should (does, to some) include homosexuals, argue with the Christian faith, not the government.

[†Nuke'em†]

maybe u missed my previous post?

[Realist]

But the term, not the concept, as I stated in the previous post you quoted, the word "marriage" was created by the Christian faith.

I'm not so sure about that...English predates Christianity, as does marriage. Do you have any linguistical evidence of this statement, or are you just making it up? :) And do you truly believe that it is relevent?

[Lonely Tylenol]

But the term, not the concept, as I stated in the previous post you quoted, the word "marriage" was created by the Christian faith. It is therefore a Christian union under God.

And so the Lord sayeth unto thee, those who hath not speaketh the English language not beith allowed to marry!

For all the naysayers I have seen in this argument, I have but five words.

Divorce;
Inter-racial marriage;
Women's rights.

Your move.

[meat.eater]

C'Mon meat! While I agree with you (and SKOF) that civil unions for everyone would solve this problem and that the government should get out of the business of sanctioning "marriages", the fact is that - currently - "marriage" is both a religious and governmental term. If that weren't so, there wouldn't be all this controversy about an anti-gay-marriage amendment and so forth.

(And, in a similar vein to your (mostly correct) comments to me a couple of days ago, calling people "imbeciles" is not particularly helpful - especially when you're wrong in this instance.)

I'm not questioning its definition, currently. I am saying that Christians see it as a marriage between themselves, their partner and God. Which is what it is at its core. So if we're going to argue semantics about the word, I say it is just easier to give all Civil Unions, make marriages something Christians do as Jews have bar mitzvah's.

You guys are taking my words out of context. The word "marriage" appears in the bible. It is described in the Bible. the Bible si not a governmental document; the word is, as described in the Bible, a christian ceremony.

Just as if someone were to start using the word "Jihad" to describe a war, it doesnt. It describes a specific Holy War in the Muslim faction.

[Realist]

You guys are taking my words out of context. The word "marriage" appears in the bible.

Um...no it doesn't. Bible wasn't written in English.

[Northwind]

No place denies queers Civil Unions. The only step of action is to provide these Civil Uniosn iwthe the same benefits! Both gays, straights, conservatives and liberals agree on that. The onlt people who dont are those that quite literally hate the homosexuals. And to them I say: move out of America and feck off.
I don't think this is correct. It was a BIG deal a few years ago when Vermont (under Howard Dean) made gay civil unions legal. Since then I think a couple of other states may have joined them, but I really don't think that anywhere near "all" states offer gays civil unions or "the same benefits." In fact I think there are something like 18 states that expressly forbid the recognition of gay unions. However, if you have the data on your side I'll happily concede.

To the Google-mobile! (I mean for someone else, not me. I have to go and do some stuff. Still, it would be useful for someone to provide some actual data in this argument rather than the usual bloviation.) (I might have made up a new word there. :) )

[meat.eater]

I'm not so sure about that...English predates Christianity, as does marriage. Do you have any linguistical evidence of this statement, or are you just making it up? :) And do you truly believe that it is relevent?

Now I know you're just arguing to argue with me. :dry:

Why would it makes sense that people refered to themselves as "marrying," and then the Bible and christianity "stole" the word to mean it is a union under god?

If you're going to argue that, I will just bring up the role in religion in the past, where nearly everything was "under god."

[meat.eater]

Um...no it doesn't. Bible wasn't written in English.

I hate you. :cool:
You're definetly just arguing to agrue now... ;)

The *translated* word of marriage appears in the Bible..

[Lonely Tylenol]

I'm not questioning its definition, currently. I am saying that Christians see it as a marriage between themselves, their partner and God. Which is what it is at its core. So if we're going to argue semantics about the word, I say it is just easier to give all Civil Unions, make marriages something Christians do as Jews have bar mitzvah's.

Marriage is not a Christian thing. The Jews, Greeks, Romans, and every other religion before Christianity had marriage before Christianity did. If you really want to split hairs over who called it "marriage" first, search the Old Testament; does it say "marriage" there? If so, isn't it a JEWISH institution?

If it is, should we at this time bar secular marriage?
Islamic marriage?
Greek marriage?
Hindu marriage?

Saying marriage belongs to one faith is like saying our tax dollars belong only to our senators. Nuh-uh, ain't going to happen, never, period.

You guys are taking my words out of context. The word "marriage" appears in the bible. It is described in the Bible. the Bible si not a governmental document; the word is, as described in the Bible, a christian ceremony.

To take your words in context, the Bible is not even a Christian document, only the New Testament, and even so, neither marriage nor the word that describes it was magically invented by Jesus Christ. Both the word and the concept predate Christianity.

But I digress.

Whether the coined term for marriage was marriage, ooga booga, glorktag, last resort, prison or death wish, it's still the same act. The word means absolutely nothing. Jack shit.

I don't mind the notion of civil unions as an alternative to marriage, but what really jerks my chain is when somebody has to say that Christianity or any other religion has some unwritten, unspoken patent on marriage, concept or catch phrase. Whether marriage is a holy institution or just an institution, it belongs to no specific religion or belief, and the rights and benefits that go along with it should not be influenced by any religious dogma belonging to any specific faith.

[Realist]

Now I know you're just arguing to argue with me. :dry:

No, your argument is just so silly...if you're talking about "marriage" as a word and not a concept, then you have to stay within English. And there is no non-ridiculous way to do this, which I am demonstrating.

Why would it makes sense that people refered to themselves as "marrying," and then the Bible and christianity "stole" the word to mean it is a union under god?

Where does the Bible define marriage as a union under God? :\

In fact, it is very clear from the Bible that marriage existed before monotheism did...since married non-Jews/Christians are mentioned in the OT!!!

[meat.eater]

I don't think this is correct. It was a BIG deal a few years ago when Vermont (under Howard Dean) made gay civil unions legal. Since then I think a couple of other states may have joined them, but I really don't think that anywhere near "all" states offer gays civil unions or "the same benefits." In fact I think there are something like 18 states that expressly forbid the recognition of gay unions. However, if you have the data on your side I'll happily concede.

To the Google-mobile! (I mean for someone else, not me. I have to go and do some stuff. Still, it would be useful for someone to provide some actual data in this argument rather than the usual bloviation.) (I might have made up a new word there. :) )

Yeah, I speak from a Portland, OR, perspective, unfortunately.

Basically, there is no reason not to allow a civil union besides absulte homophobia.

[DOCTOR DEVICE]

I support gay marriage. Maybe because I know many gay people - teachers, friends, relatives... (But I'd like to believe that it more reflects on my morales of tolerance and ethics...But maybe this is wishful thinking. Now onyo with the rant) So don't say I dont gimmie the "you don't know what you're talking about", cause, at least from my gay acquaintances I do. (sorry if another gay disagrees with their beliefs)

The ones I know say the following:

They don't care about their...union...being called "marriage", they care about the different benefits married couples get. It shows favoratism to one's sexuality, which you ultimately can't control.

They do care about the conflict their sexuality brings up - they don't want their sexuality publicized just as a black man doesn't want special attention drawn to the fact he's a black. Why should their preference be treated differently? It's a difference - A MERE DIFFERENCE! There are many differences between us, none of which need special attention. Do they hate it when people call them "gay"? Not so much - they just don't understand why their difference is exploited, and other's aren't...

They do care about the fact that is SAYS in the CONSTITUTION that church and state are different, yet the only reason people are against gay marriage is because of their religion.

Am I saying that the fact that Christianity is against the only argument? Hell no, though it is the main one...

They don't so much care about gay jokes, seeing as even THEY make racist jokes - they view jokes as a jest, something that applies universally. However, if they saw an increase in specifically gay jokes, and not other races...then they'd get a little angrier.

No one wants to be made fun of, yet if we can all rationalize the fact that jokes are universally applied - it does not matter. Again, if ONLY gay jokes were being made, they'd get pissed - though they say they would be mad if there were only Jew jokes, or black jokes, or fat jokes, etc...

I really apologize if my words offend, I'm more of a messenger than an original thinker. (Though some of their thoughts I did embelish! :D)

[meat.eater]

Just to recap - this argument has turned into an argument over the usage of the word "marriage?"

Even though, under a simple Union system for all people, the problem is solved anyways?

You're basically, literally, arguing that gays are allowed to use the same word when they join in matrimony (*Holy* matrimony, as the ceremony says..)?

What I have to say to you is: who cares! The point is that gays should be able to have matrimony with another with the same benefits straight people get.

When folks say "I support gay marriage" they think of the act of gays tying the knot, not ho wthey are tying the knot.

In all: tying the knot with the same benefits for gays should be legal, what word describing the "knot tying" is irrelevant.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Just to recap - this argument has turned into an argument over the usage of the word "marriage?"

Even though, under a simple Union system for all people, the problem is solved anyways?

You're basically, literally, arguing that gays are allowed to use the same word when they join in matrimony (*Holy* matrimony, as the ceremony says..)?

What I have to say to you is: who cares! The point is that gays should be able to have matrimony with another with the same benefits straight people get.

I agree, and apparently so do you.

"I think gays should have civil unions!"
"I agree, but you're still an idiot!"

Nobody is arguing this because there is no genuine disagreement here. Where there is a disagreement is who or what "owns" marriage, and whether they have a right to dictate what's done with it.

[meat.eater]

Nobody is arguing this because there is no genuine disagreement here. Where there is a disagreement is who or what "owns" marriage, and whether they have a right to dictate what's done with it.

Which is the argument presented by Christians. So I say: Let them "own" the effing word! Its not hurting the homosexual population! I dont care about the word I use do describe my union; as long as I can marry a man, if I so desire, and it is legal and with the same luxuries straight couples recieve, im good!

[ReTodd]

I agree with Meat, let Christians have their "marriage" and let homosexuals gain rights in the process. Everyone gets to have a civil union. It is a win-win resolution.

Christians: "It's my ball, and I 'm going home so only I can play with it"

[mushroom_girl]

What I have to say to you is: who cares! The point is that gays should be able to have matrimony with another with the same benefits straight people get.
Exactly.

I happen to know a lesbian couple who cannot get married, but have made a sort of "mutual, eternal, loyal bond" to eachother. They have both have been pregnant (using someone else's sperm, of course) and had two kids. One more is on the way. They might as well be married if they have gone as far as to start a family together, that way they can get some sort of benefit from the government and use that benefit for the children (if I understand the benefits correctly.) And FYI, one of the women basically raised me.

Two men who have the same type of bond they can always adopt children and make a family without being married. They have a family. Different, perhapts, from yours. But it's still a family. And I dare you to tell me otherwise and prove me wrong. If two parents love their children, raise them, and care for eachother, isn't that a family?

Yeah, I think so.

You don't need to be married to be forever with someone. But it does give benefits and it is a symbol that is supposed to mean eternal love, at least outside of religion.

[Realist]

What I have to say to you is: who cares! The point is that gays should be able to have matrimony with another with the same benefits straight people get.

Obviously, a lot of people do care. It may just be a symbolic issue, but symbols have meanings, sometimes greater meaning to people than anything tangible.

You can argue that, from a pragmatic, political point of view, the rational people of the world should drop the "gay marriage" issue and focus solely on civil unions. Fine, I don't necessarily disagree.

But don't argue that it's right. It is still wrong for the government to sanction marriages between certain couples and only "civil unions" for other couples, even if the civil unions give the same benefits. It may not be as wrong as it is now, but it is still wrong. It may not even be worth fighting against, but it is still wrong.

[Lordofzrings]

Whew, to think my modest proposal would lead to this!

[Zander]

WEll me and my friend were discussing gay Marriage (no niether of us are gay) and we found some pretty strong points.In fact many of them will help solve the worlds problems....

...Whats so bad about gay Marriage In fact i think its pretty good, I mean, if your straight and you cant find a girl, wouldnt gay people help? Theres 2 less guys to not get a girl, leaving 2 free girls right? that adds more to your chances....

Also people are complaining about overpopulation. Wouldnt more gay people help that? I mean gay people cant have any kids! Theres less people to have kids, then theres less people ion the word, hell if a gay couple wants to have kids, they can always adop, wouldnt that solve another problem? Overcrowding in orphanages...

Another thing, Gay people are less violent in most cases than "Playahs" so there will probably be less crime as well.

Whatabout the immoral part?
It goes against the bible ETC......
Hell, if you arent gay, what does it matter, if you dont like beer because its immoral will you drink it? No. If you dont like Adult entertainment becasuse its immoral will you watch it? No. If you think gay people are immoral will you be gay? No.

OPnmce again im straight, and i just felt like having a pointless rant....post if you find anything to support or reject this thread, i suppose...
I should probably say this before anything else, I read nothing but his post, none of anyone elses arguements(yet)
All of those things you said are stereotypes, homosexuals are just as capable of being violent "playahs" as heterosexuals are.That thing you said about guys who can't fnd girls should get a guy, and let other guys take the girls was just completely moronic.It's the kind of arguement an uneducated 13 year old would give, how old are you?

[thakkus]

Lots of people complain about the immorality of the gay lifestyle, but then won't let them get married. If one gay man is committed to another gay man, isn't that partly helping to solve the so-called problem?

[Office_Shredder]

Ok, fine. Assume marriage started under christianity. It's irrelevant! The Supreme Court has repeatedly, under rulings dealing with christmas trees and other secular-type decorations, stated that parts of Christianity have been absorbed by the American culture and are now allowed to be considered cultural and secular (santa claus, for example). Marriage is exactly like this then; even if it started as a purely Christian concept, it HAS been absorbed by the American culture, and is now quite the secular term

[Lordofzrings]

I should probably say this before anything else, I read nothing but his post, none of anyone elses arguements(yet)
All of those things you said are stereotypes, homosexuals are just as capable of being violent "playahs" as heterosexuals are.That thing you said about guys who can't fnd girls should get a guy, and let other guys take the girls was just completely moronic.It's the kind of arguement an uneducated 13 year old would give, how old are you?

16 actually

im aware that gay people are violent. but would you walk down a dark alley full of gay guys, or a dark alley full of gangsters..

and
never said anuthing about guys who cant find girls should get a guy, you read me post wrong

i said that a straight guy who cant find a girl would favor gay couples, bucause the gay couple leaves more girls open for the straight guy to have,

if the gay guys were straight there would be less girls for the other guy to have.....

dont know if that made much sence...but it was my logic.

[S_K_O_F]

They come from Africa.

If homosexuality is wrong and immoral, then you must stop these immoral monkeys from commiting these monstrous and disgusting acts of homosexuality. Wait, monkeys aren't capable of choosing right and wrong, only man. I guess that means that homosexuality is natural. Game, set, and match.

You are right. In a completely secular world, free of all religious belief, homosexuality is completely natural. Too bad we don't live in that kind of world.

In this world, humans are held to a much higher moral code. Hell, by your rationality, It is obviously natural for us to run full speed at each other with our heads down and ram into each other. Just like those goats do in order to show their mate who is stronger.

Or maybe I can kill anyone I want, because they are hindering my way of life? You walk a dangerous line when you hold humans on the same level as the common animal.

[S_K_O_F]

If you're going to argue that, I will just bring up the role in religion in the past, where nearly everything was "under god."
That really doesn't support your argument. If everything used to be under God, and now many of those things aren't, then why should marriage be any different. I am on your side meat, but I can't let you use an argument that doesn't make any sense.

[Lordofzrings]

couldnt someone start a religeon called homosexualism, then couldnt they technichally get married?

[S_K_O_F]

Well, after catching up in this thread, my stance on this whole issue has changed. Take away all benefits of being married and then allow anyone who wants to walk that road.

Everyone is equal.

How dare those damned Christians want to keep a sacred oath sacred. Obviously they should be giving up their values to cater to a small majority of the population. Their Christian values are destroying our world. We have been on a downhill slide ever since that phony Jesus was born. You know what, we need to design a new calendar also. One that isn't bound by the limitation of the birth of some religious zealot over 2000 years ago. Hell, lets find every aspect of world culture that has ever been influenced by these damn Christians and get rid of it.

And just for the hell of it, lets give Israel back to the muslims. Those Jews should have been wiped out in the holocaust for believing in the same God as Christians!!!

[S_K_O_F]

couldnt someone start a religeon called homosexualism, then couldnt they technichally get married?

They shouldn't have to. A secular government should have a completely secular union that blankets all people of the nation. If marriage is the term that is used, then the government is going to have to make sure to change the laws so that no mention of religion or religious officials are there. Current marriage laws state that you must be married by a judge, or an ordained minister of a government recognized religious faith.

We are either going to have a complete seperation of Church and State, or we are not. This partial seperation is getting ridiculous.

[Poop Slinger]

Too much coffee today SKOF?

[WaCk-HeAd]

Well, after catching up in this thread, my stance on this whole issue has changed. Take away all benefits of being married and then allow anyone who wants to walk that road.

Everyone is equal.

How dare those damned Christians want to keep a sacred oath sacred. Obviously they should be giving up their values to cater to a small majority of the population. Their Christian values are destroying our world. We have been on a downhill slide ever since that phony Jesus was born. You know what, we need to design a new calendar also. One that isn't bound by the limitation of the birth of some religious zealot over 2000 years ago. Hell, lets find every aspect of world culture that has ever been influenced by these damn Christians and get rid of it.

And just for the hell of it, lets give Israel back to the muslims.

Amen!

[S_K_O_F]

Too much coffee today SKOF?

Nope, just trying to prove a point.

I am in a good mood today, this is my friday, and I am off at noon.

[Cuathon]

skoffers is so right!!!!! j/k

[uniquinous]

Listen noobs, I know the truth: God is gay. Yeah. I said it. It's like the fruit of knowledge thing in eden. He knew what he had was a good thing, and he wanted it all to his flamboyant self, so he told those damn heteros not to eat it. When they did, he got hella pissed and sent them away.

Just like the fruity fruit example, he wants all the homosexuality to hisself. You think it's just coincidence there's such a high number of priests who practice homosexuality? "Come here my son, sit on the cardinal's lap." That's the teachings of god right there! Why you think he made Jesus!?

For serious tho - if you don't like the term "marriage" then call it "mariage" (spelt wit 1 r, cuz most people spell it bad dat way anyway). Different term now, and everyone's happy. Gay's would be able to get maried under the eyes of their homosexual god as he intended.

i'ma get hella negged for this one ^_^

[†Nuke'em†]

enjoy your agument every1 i am on to different things

[uniquinous]

(he means masterbation, another of god's favorite activities)
Yes nukem - have fun with yo holy self, we be keepin teh agument

[Northwind]

OK,

Due to the fact that everyone here is apparently too damn lazy to Google for themselves :mad: I was forced to get some actual data here. (You should be ashamed of yourselves, making me actually do some work!)

Anyway, there are a tiny handful of states that recognize any kind of same-sex partnerships (http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/legalgaymarriag.htm). Massachusetts allows gay marriage while California, Connecticut, New Jersey and Vermont recognize either civil unions or offer domestic partner benefits. That's all. Five states out of 50. It gives me hope to see so many people here support the idea of civil unions for gays - this suggests that the younger generation is generally smarter and more decent than its elders. Woot.

[Altiris]

Listen noobs, I know the truth: God is gay. Yeah. I said it. It's like the fruit of knowledge thing in eden. He knew what he had was a good thing, and he wanted it all to his flamboyant self, so he told those damn heteros not to eat it. When they did, he got hella pissed and sent them away.

Just like the fruity fruit example, he wants all the homosexuality to hisself. You think it's just coincidence there's such a high number of priests who practice homosexuality? "Come here my son, sit on the cardinal's lap." That's the teachings of god right there! Why you think he made Jesus!?

For serious tho - if you don't like the term "marriage" then call it "mariage" (spelt wit 1 r, cuz most people spell it bad dat way anyway). Different term now, and everyone's happy. Gay's would be able to get maried under the eyes of their homosexual god as he intended.

i'ma get hella negged for this one ^_^

*scratches head*

This is a debate that I often times choose not to enter, and it's safe to say that I won't enter it now.

[S_K_O_F]

*scratches head*

This is a debate that I often times choose not to enter, and it's safe to say that I won't enter it now.

Sarcasm has taken over this thread.

[Teacher]

Watching comedy central yesterday I heard a good comment.

If majority of people are worried about married gays having sex, then let them get married. The sex will end shortly afterwards. :p

Yes, I understand that the last argument I seen was something about who "marriage" belongs too, but this was just something I thought I would share.

[S_K_O_F]

Watching comedy central yesterday I heard a good comment.

If majority of people are worried about married gays having sex, then let them get married. The sex will end shortly afterwards. :p

Yes, I understand that the last argument I seen was something about who "marriage" belongs too, but this was just something I thought I would share.

That is actually really funny.

[Realist]

And just for the hell of it, lets give Israel back to the muslims. Those Jews should have been wiped out in the holocaust for believing in the same God as Christians!!!

That doesn't work...the Muslims believe in that god as well. Better just wipe out the region, maybe turn it into a homo haven.

[brong]

I don't like gays.

[Night Ranger]

the way i see it is..this is like the civil rights debate in the 60's..you are just discreminating against people because they are not the same as you..no i am not gay i just support gay marriage..lol and what if we didnt have lesbians??thats were all the good porn is!!

[big_HEAD]

lol

[Scout'sGirl]

I OBJECT! :) Gay marriages should be allowed. If two people love each other, then let them be; it shouldn't be anyone else's business. There's nothing wrong with being gay.. I mean, think about it. If the normal "thing" in this world was being with the same gender, and a boy and girl were together, wouldn't that seem unusual? It's the same thing and I don't think it should be against the law or anything. :king2:

[Altiris]

Alright, i'm not going to debate, just put out my personal opinion. Feel free to try and lure me in to a no holds barred battle of big words. Here's my thoughts.

I wasn't born a Christian, but became a "born-again" Christian at the age of 11. That being said, I know pretty much what is cool and not cool within the morality system of Christianity. I can say this, if you are a Christian you should know that homosexuality IS without a doubt, a sin. The bible states in both Old and New Testament that relations between any two people of one gender is sinful. I believe the Bible, and everything written in it. It's like my guide to life, if you will. Let's move on.

Our founding fathers based our Nation on the Christian Religion. America is designated as a region for freedom of religion, but when the Constitution was being written up and the basis of American Democracy was being built, Christianity was the prime religion that often finds itself in these documents and all over symbols of American life. So let's put this together...

Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Some say that people should do as they please, others say it's a revolting practice and should not be aloud. Our nation was founded on the structure of Chrisianity. What should our government do but ban gay marraige. Marraige is a tradition that should only be practiced between a man, and a woman. Leave it to our culture to try and mess up that long standing tradition.

[ReTodd]

Alright, i'm not going to debate, just put out my personal opinion. Feel free to try and lure me in to a no holds barred battle of big words. Here's my thoughts.

I wasn't born a Christian, but became a "born-again" Christian at the age of 11. That being said, I know pretty much what is cool and not cool within the morality system of Christianity. I can say this, if you are a Christian you should know that homosexuality IS without a doubt, a sin. The bible states in both Old and New Testament that relations between any two people of one gender is sinful. I believe the Bible, and everything written in it. It's like my guide to life, if you will. Let's move on.

Our founding fathers based our Nation on the Christian Religion. America is designated as a region for freedom of religion, but when the Constitution was being written up and the basis of American Democracy was being built, Christianity was the prime religion that often finds itself in these documents and all over symbols of American life. So let's put this together...

Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Some say that people should do as they please, others say it's a revolting practice and should not be aloud. Our nation was founded on the structure of Chrisianity. What should our government do but ban gay marraige. Marraige is a tradition that should only be practiced between a man, and a woman. Leave it to our culture to try and mess up that long standing tradition.

I am curious as to what led you to become a born again christian at age 11?

America was colonized by people who were running away from religious oppression and our founding fathers made a point of keeping our religion separate from our government. Can you please give me the name of your school and the names of the teachers responsible for teaching you about American history so I can give them the verbal lashing that they deserve for letting you down.

Believe what you like, but don't use it as an excuse to interfere with the freedoms of others. Here in the United States we follow the Constitution, not the Bilble, the Torah, or the Qur'an.

[Altiris]

We don't follow the Bible, I agree, but we base most of our primary documents around it. It's noticeable even in the Pledge of Allegiance.

"Under God"

[savanna]

let people do what they want.
let them be happy.

[WaCk-HeAd]

I can say this, if you are a Christian you should know that homosexuality IS without a doubt, a sin. The bible states in both Old and New Testament that relations between any two people of one gender is sinful. I believe the Bible, and everything written in it.


This is really hard for me to understand. But because the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, homosexuality for you personally is as wrong as a sin?

Is that really enough of an argument for you to limit the freedom of hundreds of thousand of people? Is that really enough of an argument to overrule the intelligence and reasoning of so many people?

I really find that astonishing and very very hard to understand.

I'll try though, since I'm not christian. :)

[Man's Laughter]

We don't follow the Bible, I agree, but we base most of our primary documents around it. It's noticeable even in the Pledge of Allegiance.

"Under God"

Who gives a damn? The Constititution doesn't label the U.S. as a Christian Nation-- no matter what "we base[d] most of our primary documents" around, that still doesn't make America a Christian country.

Here’s a medium strength (p1) that Christians often deploy when pressed: “The constitution is based on Christian values.” This claim is too vague to sustain our sample argument.

The values of the constitution are consistent with many of the values of Christianity, but also with the values of many other religions and many secular ethics. The critical point is that the constitution does not appeal to Christian doctrine to justify authority. I.e., the authority of the constitution does not rest upon tenets of faith, revealed truth, or the dogma of any particular religion.

Medium strength (p1) is at best incomplete as it stands. The fact that the Framers were influenced by Christian ideas doesn't imply that they intended to create a Christian nation. If we want to talk about the intellectual heritage of the Framers, we also have to acknowledge their debt to the secularism of the Enlightenment, to deism, to the anti-clericalism of the French Revolution, and so on.

From Majikthise (http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2004/12/america_is_not_.html)

[Realist]

We don't follow the Bible, I agree, but we base most of our primary documents around it. It's noticeable even in the Pledge of Allegiance.

"Under God"

Yeah...those words are from the 1950s. :)

America didn't become anything of a "Christian nation" until 20th century fundies.

[ReTodd]

We don't follow the Bible, I agree, but we base most of our primary documents around it. It's noticeable even in the Pledge of Allegiance.

"Under God"

Suprisingly, the "under god" reference in the pledge has nothing to do with religion. As realist said it was added on June 14th, 1954 during the cold war, as a political maneuver intended to increase patriotism within the United States. It was an excellent way to create a clear division between Americans and the Communist "heathens" and to inspire American citizens.

[Blight of Spite]

Seriously, if you're for gay marriage then you've got to be for incest, too.

BoS

[Realist]

Seriously, if you're for gay marriage then you've got to be for incest, too.

BoS

I'm all for incest.

[Ächilles]

let people do what they want.
let them be happy.

If it were up to me I'd walk around school and punch out probably over two hundred people. That would make me more happy than you can imagine. So I'm not sure your logic is too safe.

[Blight of Spite]

I'm all for incest.
OK then. Now you just have to persuade the legislators...

Edit:
Responding to the person who repped me:

How is it a stupid argument? All the time I hear people talking about "Love is Love" and "Love is not a Gender" If that's true, then why can't people in the same family who love each other do what they want? Love is love, right?

[ReTodd]

If it were up to me I'd walk around school and punch out probably over two hundred people. That would make me more happy than you can imagine. So I'm not sure your logic is too safe.

If it were up to me, I'd nail every hot chick that B O S is related to up to and including second cousins. That is what incest is, right?

[shatterstar]

if you are B O S, then yes.

[Blight of Spite]

if you are B O S, then yes.
Yep. And althought my sister is pretty hot, I don't want to do her.:p

[Ächilles]

Well, B O S, good arguement.

Now Kalamady can finally nail his neighbor's pitbull, Nitro. I know love when I see it, and damn, they've both got it bad.

[Blight of Spite]

You see, this is why I'm against gay marriage.

[monkus]

Incest is taboo because uncommon recessive genes can group together and cause massive genetic disorders. That's why so many English monarchs have had hemophilia and other diseases, because they married in the family to maintain upper-class blood. If it wasn't a social taboo you wouldn't think so poorly of it. Being gay risks your life in no way, besides of course being beaten and killed by prejudice people.

Messing with tradition is sometimes a good thing. What about that whole tradition of keeping slaves? Or the tradition of burning independent women at the stake?

[Ächilles]

Or the tradition of burning independent women at the stake?

The good old days.

Damn women. They get all these crazy ideas and we let them go to college then before you know it they have rights.

:(

[Blight of Spite]

Yes, I've heard the genetic defect argument before, but just because a child has a defect doesn't mean you can't love him/her. Look at Ozzy Osbourne (not a real example). They aren't in every child or every generation of them though. And not every couple chooses to have children, but if they do they have other options e.g. adoption.

[ReTodd]

Yes, I've heard the genetic defect argument before, but just because a child has a defect doesn't mean you can't love him/her. Look at Ozzy Osbourne (not a real example). They aren't in every child or every generation of them though. And not every couple chooses to have children, but if they do they have other options e.g. abortion.

B O S convinced me. I am definitely going to do his hot sister. When she gets pregnant, I say when because my sperm is so strong it is guaranteed to work, I will make her get an abortion to prevent a super mutant child (thanks for the idea B O S). That, and I can't take the risk of having to pay child support.

[Kalamady]

Yep. And althought my sister is pretty hot, I don't want to do her.:p
Gross.

[Blight of Spite]

B O S convinced me. I am definitely going to do his hot sister. When she gets pregnant, I say when because my sperm is so strong it is guaranteed to work, I will make her get an abortion to prevent a super mutant child (thanks for the idea B O S). That, and I can't take the risk of having to pay child support.
This post is ridiculous. I don't know where to begin.

[ReTodd]

This post is ridiculous. I don't know where to begin.

You brought up your hot sister, it is well known that "my boys can swim" and I am broke as hell, and finally you were talking about mutant children and abortions. What exactly is ridiculous? :p

BTW, could you pm me a picture of your sister?

[Teacher]

PM hell, post her picture in the thread, maybe someone wants to give Retodd some competition. :p

[Snork]

I'm not going to read the rest of the thread, I'm too lazy.
And with my memory, maybe I've even posted this in here already.

I heard some guy on tv talking about it.
He said gay people should be allowed to marry because why shouldn't they be as miserable as everybody else.

jeffery, I'm looking for you.

[Snork]

You brought up your hot sister, it is well known that "my boys can swim"
Well known by who, Jungle Apes?

What exactly is ridiculous? :p
I agree, your post is valid and reasonable.

BTW, could you pm me a picture of your sister?
Do your own work.
If you want to see her, just start hanging out in the bushes in his yard.
Lazy bugger.

jeffery, I'm looking for you.

[Lordofzrings]

I'm not going to read the rest of the thread, I'm too lazy.
And with my memory, maybe I've even posted this in here already.

I heard some guy on tv talking about it.
He said gay people should be allowed to marry because why shouldn't they be as miserable as everybody else.

jeffery, I'm looking for you.

hah true, maybe it will make thoose flamboyant ones angrier, like the FAb 5....

[Blight of Spite]

OK I'm done talking about Gay Marriage because I was just arguing for the sake of arguing. See ya.

[S_K_O_F]

OK I'm done talking about Gay Marriage because I was just arguing for the sake of arguing. See ya.

You are just making yourself look worse and worse.

[Snork]

You are just making yourself look worse and worse.

But you're still as awesome as ever.
How's it going?