Subscribe to Listverse
This is a topic which keeps coming up again and again in the press as various countries, cities, and states legalize or debate the legalizing of same-sex marriage. So it seems like a good topic for debate on the site.
Should Gay Marriage Be Legal?
My answer: I am going to be controversial and political with my answer, which is: Should the state have any say in a moral issue such as this anyway? At what point does the state have a right to legislate for or against issues which are traditionally left to a person’s conscience? Deeper than the issue on abortion, gay marriage, prostitution and the like, is the problem of governments believing they have the need (and the right) to tell people how they should live their lives.
Just paying the bills...
Recommended Lists
June 18th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Yes.
You love someone for who they are, not what they are.
June 18th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
hey cool second comment.
i agree with deadly.synner. i believe that it has been scientifically proved that you are born homosexual, unlike how many people think that people choose to be homosexual. i don’t see how people who are naturally attracted to the opposite sex should have anymore right to marriage than people who are naturally attracted to people of the same sex.
June 18th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Absolutely. Love is love where ever you find it. If that person makes you happy, that’s a good thing. Far be it for me to decide your love is wrong or bad.
June 18th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
I agree with Deadly.Synner and Djb522 that homosexuals should have the same rights to marry as everyone else has. The thing that gets me angry about this issue is the fact that it’s been draged about in the news for so long by many politicians who could be talking about far more important issues. I don’t know if anyone else noticed that during the last time Bush ran for president, gay marrigae and flag burning and immigrants crossing the bordersand other non-issues started making headlines.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Sure. It doesn’t cause harm to anyone.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
definately yes.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
I think it should be legal! What’s the problem… many heterosexual marriages don’t work out anyway! So how is gay marriage ruining the sanctity of traditional marriage? Found this on the internet years ago.. it’s sarcasm if you don’t understand:
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears’s 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn’t changed at all: women are property, Blacks can’t marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That’s why we only have one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “separate but equal” institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
I don’t feel threatened in the least by gays marrying, and, even if I did, maybe I’d need to just check myself instead of interfering with someone else.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Gay marriage should be legal, nothing wrong with it
June 18th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
I’m going to go against the trend and say no, but also yes with some reasoning that goes beyond the question posed:
It is not right for the government to use marriage as the measuring stick for the union of two people. Homosexual couples should have the exact same rights as heterosexual couples across the board…health care, power of attorney, tax incentives, adoption, etc. but the title for that union, or any union recognized by the government, should not be labeled ‘marriage’. Basically my view is that everyone should enjoy the same rights as a couple, but the actual title of ‘marriage’ should be reserved for unions recognized by a religious institutions.
Marriage as an institution is inherently religious in nature. While there are obviously marriages that do not take place under any religious pretext what-so-ever, the idea of being ‘bound’ to one’s partner started in the church. Therefore, religious institutions should still be able to decide who can marry and who cannot.
Obviously the idea of marriage as the standard of a union of two people is so ingrained in our society that this would never work, but that’s just my two cents.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Duh.
Love is not defined by genitalia.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Illegal. It’s not natural, unless you can pull a baby out of your dickhole
June 18th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
“Marriage as an institution is inherently religious in nature. While there are obviously marriages that do not take place under any religious pretext what-so-ever, the idea of being ‘bound’ to one’s partner started in the church. Therefore, religious institutions should still be able to decide who can marry and who cannot.”
Religious institutions can certainly decide who can marry and who can’t, in their churches. And they should retain that right. Any religious institution that doesn’t agree with gay marriage should never be forced to perform one.
Please note: That is not going to change if gay couples can get marriage licenses!
June 18th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
I think, It should be legal, I mean…Really… Whats wrong with 2 People of the same sex loving each other? I don’t feel threatened by them unless they start hitting on me :/.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Nothing wrong with it, this generation is the “yeah whatever” generation so its all good
June 18th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
I have to agree that it is not for the government to decide who can get married and who cannot.
Take a step back for a moment and look at the point of the law. The law is designed to protect the rights, freedoms and welfare of the people. Why do we make things illegal? We makes things illegal simply because we don’t want them to happen to us. Example, it’s illegal to drive drunk because we don’t want to be in any way involved in a drunk driving accident. We aren’t allowed to murder people because we don’t want to be murdered ourselves. So we make gay marriage illegal because…we don’t want to have a gay marriage if we aren’t gay? Doesn’t make sense to me.
Simply put, gay marriage doesn’t hurt anybody, and let’s face it, you’ll never stop gay sex, no matter how much you may disagree with it. So why deny gay people the right to one of the happiest and special unions between two people?
It’s when we start limiting freedoms like this that we slowly lose the ideals of freedom that our country was founded on. I’m paraphrasing a quote that I can’t find that says that freedom isn’t lost all at once, it’s lost gradually over time.
Oh, and anyone who says that it’s not natural, tell me something that is completely natural today.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Absolutely.
The government should not be in the business of legislating morality, they should stick to protecting people’s rights.
And is there a more fundamental right than the right to choose your own life partner?
The only arguments against gay marriage ultimately stem from either prejudice, economics or arguments about procreation.
Prejudice is easy to discount as ignorant hatred
Economics is easy to dismiss in saying that economic benefits can’t be based on prejudice, and that the ultimate impact is negligible because there aren’t that many homosexuals out there comparatively. Offering a right to 10% more, based on the most broad estimations of the gay population, is hardly cripping.
Procreation is a fallacious argument because you don’t have to be a breeder to get married in the US. If so why not bad people that have had hysterectomies or are infertile or simply don’t want children from being married.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Well, I do think it should be legal, because there is no logical reason why it shouldn’t.
HOWEVER, I don’t like how the nature vs. nuture argument gets brought into it. Personally, I think sexual preferences is developed in early childhood, just like other preferences (personality objectives, favorite color, favorite tastes). Combining the legitimization of homosexuality with the legality of same-sex marriage is complete and utter bullshit, and will only serve to stifle the marriage movement.
Abortion and Prostitution are completely different subjects from each other, and from gay marriage. Abortion has clearly defined victims (but this isn’t the abortion argument), the fetuses and embryos. Prostitution can lead to a wide range of crime-related social ills. Gay marriage? Leads to two people legally binded together. Therefore, I believe that the social morality can have a part in the debate of the first two subjects, but since gay marriage does not impact the social institutions, then it really shouldn’t be too much of a debate.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
“Nogaymarriages” (it’s sick you have to include your bigotry in your screen name) says it’s unnatural, but what is your definition of natural? If your definition is “occurring in nature”, then homosexuality is very natural. Marriage, on the other hand, goes against nature.
And it’s only natural if you pop out a baby? So then oral sex should be illegal too then, right? I mean when you do it you’re not doing it to make a baby, so it must be unnatural!
If you want to protect the sanctity of marriage, you should be banning divorces, not gay marriage. I know plenty of gay couples who are happier than heterosexual married couples.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
I simply don’t see what’s wrong with same sex marriage. I don’t have problem with same sex couple, I don’t have problem with a piece of paper stating the fact.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
I have a gay brother so I have to say yes but even if he was straight I would say gay marriage should be legal. I will be voting to legalize gay marriage in November. I’m a very sensitive guy who believes everybody has the right to be happy whether they are gay, straight or prefer both.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Amanda: I loved your post. It’s great. Can I use it? A lot of goods points made here.
HM
June 18th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
As cynical as this might sound, “love” and “marriage” are not the same things. The issue is not whether or not gay people can fall in love. The issue concerns a religious union that is certified by a government institution, and has an impact on fiscal aspects for taxpayers.
That being said, I believe gay marriage should be legal, but I understand the concern of those who don’t.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
I believe individual church denominations should decide whether or not to allow gays to marry, not the government. The government should provide gay unions with the same rights as heterosexual unions.
While I personally disagree with homosexuality, I do not think our laws should be based solely on religious beliefs.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
How is marriage a religious union? Are you saying atheist can’t get married?
June 18th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
i support gay marriage.
’nuff said.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Yes.
Marriage is based on LOVE, not GENDER.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Anyone can form a union, but it’s not really marriage unless it has God’s blessing.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
there is nothing wrong with being gay, absolutly nothing. what people feel for each other is there own business and i feel that the gay community should realy just take a breather now. No one bashes against gays anymore its become widely excepted and those who do discriminate are stupid for their own reasons. I do not belive that they`re commitment to each other should be recognized as a marriage. Now before you scroll down in discuss and think i`m too primitive or ignorant just keep reading and listen. A marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman. It was started as a religious bonding and whether your religious or not it should still be regarded respectfully. If a gay person were to have a commited relationship like a marriage than they can completly do so and are absolutly entitled to one. BUt not under the term of marriage. Be it what ever other name but marriage should not be one of them. The 90`s are over and gays have become just as intergrated as anything else. There is no problem with them because they are just like the rest of the world and i think that people should finally put the whole gay fiasco to bed and stop trying to create a new controversy. Gays can be funny, smart and most importantly normal and i would shake the hand a gay man or women without hesitating. but i refuse to recognize their relationship as a marriage.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
CK2005……………….just shut the f**k up. you do not know how stupid ypu sound bro. like cmon seriously……..let the guy say wtvr he wants regardless of how stupid it sounds………………just shut up bro…..please
June 18th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Hate to break it to you guys, but Christians aren’t the only people that get married.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Gay unions are legal in California right now and it is actually doing good things for the economy
HV
June 18th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
i’ll go with the flow…enough said…
June 18th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
MPW thats what brought up the Your View poll. its a hot button issue right now
but i dont care if they get a marriage license or whatever, but i do not believe they should get any tax breaks for being “married”. If they got tax breaks, the system could simply be abused by any 2 friends who happened to be single (probably not by choice).
Gays already have (on average) more money than a traditional family (mostly from lack of offspring). Whether they choose to adopt is their choice, but i dont believe they should get the same treatment as a house with a working father, then stay at home mother with kids.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
yes, there is no reason why the state should have a law against two (or more) consenting, non-related adults to marry.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
ToKiLoKi12 – by your argument, then marriages with no children should fall into the same boat. not to mention many marriages with children still have both parents working.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Absolutely, for a few reasons, like MPW said it helps the economy. and people should be able to love anyone and be able to do as other people do. and why should the government be able to tell people how they should live their lives? plus, how does it destroy the so called “holy union” that is marriage? Christians and other religions need to realize homosexuality is natural.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
I would doubt that two straight guys will get married to save money.
thats just my opinion
June 18th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
MPW: hey, I need some money….
June 18th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
your not my type Csimmons:)
June 18th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Careful, Csimmons. Hands off.
HM
June 18th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
no…if we allow gay marriage where will it end? allowing people to marry animals? god made adam and eve not adam and steve.
LOL…j/k I support gay marriage. When two people find each other and want to make a stronger commitment to each other, why should any government be allowed to stop it or stand in the way. homosexuality is a reality and frankly our government has bigger fish to fry.
hat tip to senator larry craig soliciting gay sex in a minneapolis airport.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
My brothers name is Steven and he hates that little Adam and Steve bit. Senator Craig is no worse that Mark Foley
i know you’re joking btw
June 18th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
I think a person’s personal definition of marriage is what decides them as for, against, or ambivalent about the question of gay marriage. True?
I’m all for legal recognition of same-sex marriages and laws to ensure couples are given the same rights (and responsibilities) of hetero marriages. My problem is more with the whole idea of marriage – why can’t we just have civil unions for everyone to deal with all the legalities and then if you want to be recognised by your religious institution you could go get ‘married’ in a church? Marriage then becomes the choice of those who actually want their union to be sanctioned by their religious institution instead of a default.
Doesn’t anyone else think it’s hypocritical of people who don’t otherwise recognise their religion (by living according to its principles) to be all ‘traditional’ when it comes to getting married? People whose only visit to a church is on their wedding day for example.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
As far as the government is concerned, all marriages should be called civil unions, and any consenting adults should be allowed to wed. If churches don’t want to perform marriage ceremonies for gays, that is their prerogative.
I’m a California resident who believes our Supreme Court did the right thing(just hoping it doesn’t cause a backlash aginst Obama). The bottom line is the state cannot discriminate against gays nor are they in the business of defining words.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Part of the reason why the issue is starting to turn imho is because the craig and foley scandals along with ted haggard and david vitter have made the “moral” side of the issue seem like such hypocrites. And maybe vitter’s scandal was about paying for straight sex from a hooker, it still showed a lot of people the amazing hypocrisy and lack of credibility the religious right has on this issue.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Csimmons: While I completely agree that homosexual marriage should be legal, I think that it’s a little unfair to ask Christians and other religions to accept homosexuality. Many sects of Christianity actually believe that homosexuality is a natural, genetic predispositon. Additionally, while I don’t personally follow an organized religion, I think that it would be wrong to ask any religion to change its standards for others. That request is as closed-minded as the belief homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
remember, foley was doing it with a minor
June 18th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
The worst part about this argument is that those who are against gay marriage (though there are few on this website) ultimately have no reason to deny marriage to gay couples other than with the claim that it hurts their own straight marriage. When you think about it, this is pretty much the most selfish argument against something that there can be. “I don’t like it because it makes me uncomfortable with my own marriage” or “I don’t like it because somehow it might affect me in an indirect way”
To me, the whole gay marriage debate is a “straw man” argument: one in which the subject itself is irrelevant or where the subject up for debate is one in which the con-side is very much in the minority. Not to say that marriage is not a big deal, because it is. But the subject of who should be able to get married is just nonsense.
Just my thoughts…
June 18th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Kate (#18): I tend to agree with you on the nature versus nurture. I am not convinced that sufficient evidence yet exists to declare it entirely genetic.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I’m a pretty big fan of gay marriage. Putting aside the whole issue of whether or not it is natural, I think the argument that marriage is a religious institution is pretty much completely irrelevant and this seems to be the most prevalent reason behind “disagreeing” with gay marriage. I don’t know the history or marriage or anything, but I’m pretty sure that people committed themselves to each other because they are bound by mutual love and respect (and maybe other things… idk) throughout history long before there was even a word for it. Marriage in our society has become so much more than that; it’s pretty much lost it’s meaning entirely. If tax breaks and other things are of no importance and the only thing one cares about is love, no one would feel the need to have their government get involved. People would spend their lives together of their own choice and for their own personal reasons. Marriage would have a different meaning for everyone and in that way I think it would really retain the “sacred” value that people put on it today.
Once the government gets involved though, any ties to religious institutions that have a significant effect on it’s people becomes nothing more than suffocating for all it’s citizens. Basically, the government should not be able to use the argument that marriage is a sacred religious union between a man and a woman to keep gay people from getting married because in doing so they are seemingly forcing religious beliefs on people through lawmaking, which, btw is kinda illegal…. or I guess unconstitutional. If the label of “marriage” is soley, or at it’s core, a religious thing, it should not be something that anyone can get legally. All US citizens (gay and straight) should either all be allowed to freely marry without religious stipulation or get “civil unions” and leave the officiating of “marriage” to the various religions.
At the core though, it’s really all or nothing for me. Either we all get the same rights or none of us get them at all.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
CEA: i agree, thank you for pointing that out to me. of course people like the Westboro Baptist church need to realize that.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Vera Lynn: I call dibs, I need the money!
June 18th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
It should be legalized already. I think that the government should focus more on things like THE WAR, and the RISING GAS PRICES, THE COST OF LIVING GOING UP, and things of that nature. You know, things that actually DO affect our society!!! How does 2 men, or 2 women marrying eachother affect me? It doesn’t! I know quite a few HETEROSEXUAL couples who shouldn’t be married if ya ask me!!!
June 18th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
I think that gay peopel should be together by some other type of marriage designed specially for them, because religion reserves the sacrament of marriage for male and female. (Although I honestly don’t really find a good reason for this because gay people were born that way, and it’s not like they’re “rebels” or “sinners” or anything. They fall in love with whom they fall in love and that’s the end of it. Love exists anywhere and everywhere, though it can be quite elusive.) So, yes, I do believe that *everyone* (yes, even gay people)should be with the person they love, whether it is by marriage or some other type of commitment that they believe in.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
my dad and mom come to mind
June 18th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
or half the grown ups I know
June 18th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Marriage was originally based on religion only in the sense that every facet of human life was focused on religion at one time. It was originally designed to protect property and right of inheritance. Without a legal marriage, gay couples who would have been together for life anyway would have no legal protection. If one partner dies without a will, the other would not be able to inherit their assets or collect life insurance or even participate in the funeral arrangements. For example, a family who has completely shunned their gay son for years would all of a sudden be the benificiaries while his loving partner would have nothing. I believe this is unfair. Gay people can’t help who they love any more than non-gay people can.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
The thought of gay man-sex (lesbians are a different story…) just makes my skin crawl, but I would never treat a person differently just because they were gay. With that being said, I still think that they should have the right to get married. It is NOT the governments role to decide morality.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Honestly, why the hell does the gender of two people who love each other matter? Homophobic people are no better than racists or sexists. When it comes down to it, everybody is created equal. And people’s personal lives are just that–they’re personal, and the government should stay the fuck out of it.
And for all the people griping about how it’s just not “natural,” I’ve got a news flash for you: In this day and age, there is no such thing as “natural” or “normal.” We’re all a little weird, and that’s what makes us human.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
It doesn’t matter if I support it or not: What another person does in his or her own bedroom is none of my business.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
as long as men don’t hold hands or kiss in public
June 18th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Yes and I won’t explain why, because it’s been said.
As for the folks who think that marriage is a religious institution, you need to really go back and read your history. If that’s the case, then Christians must have a monopoly on marriage and other cultures have made massive copyright infringements for thousands of years. Marriage has existed in some form or another (called by different names, all meaning the same basic thing) long before Christianity came along and in many of those cultures it had nothing to do with God or a higher power at all.
Not to mention, you can get married in the U.S. and most English speaking countries by a judge or public authority that isn’t religious. That’s a marriage. It will be called a marriage, but religious folks won’t throw a fit about it because it doesn’t matter. Religious folks just throw a fit when someone gets married that goes against their narrow-minded, antiquated beliefs. Equality has to go around the board and no, it is not equal if some people get to say “marriage” and others have to say “civil partnership”. That’s exactly the same as saying “real marriage” and “abomination that we made legal because we had to”.
Get over it. If something like this buggers up your day you need to get out more. Life is too short to spend throwing a bloody fit over two men getting hitched or two women doing the same thing. Seriously. Try to enjoy life and realize that not everyone is like you, which is what makes this species great.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
No way, Bro. I declared first. So much so that the entire Listversers hollered foul. Maybe you can have rushfan.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
I think Csimmons wants a dude:)
June 18th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
I would have to say no!, Absolutely not! I believe nobody should be married. If two people really love each other, why drag the church into it? Why drag legalities into it? Marriages that don’t last, usually end horribly for everyone involved, including any poor kids involved. If two people love each other, they should just be together and enjoy each other, not worry about who gets what and where the kids are going when it all comes crashing down. And yes, I have been married for almost ten years, why do you ask…?
June 18th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
I agree with Rosa.Gays should have their own type of marriage or union in respect for religion. Marriage was created for heterosexual couples. I have nothing against gays who want to share their lives together. Love exists everywhere and their lives are totally none of my business..
June 18th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
ChrisG and terrortwilight’s arguments combined create the greatest defence of gay marriage you could ask for. Enough said.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Marriage wasn’t “created” for heterosexual couples, and if gay couples’ lives are none of your business, why do you care if they get married or not?
Why should we deny gays and lesbians the same rights as everyone else, because of the way they were born? Why should religion enter anywhere into it? Shouldn’t there be a separation of church and state?
Every time people quote the bible to me about how homosexuality is wrong, I die a little inside and have the urge to punch them.
…why, yes. I am gay, why do you ask?
June 18th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
50. jfrater – June 18th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Kate (#18): I tend to agree with you on the nature versus nurture. I am not convinced that sufficient evidence yet exists to declare it entirely genetic.
there is very little about ‘the human condition’ that is entirely genetic.
and that has absolutely nothing to do w/ love. who. how. or why. love is and i hope will always be…the ultimate mystery. even for a diehard non-romantic pragmatist such as myself.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
I believe it should be legal. As long as the parties are adult and consenting, why should it be anyone else’s business?
Very nice comments everyone!
June 18th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Of course it should be legal. You can’t help who you fall in love with. It just happens.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
A straight no to gay marriages. It is not something natural and I think those supporting it will someday also support a man’s intercourse with an animal someday. C’mon You love someone for who they are, not what they are. C’mon, You love someone for who they are, not what they are. Duh…bullshit
June 18th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
It’s a sin. God made adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve. You People are WRONG!!!!!!!
June 18th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
I think it’s a-ok!
Who cares where u put your di*k as long as u put it in someone u love
June 18th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
God made made Steve too, If you believe in that sort of thing. (Creation)
June 18th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Mr Jfrater, the question u have posted itself is wrong. why do they require to get married first? what they are doing is already against the norms of the society. they any way dont have to produce any childred.. no body will be either biological father or mother. teh love which every body is talking abt will be there even if there is no gay marriage…then y worry of getting married…
June 19th, 2008 at 12:00 am
No, homosexuals should not be allowed secular marriage. Neither should heterosexuals. Marriage should be a religious institution, and that’s it. A good chunk of this debate is religious folks getting antsy because they think gay couples are icky, and don’t want “our word” corrupted by ickyness.
So what’s the solution? Separate Church and State. Religion grants marriage, the USA grants civil union. Yes, it’s pure semantics, but apparently semantics is what it takes to allow some people to sleep at night.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:10 am
Why not? My sister’s friend has two moms… There is nothing wrong with her.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:23 am
The state should be illegal, so that nothing will ever be “illegal” just because other people don’t like it, even though it doesn’t affect them.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:40 am
I hope it will be legal.. :
June 19th, 2008 at 12:42 am
#34 – So a gay couple shouldn’t get tax breaks, because two friends could get married and abuse the system, yet I could marry some guy off the street and cash in? By that logic, no one should get tax breaks because someone could abuse it. Let’s get rid of welfare while we’re at it, hmm?
Let’s put this into perspective. In some states you can marry blood relatives, yet gays can’t marry. This whole “it’s not natural” argument was used to stop interracial marriages for so long. “Marriage has a traditional meaning” is also a bullshit argument. Marriage was originally a business transaction, between two families. They were arranged, money way paid/services were aquired, and everyone got something out of it. It wasn’t about love, or raising a Christian family.
The fact that more than half of all marriages fail, should tell you that there is nothing ’sacred’ about marriage. A woman can marry some guy she met in Vegas on a drunken night out, yet a committed homosexual couple can’t get married? There is no logical reason why gay marriage should be illegal. The only marriages we should prevent, and the ones involving children. Leave the gays alone.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:45 am
To all those who say homosexuality “isn’t natural”- are you aware that humans are not the only creatures that exhibit homosexual behavior? What is “natural” anyway? WE are natural, entirely organic, carbon based lifeforms, fueled by the Earth, so doesn’t it naturally follow that everything we do is natural, just like bears or ants or trees?
I can’t believe this debate has gotten as much national attention as it has. We Americans are a sad sort indeed when gay marriage is among the top concerns of so many people. People should get their head out of their ass and find something worthwhile to get pissed off about. Who gives a shit if two guys want to get married.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:52 am
I think gay marriages should be legal, but gay weddings should be illegal.
I really wouldn’t know what to wear if I was invited to one – I would have to get the Fab 5 in to iron out the creases.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:14 am
I dont even get how this is an issue, the main question is hmm… should we deny a minority a right that everyone else gets? and its been established that we shouldnt do that. and maybe got created adam and eve so they could create adam and steve. also, how is it unnatural? it’s been going on since the beginning of time, there were gays in ancient greece for christs sake. and no, im not gay, but i have no problem with them.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:31 am
Wow- when I mentioned that other animals exhibit homosexual behavior, I wasn’t aware how widespread it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
Further, I have no problem with gay men/women except when (and this has happened more than once) they think that because they’re gay, it’s OK to grope my girlfriend, or any woman for that matter, because hey, hes gay, so it doesn’t mean anything, right? Wrong. Gay men like that learn to swallow their teeth.
Sorry. Had to vent.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:31 am
(regarding comment #12 about no gay marriage) First off you think homosexuals are only male? No need to justify the pure failure in that part. Secondly, You think that half of the average of 2% or so people in the WORLD who cannot give birth (male homosexuals) is really a problem? Yeah… 304,379,000+ people in the US alone is not enough MORE BABIES GO. >_>
June 19th, 2008 at 1:42 am
Homosexuality has been around for probably as long as any kind of life has.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual#History
It’s just as natural as a fish in the ocean.
Discriminating is of course, wrong and Homosexual people should certainly be allowed to get married.
I would suggest all of those who oppose it to look over their mental health if they need to control things that wont even affect them in any way.
They probably will turn into some kind of dictator in their next life.
Are we gonna set the law after what people think are disgusting?
Then from my point of few,
Goodbye;
Fast Food restaurants.(Unhealthy food and advertising is bad, just bad)
Reality Tv-Shows (Big Brother, Next etc Anyone who enjoys these shows are insane and belong in a straitjacket)
Horror movies like The Hills Have Eyes, Chainsaw Massacre, etc.
Japanese extreme porn.
Cigarettes, pipes etc.
Religion.
WWE.
Blablablablabla…
Get my point?
We can’t make things illegal because some people think they are disgusting or bad.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:48 am
I say ‘NO’ to gay Marriage!!!
What is the point in Marriage anyway? – Seriously – supposedly to show love, and an eternal commitment to another person in a legal sense.
These days it’s just a farce (in my opinion) – with something like 50% of marriages in the USA ending in divorce. Marriage was ‘invented’ by the religious types (I’m Male, from Ireland btw)
I don’t need to be married to show I’m committed to my Mrs. I show am committed everyday by my actions.
We got engaged – but that’s enough of a symbol for us. If in 10 – 20 yrs we do split – there won’t be half the hassle a married couple will have with all the legal wrangling’s of divorce + we wrote up a contract (of sorts) that if we do split then everything gets split right down the middle – (apart from the 48″ Plasma – THAT’s MINE!!!)
So I say ‘NO’ to gay marriage, and I say ‘NO’ to marriage in general
June 19th, 2008 at 1:52 am
No. Gay marriage should not be legal, for a couple reasons.
1) Look at what straight marriage has done. In the US at least, the divorce rate is higher than the marriage rate. A lot of the flack the gay community gets is that we are “promiscuous.” However, there are a whole hell of a lot of gay couples that have been together longer than, say, a straight man and his (third) wife. Giving gays marriage would also give us divorce. Why give us something when it can be taken right back, when what we have now is forever?
2) Have you SEEN a married couple who have been together for years and have multiple children? They are no where NEAR what they looked like in their twenties. Children and marriage have made them become a shell of their former selves. Many gay men, on the other hand, without marriage, still look as young and fit in their 50’s as they did in their late teens. Without the baggage of a marriage and children, they have time to concentrate on themselves.
3) Speaking of children, they are money-sucking fiends. While we aren’t allowing gays to get married, you should also not allow us to adopt. We like our things and we won’t have money for our nice things if we have to raise a child.
4) I don’t like hospitals, they freak me out. If I’m not allowed in to see my partner, the better.
So, that’s why I think homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. I mean, other than it’s immoral to God. Just like, up until 1960, interracial dating was immoral to Him, too…you know, until He changed his mind…he can do that, you know.
Anyway, if you didn’t get that this was a joke, it was. I am all for gay marriage. I mean, why should someone be refused a human right just because of who they love? And, I mean, even though I myself may never get married (right now I am still working on the whole “finding someone I like enough to spend an hour with, much less my whole life” thing), it should be an option to everyone.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:59 am
I dont even get how this is an issue, the main question is hmm… should we deny a minority a right that everyone else gets?
angryhobo – It is flawed to make the blanket statement that “marriage is a right”. There are always legal and/or religious conditions : age, relationship to partner, bigamy etc.
and its been established that we shouldnt do that.
Again, a blanket statement that is not correct. Why then, are there only 2 states in the USA within which same-sex marriage is legal? Why does US law stipulate that marriage must involve a “man and a woman”? Why have a significant number of US states specifically legislated against same-sex marriages? Even a “civil union” between same-sex couples is only legalised in a small number of US states.
There are numerous similar examples in other nations also.
As for “how is this an issue”? Firstly, if it wasn’t an issue, then why are we even discussing it? More to the point, there are significant numbers of people – for religious or other reasons – who do not agree with same-sex marriages. Notwithstanding the “rights” and the “wrongs”, the “pros” and the “cons” of same-sex marriage, you cannot ignore widely-held public opinion.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:04 am
Huh?
This is still a case there over the ocean?
Come on, get out of the 17th century, liberty for all!
June 19th, 2008 at 2:14 am
Well I am split with that. There should be some option for gay people to live together and be able to make decisions for each other, like in a hospital etc. But in Germany, for example, marriage is also a mean to support couples in raising a child. And there should be a difference to the gay marriage. But that inicates another problem. Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children. Well to be honest: I don’t know.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:23 am
Everyone has different views on what marriage really is. I know gay couples who function as a partnership better than heterosexual couples that have been married for years, and the fact of them being unmarried is completely irrelevant to the whole issue of whether their bond or union or whatever you want to call it works. Considering the old view of marriage was a man and a woman united in the eyes of God and all the business, you could argue that, far from being legal, gay marriage is actually impossible. I’m 100% up for equal rights for everyone on the planet (if only that were ever possible) but is getting a little piece of paper really going to make your love stronger?
I have an aunt who’s gay, and she and her partner had a commitment ceremony (which, with my alcoholic family, was much more fun than a lot of actual weddings I’ve been to) because gay marriage isn’t legal in Australia. I have to ask, would it be any different whatsoever if they had had an actual wedding?
Frankly, I don’t know why the government is debating this at all, the only thing legalising gay marriage would do is to make being gay more socially acceptable, and I don’t think they could do anything better. Someone said this earlier, but to think that just a few years ago mixed-race couples were deeply frowned upon, 50 years from now it might be legal to just marry yourself and save yourself the hassle.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:28 am
Sorry for the double post, but as for should gay people be allowed to adopt children?
Why the hell not? Is there really anything inherently different to having your child raised by two gay men or women, than one of each? You could argue that the child isn’t going to get the balance of a working dad and housey mother, but one of my best friends’ mums is the CEO of Westpac, one of the biggets banks in Australia. Do you think that his dad goes out working a second job on the side to make ends meet? The ends are meeting like fuck, he isn’t going to come home and put his $200 with the rest of the $200 million. Standard familial roles are very much so non-standard these days, so why does it matter if two gay people decide to raise a child, is it going to be somehow mind-warped from all the evil gay-rays that are emanating from its parents? It’ll still be loved, and it’ll still grow up as a healthy, functioning member of society.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:29 am
I would suggest all of those who oppose it to look over their mental health if they need to control things that wont even affect them in any way.
Diamond_Dragon – I am against it. And it is nothing to do with control, and nor is there anything wrong with my mental health. And, if it happens in my society/community, then it does affect me.
Using your logic, you would not be in favour of sanctions against child-labour in third-world nations…because it does not affect you; you would not be in favour of international laws against the clubbing of baby seals in Norway…because it does not affect you; and so on.
As I said, it is absolutely nothing about control. It is about people’s values – all of which are worthy of consideration, even yours.
They probably will turn into some kind of dictator in their next life.
Puhleeze. I’ve said I am against same-sex “marriage”. For the politically-correct out there, that most certainly does not mean I am anti-gay or homophobic. I’m not, I promise you.
What I do believe, from my small corner of the world, is that the traditional community and family values that I hold as being of importance, have persistently eroded (notably) over recent decades to the extent that, in my opinion, this has been a contributor to much of the violence and crime and poverty and intolerance that we see today. I’m not saying that same-sex marriages would necessarily exacerbate this situation (it would likely not even figure in the equation) but, to me, it is another brick in the wall. I also recognise, for those who might point it out, that even a traditional marriage (man/woman) can be dysfunctional or tansient.
Again, there is very little – in many jurisdictions – that prevents same-sex couples from living together. There are other jurisdictions that recognise same-sex couples for the purposes of the securing of pension rights etc. Aside from the status of “married”, a lot of what marriage is supposed to represent is already available to same-sex couples.
Marriage should not be, and need not be, merely a “lifestyle choice”; in my opinion it is more important than that.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:33 am
“Marriage” is not a religious institution. The Egyptians married not for religious reasons but for social stability, which was probably the driving force for monogamous familial units. Indeed, some animals subscribe to monogamous breeding pairs.
And every type of mammal has been found to have homosexuals, so it is, in all probability a natural state for some members of all species (even some fish have been found to be “gay”).
What isn’t natural is the whole-sale adoption of traditional social rites by religious sects. That is purely man made. Marriage is not the province of the church, it is a private contract between two people that allows certain benefits in society. You can not simply tell someone that these benefits are for one group only, and you most certainly can’t tell them they are denied the benefits because they are counter to your religion- that’s establishment and is against the law.
Nor can you say that marriage is for procreation alone. That would imply that all couples are REQUIRED to sign pledges that they will have children, and that any persons known to be infertile can’t get married or must have their marriages revoked.
There is no good argument against gay and lesbian marriage. My standard response is, if you don’t like same-sex marriages, don’t have one.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:49 am
Nor can you say that marriage is for procreation alone. That would imply that all couples are REQUIRED to sign pledges that they will have children, and that any persons known to be infertile can’t get married or must have their marriages revoked.
B8ovin – funny you should bring that up; on a somewhat related topic :
“An Italian bishop has refused to allow a church wedding for a paraplegic man who was rendered impotent by a crippling automobile accident.”
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=58967
June 19th, 2008 at 2:49 am
I don’t think gay marriages or homosexuality should be illegal.
But I am totally against gay couples adopting children.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:51 am
I say no for religious reasons. I’d explain why but there really isn’t a point in doing so seeing as most people on the internet (yes even here) are either athiests, agnostic, or have formed their own “exceptions” to the Bible for convenience.
June 19th, 2008 at 3:01 am
Marriage I’m not bothered about, it’s when you get kids involved. I’ve not yet seen a gay marriage that has stayed together – just today, the headlines are saying that David Lucas and his husband are splitting up, they were one of the first gay couples in the UK to get married. So as far as I’m concerned, marriage yes, adoption no.
Personally I feel it’s more of a statement than anything serious, two fingers up to the religious establishment etc, but I’m more than willing to be proven wrong.
June 19th, 2008 at 3:11 am
YES! I can’t see any reason why not. I’d fully support it.
June 19th, 2008 at 3:12 am
James I heard that too but surely you don’t know all the gay married couples in the world?
June 19th, 2008 at 3:37 am
I respectfully say no
Marriage is a union between a man and woman that has endured throughout history across all races and religions, yet within a few decades of change in society we are willing to throw it all away to appease a minority. And the world is now too afraid to speak out against it for fear of being called ‘intolerant’ or ‘homophobic’, so we go along with it to be politically correct.
June 19th, 2008 at 3:38 am
I’m not even going to read all of the above and pop my comment “cherry” right here right now on this very topic: My best male friend ever is gay. I have known him since kindergarden (meaning that we have been friends for about 30 years, yes, I’m 34 and proud of it!). He was gay then, he’s gay now. He met the love of his life about 15 years ago and they make the most handsome couple ever. They are happy, healthy, wealthy and I wish them the best! I’m absolutely FOR gay marriage. Only a few lucky people get to meet the person they are meant to be with (I’m one of them —> I’m SMITTEN! I’m full of smit!) but most hetero marriages are a sham and end up in divorce. So yes, yes and yes on gay marriage, you have my full support!
June 19th, 2008 at 3:50 am
Vera Lynn… Feel free to use my post! I wish I could give credit to the original writer of the list, but I have no clue who it was! Glad you liked it.
I’m also glad to see so many supporters of gay marriage.. it surprises me that since there are so many people here that support it… who on earth is out there keeping this from happening?
June 19th, 2008 at 3:56 am
Definitely.
Homophobia= the insecurity about being heterosexual
June 19th, 2008 at 4:00 am
ALL gays, male and female, should be deported to an island somewhere far, far, far away from the rest of the world and let them enjoy each other [it's gross!]
June 19th, 2008 at 4:01 am
It’s not my place to tell people who they marry, or if they can get married. I know a lesbian couple, and it would be cool to be invited to their wedding. I don’t know what gift to bring though (haha). I met two guys who, as far as I’m concerned, is/are a married couple.
June 19th, 2008 at 4:04 am
@99. fishing4monkeys
Gasp! You mean… Christianity is the only religion in the world? By Golly, how dare those Buddhist and Taoist married without approval from your God!
June 19th, 2008 at 4:08 am
I totally agree with Gay marriages. In fact, my teacher is in a lesbian relationship for many years and they’re happy together, on the other hand, my parents are devorced so who can say that Hetrosexual marriages are ‘natural’ are full of crap in their self-centered world.
My initial thought is that if they’re happy together then they shouldn’t confine themselves to some selfish prick’s perspective. But in terms of legal recognition I totally agree with ChrisG.
Sorry to bombard this site but I think people should look at this:
I am the girl kicked out of her home because I confided in my mother that I am a lesbian.
I am the prostitute working the streets because nobody will hire a transexual woman.
I am the sister who holds her gay brother tight through the painful, tear-filled nights.
We are the parents who buried our daughter long before her time.
I am the man who died alone in the hospital because they would not let my partner of twenty-seven years into the room.
I am the foster child who wakes up with nightmares of being taken away from the two fathers who are the only loving family I have ever had. I wish they could adopt me.
I am one of the lucky ones, I guess. I survived the attack that left me in a coma for three weeks, and in another year I will probably be able to walk again.
I am not of the lucky ones. I killed myself just weeks before graduating high school. It was simply too much to bear.
We are the couple who had the realtor hang up on us when she found out we wanted to rent a one-bedroom for two men.
I am the person who never knows which bathroom I should use if I wanted to avoid getting the management called on me.
I am the mother who is not allowed to even visit the child I bore, nursed, and raised. The court said I am an unfit mother because I now live with another woman.
I am the domestic-violence survivor who found the support system grow suddenly cold and distant when they found out my abusive partner is also a woman.
I am the domestic-violence survivor who has no support system to turn to because I am male.
I am the father who has never hugged his son because I grew up afraid to show affection to other men.
I and the home-economics teacher who always wanted to teach gym until someone told me that only lesbians do that.
I am the man who died when the paramedics stopped treated me as soon as they realized I was transsexual.
I am the person who feels guilty because I think I could be a much better person if I did not have to always deal with society hating me.
I am the man who stopped attending church, not because I don’t believe, but because they closed their doors to my kind.
I am the person who has to hide what this world needs most, love.
I am the person who is afraid of telling his loving Christian parents he loves another male.
I am the girl who is always crying herself to sleep at night because I am afraid of my mother finding out just exactly who I love with all my heart.
June 19th, 2008 at 4:24 am
I think a lot of that ^^ is overly emotional… Maybe it’s different in America, but in Australia, while not openly embraced, being gay is accepted. My brother is openly gay, and he has a very tight-knit group of friends both gay and straight, and no one looks down on him because of his choices.
There is only one group of people in the world I dislike, and that’s those who discriminate against others, just because it disagrees with their own personal preference.
At Jason (107) I really really hope that was a joke, and even so, it was in horribly poor taste. If that truly is your opinion, I find it repulsive.
June 19th, 2008 at 4:26 am
I have no problem with gay marriage. (It is already legal here). Love and commitment are what is important (heavy on the commitment part) not the sex of either party.
Jamie: My aunt had a tres-gay bull. Like flaming. Totally useless as a breeder(what he was purchased for). What sort of nurture made the bull gay? Did you read the study of children in utero during the blitz of the second world war? I can’t remember exactly which trimester was affected, but stress in the mother ended up with a much higher proportion of children who grew up homosexual. It could be just a coincidence, but stress is known to cause testosterone fluctuations in females. (By depressing estrogen production I think)
Kiwiboi; The erosion of the traditional family unit has nothing to do with allowing gay marriage, nor will it have any further effect. The erosion is caused by the me, me, me, affliction of our society. We expect marriage to be all happy, happy, joy, joy. And when it is not, we bail rather than work at it. We don’t put up with anything for the sake of the children or the sake the family unit. We just give up and try again. Guess what folks? The other guy isn’t responsible for your happiness. (I’m not talking about abusive relationships). And a long-lasting relationship requires work and regular maintenance.
Siderus: Just curious, do you believe in blue eyes? Blond hair? Makes just about as much sense as saying you don’t believe in homosexuality.
June 19th, 2008 at 4:42 am
The erosion of the traditional family unit has nothing to do with allowing gay marriage, nor will it have any further effect.
Mom – you didn’t read/understand what I wrote. I said that, to me, gay marriages are another erosion of the traditional community and family values that I hold as being of importance. By no stretch of the imagination is gay marriage a part of the fabric of “traditional” values – else we wouldn’t be having this debate.
June 19th, 2008 at 4:45 am
Yes.
Is my very simple answer.
June 19th, 2008 at 4:56 am
Same-sex marriage should not be legal because it is not a real marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. We cannot afford to redefine marriage as a society because the traditional family is the only thing that holds a society together. What’s next? Marrying your dog?
June 19th, 2008 at 4:59 am
Jason, I hope you were joking. You know who is gross and should be deported to an island somewhere far, far, far away from the rest of the world and let them enjoy each other???
Intolerant, ignorant and socially retard peeps like you Jason.
Please, Jason, for your sake, live a little.
XOXO
Mona
June 19th, 2008 at 5:03 am
Yes!!
I have yet to find an anti-homosexual rights argument that
a) hasn’t been completely proven wrong by science.
b) completely depends on a religious viewpoint and therefore has no standing on secularism.
c) can’t be applied to interracial or international marriages.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:08 am
OMG EFF NO!!!! It isn’t about love and shit. Gay isn’t two dudes loving each other. Its about same gender sexual relationships and that effing nasty i dont care what anyone says about me but screw that. As soon as its geneticly possible for two men or two women to make a baby, then have at er’, until then let it work out as design intended.
There is nothing right about it at all. Love my ass. Love is an emotion, a feeling that can be changed and influenced by the things we choose to do and the things we choose to be around. Its a decision. Its bullshit to say that nobody means to be gay. All this crap about it being genetic and stuff. LIES!!!! Its all an excuse for “homosexuals” to be recognized and to push the guilt and blame off on something they had no control over. If I hear it wasn’t my choice, I was born this way” ever again (I punched the last guy who said that, as he was hitting on me), I’m going to lose it. If you like it, if you enjoy the gay life, which is exactly the same as a hetero lifestyle except the sexual aspect, then thats fine, but quit flaunting it and being all gay in front of me. I dont want to know and i reserve the right to bear arms and freedom of speech. And before anyone gets all crazy on me, I say the same thing to all the hetero jerks who like to be all nasty in public. I dont want to see it either. Your just as bad.
AND if its a “nonsexual gay” relationship, i dont consider it gay, wierd, but not gay.
I dont even blink reading rubysp’s post. Screw them, I had half those problems, with women, and I know straight people in much worse lives. Dont play some guilt trip bull shit with me. I could care less how someone elses life is. Boo hoo nobody oves me. Suck it up and move on. Dont expect special treatment because you like it in the butt.
AND from a religios perspective, name one religion where it is ok for gay relationships. please. I bet there is one. And i mean a major religion, not some fag town 100 member gay mens choir bull shit. NONE! not one condones man and man or woman and woman.
And just to throw a spark on this gasoline infused debate………..lesbians are only ok if they are drunk or i can watch. HA!!
McCane 08 – because black people and white women only belong in porno’s.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:12 am
I am not convinced that sufficient evidence yet exists to declare it entirely genetic.
jfrater – there is an interesting (and wholly unscientific) paradox here perhaps. In times past (especially during and post the Victorian era), I would guess that gays would enter into a traditional marriage – for various reasons, not least compliance with the convention of the times. If homosexuality is genetic then the trait would be perpetuated directly or via their children.
If, however, the conventional trend for gays to marry is no longer there (per the subject of this list), then the number of children carrying the “gay” gene would diminish, leading to a severe reduction in the gay population over a period of time…maybe to the point of immateriality.
Still, having made this (probably foolish) conjecture, LOL, I am not sure what “makes” a person gay or heterosexual.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:17 am
Personally I’m opposed to marriage in all forms, for my part I see it as an outdated ideal that in industrialized nations is a financial decision more than a romantic or moral one and with the ease of divorce it is no more permanant or meaningful than “going steady.”
That said I agree completely this is not a situation that the state should have any say in to begin with. If an elected official or priest or pastor is asked to perform a gay marriage and it offends their moral sense they should be allowed to refuse to perform the service but the government should not be allowed to say who can and cannot marry based on sex, sexual preference or any other designation protect by law under descrimination acts.
As for those who scream “its in the Bible that man not lay down with man as he does with woman” true, but the Bible also tells you to stone your children to death if they disobey you, do you do that? Jesus saw nothing wrong with slavery “Slaves obey your masters” do you keep slaves? Do you eat shellfish or pork? I could go on but why bother Christians who use this line of thinking only pick out the parts that suit their own moral code, or lack thereof.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:21 am
The answer is… Yes.
And why? Because what does it hurt? A good friend of mine has a philosophy for life which I think applies here: *I don’t want any trouble.* Just leave me alone, I’ll leave you alone.
As long as you’re causing no one harm, then go ahead and do as you please. This is a basic American philosophy, I think, which goes back to our beginnings. We’ve moved away from it a bit, but it’s really what we’re about.
I don’t buy the argument that gay marriage threatens hetero marriage, or our way of life, or the fabric of society. It messes with things a bit, to be sure… but I see no inherent harm in this. Economically it could be an issue–because one of the reasons that gays want the right to marry is so that they can have the same insurance benefits, etc., that heteros have. But we’ve begun to face the fact anyway that our health insurance system needs revamping, so again–where’s the harm?
It’s none of my business, it’s none of your business, let people do what they want so long as it doesn’t infringe upon us. There it is.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:22 am
It shold not be legal. In fact Iran and Saudi Arabia has quite a good set of laws about homosexuality. It should be implented in America and in Europe too.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:23 am
Re: Djb522
Nothing can be “scientifically proved” and I would even counter that science has no idea whether homosexuals are born that way or not. Science aside, marriage is just a contract between two individuals. Some view it as a contract taken out with a higher power, others like myself view it as a legal contract. In my opinion two people ought to be allowed to enter into any contract they want.
And re: the blog poster, if you want the government to enforce legislation that says spouses have to be eligible for medical coverage under employer benefits packages than yes, the state can and should have a say in who gets married. Then again, I’m a libertarian so I don’t think the government ought to have much of a say in much of anything.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:31 am
Kiwiboi: “Still, having made this (probably foolish) conjecture, LOL, I am not sure what “makes” a person gay or heterosexual.”
Here’s my 2 cents: Gays, as in males attracted to other males or females attracted to other females have existed since the beginning of the world. There will always be “gay” people. It’s just the way nature works. There are lots of homosexual behaviors in the animal kingdom (list suggestion here, gayest animal ever, but I degress here!)Anywho, you can’t fight it. It is a natural thing, it’s organic, you are born gay, you can’t explain it, you can’t get out of it, you can’t get “healed” from it. You have to live with it and who the hell are you to tell other people how to live their life?
Seriously?
XOXO
Mona
June 19th, 2008 at 5:31 am
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law,
Until you violate the rights of another,
Respect the space of your sister and your brother.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:34 am
Actually, there’s not particular evidence of whether it’s genetic or not, but what is interesting is that there’s an extremely high percentage of twins in which both are either gay or straight, and a very very small percentage of twins with one of each orientation.
Also, there’s a slightly higher chance of being gay with each older sibling, e.g. if there are 5 boys in a family, chances are higher for the youngest being gay than of the eldest.
I’m not saying it’s entirely genetic, but I certainly don’t think being gay is a choice. Whether you accept it or not, is.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:40 am
If it is ok for gays to marry, is it also ok for siblings to marry? After all, “it’s love that counts”, not the sex, the ability to have children, etc. – Just a thought…
Also, in the USA there is (supposed to be) a distinction of governement and religion. Let the government regulate civil unions and let the Covens (churches) regulate marrage.
m2c
June 19th, 2008 at 5:41 am
Why do people constantly make references to the animal kingdom? Are we not supposed to be superior and more intelligent than the animal kingdom? My dog cleans her butt with her tongue, but I don’t see many humans doing it because it is “natural.” She also likes to hump a stuffed animal, so I guess that means you can marry your blow-up doll because it happens in the animal kingdom. This is not a blast against gays, just the people defending it with the line,”Its natural because other animals do it.”
June 19th, 2008 at 5:44 am
Kiwiboi; I did understand, I just don’t agree. You see it as a further erosion. I see it as an addition or broadening of scope. The failure of family and the lack of commitment I too find troubling. I just don’t agree that gay marriage contributes to it. Selfishness and ridiculous expectations do.
All these multiple divorcees seem to forget that they made a promise. To love blah blah blah, in good times and bad. Stress on the bad.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:50 am
Yes. Although if a gay couple were to marry in a religious circumstance, that would be quite provocative. Besides, I’m against marriage, and you don’t need to marry someone to let them know you love them and vice versa.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:51 am
I tend to agree with what kiwiboi is saying. I understand that some folks will see that as some sort of discrimination, and more and more people view those values as hostile to gay people. I think it is some form of erosion of those traditional values.
There is a part of me that really doesn’t care, as long as they don’t do it right in front of me. The only time I really have a problem with it is when someone gets all up in my face about it. This kind of thing wasn’t even whispered when I was a kid, and I understand we’ve come a long way since then. It just goes against the way I was raised, yeah church enters into the discussion here. I guess my approach is more to the point of saying what’s so grossly wrong with having those traditional values? Ok, so some people take that too far and want to force you to do the same thing. I’m not that way, I’m a little more giving than that.
Civil unions – ok I guess. Marriage? Uh, I think that’s a man and a woman.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:51 am
You have to live with it and who the hell are you to tell other people how to live their life? Seriously?
Mona – was that part directed at me? Or was it merely a part of the general view you were offering?
June 19th, 2008 at 5:52 am
Carpe; You are mistaken. You see a pretty girl you get a boner. A gay guy sees a pretty girl, he doesn’t get the boner. He gets the boner from the pretty girl’s boyfriend.
We had a friend when we were growing up. We knew he was gay, he didn’t believe it. He had sex with any female who would have him. After a couple of suicide attempts he finally figured it out. He is now a semi-famous jewelry designer with a very nice boyfriend. Attitudes like “he has a choice” and “it is unnatural” and the like contributed greatly to his pain.
Hedonism is another thing entirely, you just don’t care who or what gets you off. That is a life-style choice. Being homosexual is not.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:54 am
Wow, mus tbe mostly immoral people who look at this thread. No, I don’t think homosexual marriage should be legal. I always hear people say “Don’t shove your religous beliefes down our throats!”, well I hate it when homosexual shove their immoral lifestyle down mine. Turn about is fair play.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:57 am
Sorry, I’m not going to answer the question. Most of what I was going to say has already been said.
In Australia, the constitution gives parliament the authority to make laws regarding marriage. For many years there was no definition of marriage. The courts worked on a common-law definition of marriage derived from English law. In 2004 an amendment was made to the Marriage Act incorporating that common law precedent, that marriage is “the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life” (emphasis added). Those who argue that homosexual marriage devalues heterosexual marriage must also argue against adultery and divorce.
I’ve got a lot of gay friends. Once I was having dinner with some of them. One made a comment that could have been interpreted that he was assuming I was gay. I made a reply that made it gently clear that I wasn’t. He said “Oh, you’re straight? But you’re far too nice to be straight!”. I think that was a compliment. (Another gay friend, when I told him the story, said “He’s obviously never met the same bitter old queens that I know”.)
BTW does anyone know which society first held wedding rites, when? Two of the reasons that weddings and marriages happened were to legitimise the transfer of property (which often included the woman herself), and to ensure (as far as possible) the identity of the father of children.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:58 am
Carpe; I apologize, I mis-read your comment. We are on the same page.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:59 am
On this genetics vs environmental factors thing…I kinda think that there’s a lot to be said for the environmental factors.
…would certainly explain why my son looks like my next-door neighbour
June 19th, 2008 at 5:59 am
Mom424, I think you might have misunderstood me, I was saying being gay is not a choice at all. You don’t wake up and say, hey look, I like men today. It can certainly be something that dawns upon you gradually, but it’s not something you can decide to do. Much like a gay man can’t suddenly decide he likes women now, although he can attempt to convince himself of that.
I was saying the fact of whether you accept your gayness or not , that is a choice. My brother refused to admit he was gay until a few years ago, and now that he looks back, he admits that he has always known, just not been willing to face up to it.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:00 am
Double post again, meh.
Mom, well… I just clarified myself anyway
June 19th, 2008 at 6:02 am
who gives a damn its their business
June 19th, 2008 at 6:02 am
I just came out of the closet in the last month and I can garauntee you that I would not have done so unless I was born this way. I can remember knowing that I was different since I was very little, but I just recently admitted to myself that I was actually gay. The reason it took me so long to come to this conclusion is that society tells us that its only natural for boys to like girls and girls to like boys, so I just thought that one day I would wake up and suddenly like girls (needless to say, this still hasnt happened).
Also, I am not into interior design, fashion, or musical theater. I dont do rainbows, the colors pink or purple, or apple-tinis. I have two older brothers who are very much straight, but thankfully I have a really accepting family and some really good friends who see that my being gay is only part of who i am instead of my defining characteristic.
Basically what Im saying is that you can think what you want, but telling my family and friends that im gay has been one of the hardest things I have ever done in my life (harder than my parents divorce and the fallout from it) and I would never just choose to put this on myself.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:04 am
you are not born gay. its a choice. and they dont deserve to be allowed the right to have marriage. read my prior post.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:07 am
Stevenh: Here are some subtle nuances:
There is a big difference between two healthy conscenting adults whom are attracted to each other and sick sexual perverts whom are attracted to ANYTHING that moves. The latter are utterly sick and should be punished for their actions, that includes sick sexual relations between blood relatives or unmatched age groups and/or unmatched attraction, even between the right group according to you: male/female(as in RAPE!)
Most gays are healthy people just like anyone else. Don’t put them all in the same bag. That comment really speaks to your character. That shows that you are a truly narrow minded ignorant.
XOXO
Mona
June 19th, 2008 at 6:08 am
In the words of wanda Sykes… if marriage is sacred and you wanna protect it… ban divorce! If your marriage is fucked up it’s not because Ted and Steve got married, it’s because you fucked it up. You can’t help who you fall in love with.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:08 am
One of the best comments on this topic was made by Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts.
On July 18, 2006, during a debate over a “marriage protection” amendment he said “same-sex marriage is the V8 juice of America.”
Rep. Frank said he did not understand Republican arguments that gay marriages would undermine traditional marriages, as if happily married men in Indiana, Nebraska, Kansas and Mississippi, learning that same-sex marriage was legal in Massachusetts, would smack themselves in the head and declare, “Wow, I could have married a guy.”
June 19th, 2008 at 6:10 am
WhoMe; You calling me immoral. Well isn’t that a joke. I will agree that the gay pride parades and such are in poor taste, (if hetero couples ever decided to flop their penises about like that they would be arrested), but it is only once a year. And of course it hi-lights the minority, the militant in-your-face type of person. Same as any protest related event.
That is not the majority. Most of the gay folk I know are no different than you or I. (Well that’s not true, they aren’t like you, they are tolerant of others). Regular folks just trying to get by as best they can. There is no throwing it in your face.
Immoral? Bigotry and Intolerance are truly immoral. Take a look a little closer to home.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:15 am
For whoever said:
Marriage as an institution is inherently religious in nature is right. That is what marriage is…it is the union of a man and woman under the eye of whatever god you worship.
I think that gay people should be able to have a ‘union’ so that they have the same tax rights and other rights as married couples..but it should not be called marriage and it should not be done in a church. Yes, gay people believe in god..but..per the bible they are sinners. (im athiest if anyone cares.)
NUMBER 18!
“HOWEVER, I don’t like how the nature vs. nuture argument gets brought into it. Personally, I think sexual preferences is developed in early childhood.”
You need to read honey..here is a recent study that shows that the brains of homosexual and hetrosexual people are different. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815538,00.html
Also, I have been around boys at the age of 5 that I knew would be gay when they grew up..and now they are.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:15 am
Yes, gay marriage should be legal. What does it matter who you love and want to spend the rest of your life with? States should not have the right to tell me who I can be married to. In Oklahoma, they actually make you swear that you are not marrying your 1st cousin. People think that if they legalize gay marriage the next thing you know they will want to marry a goat. All I know is, I am I am gay and I sure don’t want to marry a goat. I just want to have the same rights as everybody else, and be allowed to actually say this is my wife instead of my roommate (the Air Force) wouldn’t like me posting this!
June 19th, 2008 at 6:17 am
Yes and NO! It should not be called a marriage. A marraiage is a religious ceremony and should be left up to the church to decide what they will recognize and what they won’t. Any “marriage” performed in a secular manor should be considered a civil union. This should apply to any type of marriage, heterosexual or homosexual.Gays should be allowed a civil union with all rights, privileges and responsiblities that come with such a union. The government has no place in such matters. But they don’t have a place in most matters they are involved in now but who are we to stand in the way of complete government control. We are only the lowly citizens of this contry we don’t know any better.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:17 am
miriah: Someone who might have been Groucho Marx was asked what he thought of marriage as an institution. He said “It’s fine, if you like living in an institution”.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:18 am
Does nobody find it interesting that homosexuality is so widespread among other animals? Really, this should completely destroy any argument that it’s “not natural” or “against the will of god”.
And Kiwiboi, get off your holier-than-thou horse.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:19 am
Big fan of Mom424 here, hear that? WhoMe? I’m so glad I was brought up with morale sans religion. My parents thought me to be a decent person, tolerant and understanding of all point of views, but it is so hard for me sometimes. You can say that the only intolerance I indulge is against intolerant people. IRONY!!!
June 19th, 2008 at 6:20 am
Mona:
Perhaps i should have noted that i am also the (very supportive) parent of a gay child.
My point is that the gay community will only achieve full rights when the straight community is willing to see that it is in their interest as well. This is very similar to what Rev. King spoke about in the 1960’s.
If our arguments are based simply on ‘love’ and the inclusion of all beliefs, then we will not be successful. In the USA, I think we need to open the discussion as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the first amendment.
I hope this clarifies.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:23 am
And yes Jasontimmer, I suggested a list about gay behavior amongst the animals earlier. I have a 14 years old yorky/jack russel mix dog, she only humps females O.o
June 19th, 2008 at 6:23 am
And Kiwiboi, get off your holier-than-thou horse.
jasontimmer :
1. Fuck you.
2. Care to explain what you are referring to?
June 19th, 2008 at 6:24 am
Also interesting- there’s a species of swan that exhibits homosexuality quite frequently, and it actually gives them a survival advantage- two males will steal a female’s eggs, and the chick will have a better chance of making it to adulthood because the parents, being both male, are more capable of fending off predators and finding food.
A different species of swan, also showing widespread homosexuality, will substitute a stone for an egg. I find that fascinating.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:25 am
Pirate12 – Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Airman, or did you forget…
June 19th, 2008 at 6:26 am
YES. If you find love you have the right legally, spiritually, and literally to scream it out loud in front of god and everybody. I don’t care what two people it’s between, love is a gift and god damn you if you condemn it!
June 19th, 2008 at 6:26 am
Kiwibi- very mature. Gave me a laugh. I’m just wondering what your main argument against gay marriage is. (Also I may be harboring some old resentment over an old post we differed on. I love you anyway.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:27 am
jasontimer – homosexuality isn’t facinating. Its wrong.
8==) (==8 doesnt work. (lol) if we were meant to be gay, we would all be albe to procreate, regardless of gender. But guess what? WE AREN’T!!!
June 19th, 2008 at 6:28 am
Funny to me how Kiwi can explain himself rationally with a calm demeanor and someone calls him ‘holier than thou.’
Also funny how the supposed ‘enlightened’ amongst us are intolerant of religious people.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:28 am
Wow..some of you all are crazy
98. Patrona – June 19th, 2008 at 2:49 am
I don’t think gay marriages or homosexuality should be illegal.
But I am totally against gay couples adopting children
What the hell kind of statement is that? Do you have any idea how many kids out there need a loving home? I lived in the most horrid household with a “mother” and “father” until my brother, sister and I were put into foster care. (no it was not a gay home) Just because you have a mother and father does not make the home better. I know gay people who treat thier children better than a straight couple. Anyone..single, gay, straight who wants to adopt a child should not only be allowed to do so, they should be given a fucking medal.
89. JackOH88
Love the kids are money fiends! One of the reasons why im not having them
June 19th, 2008 at 6:29 am
It’s why we as man have evolved to the top of the food chain and intelligence chain and not swans or dogs or bulls or any other dumb animal that likes to get its jollies off with another same sex animal of its species. Nasty!
June 19th, 2008 at 6:31 am
i dont think gay people should be allowed to raise children unless they give birth to them themselves, which isn’t possible, so i guess not at all. Tainting the ideals and morals of family values and traditions.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:31 am
jasontimmer, how dare you have a sexist attitude towards female swans. Like a female swan couldn’t fend off predators or find food. What a bigot. A female swan doesn’t need a male to live her life.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:33 am
bucslim- I can’t tell if you’re slamming me or Kiwiboi wth that post. It seems that the arrogant seems to be quite calm in their deluded assertions, maybe it’s just me. I didn’t think I was being irrational.
Kiwiboi comes off to me as one who likes to churn the waters for shits and giggles, using suave rhetoric to convince the rest of his views.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:35 am
bucslim- haha, somehow I just had a flsh of Ellen Degeneres in my head. Like I said before, I have no problem with homosexuals exept for those who grab my girlfriend’s tits. Peace, man.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:36 am
jasontimmer – really? I didn’t know we were trying to convince anyone here, as if that could be done on this issue. Is anyone out there truly on the fence about this that they need Kiwi to convince them?
And I personally know Kiwi to be one suave mofo. I’d marry him if I wasn’t already attracted to his mom.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:39 am
Kiwibi- very mature. Gave me a laugh. I’m just wondering what your main argument against gay marriage is.
jason – read #95
(Also I may be harboring some old resentment over an old post we differed on.
If so, I don’t recall it.
I love you anyway.
Doesn’t mean I’ll marry you, dude…
Besides, buclsim has first option
June 19th, 2008 at 6:41 am
Stevenh
Although, I’m sure you are very “supportive” of your child’s life style, it is killing you inside. I can feel it in your comments. I’m a firm believer that gay people are born gay. There is no way around it. That is the way they were “made” so, please consider this: it is not your child’s fault, the cause comes from within yourself, what is really brewing inside your very own flesh balloons? What went “wrong” inside your wife’s womb (with all the respect to your spouse). Have you ever stop to think that maybe it came from you?
Now, don’t get me wrong, I was annoyed with the “gay surge” that took over the medias with such shows such as “gay something for the straight guy” or whatever that show was called. But it seems to have calm down now.
XOXO
Mona
June 19th, 2008 at 6:41 am
Mona; I was brought up with morals and a plethora of religion. My mom dragged me to every church around when I was a kid. My mom’s family are all strict roman catholics. (I even have an uncle soon to be a bishop). When she was excommunicated because my father would not agree that we would be raised as catholics, she decided we could all make up our own mind. She wasn’t a perfect mom, but in this instance she was right on. My high level of tolerance is a direct result of that. And the fact that a slap in the mouth was the consequence of saying the “n” word or making any sort of judgment based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. My grandmother and grandfather were the same. We have pictures of my mom in the late 1930’s early 1940’s with her siblings playing with the black kids in the neighbourhood. And eating dinner with them. I come from very progressive stock. (My great aunts and uncles, not so much).
June 19th, 2008 at 6:42 am
And I personally know Kiwi to be one suave mofo. I’d marry him if I wasn’t already attracted to his mom.
buc – about my mom…have you, erm, ever met him?
LOL, reminds me of that great old Roger Miller song : My Uncle Used to Love Me But She Died
June 19th, 2008 at 6:42 am
Absolutely they should be allowed to be married.
The whole problem is that people mix up government and religion. Marriage is a religious rite. Should they be able to find a church willing to do it, in my opinion you should be allowed to marry a shoe, a horse, a drag queen from tijuana, and/or the plague.
The government should get out of the marriage game. they should give licenses for civil unions, but there should be no limitations on who it is between, save 2 consenting adults.
Splitting like this keeps your morality out of my bed. If you don’t like a church that allows gay marriage, don’t go to it. The government no longer “marries” people, so most people won’t throw too big a fit about it (I guess “We’re married” sounds better than “we’re civil unioned”).
And for the record, I’m not gay, though I did go to UC Santa Cruz (UCSC is one of the most liberal schools in the US. A significant portion of the local community practiced “alternate sexualities”)
/Bob
June 19th, 2008 at 6:44 am
That’s some funny shit kiwi.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:45 am
okay, it keeps trying to make me post as bucslim. I people should be allowed to marry any consenting of-age human that they want to.
Miriah, I’m with you, who are all of these crazy people???
June 19th, 2008 at 6:45 am
bucslim- shit man, you’re one funny guy. Best thing for me after a 12 hour shift is a few laughs. I guess I don’t really feel the need to “convince” anyone either, their minds are probably already made up on the subject. And for the record, you’re gonna have to get past me to get to his mom. (Youtube jasontimmer to get an idea of your callenge.
)
June 19th, 2008 at 6:50 am
Gay marriage shouldn’t be permitted at all. In fact gayness should be forbidden, like in many countries.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:51 am
kiwiboi- so what you’re saying is that allowing same-sex marriages would be an example of intolerance? (I came to this conclusion after reading #95) How does gay marriage exacerbate our current problem?
I don’t remember the past differences either, just remember that “Kiwiboi” is one to look out for…
Bucslim and I are going to war. I want Mama.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:51 am
jasontimmer – yeah, I’m the funny one here at the ‘verse, I’m here all night. Try the prime rib and save some of that energy for tonight’s show.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:52 am
Bob- unfortunately, our government is becoming MORE controlling in more and more aspects of our life… not less…
and Kiwiboi- I went back and read your post 95
“As I said, it is absolutely nothing about control. It is about people’s values – all of which are worthy of consideration, even yours.”
I certainly don’t think peoples values should be government regulated, government approved
June 19th, 2008 at 6:52 am
Antonius Pius- tell that to the thousands of homosexual animals. Also, may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:53 am
Sure gay’s should marry and get divorced just like straight folk.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:53 am
I would personally seek to moot the entire point by getting civil government to drop the use of the words “marriage”, “matrimony”, “husband”, “wife”, etc. altogether. Replace them uniformly with “union” and “spouse”. I would require civil registration of such unions w/appropriate civil authorities, to qualify for any civil/legal benefits or rights such status would now allow to “married” folk. I would remove any official/civil/legal function from clergy, and then allow religious couples of whatever faith or orientation to apply to their own denominations for such sacramental or ritual “marriage” or “matrimony” as their faith allows or requires. Thus “marriage” for those faiths that would seek to limit its literal meaning to the traditional man/woman thing would stay as it has traditionally been, while all rights and privileges legally thereunto pertaining at present would be extended to all couples willing to entertain the commitment involved. This would limit the violence to the actual word, while obviating the point that its use by the government in traditional circumstances but not for same sex relations is in and of itself a violation of the equal protection of law.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:54 am
LMAO Jason on 174!
June 19th, 2008 at 6:54 am
Surley its worse to get divorced when your married seeing as it is a “holy” union than to have a gay couple get married.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:54 am
bucslim- where the f*** are you when it’s 3 a.m. CST and I’m at work looking for conversation? We could have had this whole thing wrapped up by now. Now I gotta down beers and smokes to keep awake while I figure out what the latest beef is.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:56 am
I think if they were to simply just change the name of it all then more people would be happy…because you know now a days if you say one thing wrong you are evil. Getting fired from your job is a common occurance if you say something that some one does not agree with. Damn liberals….lol
June 19th, 2008 at 6:58 am
Mona; You seem to be calling a lot of people who disagree with your viewpoint ignorant. Just food for thought.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:59 am
jasontimmer;
I do believe you just took the lead for funniest comment. Although in all fairness Kiwi-boi is a close second.
Antonius Pius: I second the curse.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:00 am
third
June 19th, 2008 at 7:02 am
Mom424, I was raised roman catholic as well. At the age of 12 my parents told me I could chose any religion I wanted. I chose none. But they insisted that I took a “moral” class, morals teaching without any religion attached to it, which I followed until the age of 20. I will always be geatful to my parents for the opportunity. I don’t think I would be as tolerant as I’m nowadays if I had chosen a religion.
Also, I grew up with a gay boy, he’s still my best male friend after 30 years, he’s so happy with his “husband” and I’m happy for him. My boss is gay as well, she is the sweetest, smartest funniest person I have ever worked for. She has been with her girlfriend for over 25 years. Her girlfriend is a reknowned college professor. They are very respectable individuals and it makes me sick when people confuse gay with perverts.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:03 am
I don’t see why not. I think gay marriage should be legal, because love can come in many different forms.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:04 am
I certainly don’t think peoples values should be government regulated, government approved
green – and neither do I.
Did you read the post I was responding to (#88)? The guy was saying that those who oppose gay marriage “need to control things that wont even affect them in any way.” The child-labour and seal-clubbing things were (probably weak) examples of where people do and, in many cases should get involved where there may be no direct effect on them. ie. illustrating that his point about “control” can cut both ways.
I went on to explain that my view about gay marriage is nothing to do with wanting to “control” a minority, but is founded in my values and beliefs.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:07 am
green #173 – so if I believe it’s ok to steal then by your logic the government shouldn’t make a law against it?
News flash – moral values have been legislated.
jasontimmer – at 3 am I’m usually explaining to whoever I’m with that I have to get up early to go to work and that I’ll definitely call them for another encounter.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:07 am
People should be able to marry whomever they wish! Besides the sanctity of marriage has been lost for some time now. I believe some of the polititcians who push against gay marriage are the same who most likely questioned their sexuality when they were younger and were forced to conform and are now resntfull because of it. Just like that hardcore christian guy who got caught with thay gay prostitute. its rediculous, let people live their own lives and make their own choices.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:07 am
Mona- It makes me sick to hear that your boss has been with her girlfriend for 25 years. They should be long since married by now. I’ve been with my girl for 2 years and already she’s looking for a diamond. As I said before, this nation needs something more important to bitch about.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:10 am
Mom424- so now I’m the Rodney Dangerfield of the listverse. The dude said I was the funniest, I tell ya, I don’t get any respect.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:10 am
bucslim- we all know that moral issues have been legislated, like theft and murder. These issues go along with our constitution that states that we all have rights as long as we do not infringe on others’ rights. Murder and theft are obvious examples of infringing on others’ rights. I fail to see how gay marriage does this
June 19th, 2008 at 7:10 am
Bucslim- but you said “up all night”! I need a debater to oppose in the wee hours! Give me your number, I’ll bitch you out @ any time. Love!
June 19th, 2008 at 7:11 am
everyone, lay off Bucslim and his mom. If I fail with Kiwiboi’s mom, Bucslim’s is next on my list.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:14 am
APinTN- I would say that theft and murder go further than moral issues. These are issues that threaten the productivity of humanity. I don’t think homosexuality fits such a classification. While gays can’t reproduce, their marriage likely will extend their lives, and if they adopt, may well raise thoughtful, productive children.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:15 am
I’m okay with Gay Marriage. What I’m NOT okay with is people thinking that you are born gay. I know two sets of Identical twins…one of each of the twins is gay and the other is not. Now, if the are Identical, please explain to me why they are not both gay or both straight if you are “Born Gay”? I think it is a learned behavior or preference.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:16 am
kiwiboi- I have to admit that I came into this one late, and hadn’t read all the previous posts- and missunderstood your intentions.
Buc- yes, and people should be allowed to murder… NO!!! You can’t legislate morality or values until you are hurting others with your actions: no stealing because others are hurt; I thought everyone on this site would be at least intelligent enough to realize that was what I meant
June 19th, 2008 at 7:17 am
195. Marykerbie
Because identical twins do have different traits physically…
And like I said…please read more before you form an opinion.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815538,00.html
June 19th, 2008 at 7:19 am
kiwiboi- I have to admit that I came into this one late, and hadn’t read all the previous posts- and missunderstood your intentions.
green – no prob. I’m often misunderstood
June 19th, 2008 at 7:19 am
I am defiantly for gay marriage! i just don’t think it should be allowed in a church
June 19th, 2008 at 7:22 am
I stopped reading the comments at about comment 102.
marriage is a civil union between two individuals to ‘declare’ them “off the market”. it is to be a ceremonial symbol of their attentions and devotion to one another. I know many gay couples (male) that are in open relationships… and a few of the guys have been together for over 30 years!
what is this “what next? marry your dog?” crap?
how does the love between two human beings, regardless of sexual orientation, have any metaphor or comparison with bestiality? sounds like the old back-water Christian ideal that sodomy is equal to other “sexual perversions”. (personal TMI fact: the first guy who, uhm, tried to get me into anal sex was a youth pastor at the church I attended when I was 15 and he was 23!)
I wish I could remember where I read it-maybe an atheist website? one of my many skeptical books? but it was said that the reason Christians and religious groups shun those of outward homosexuality is because “God would therefore punish the entire community, such as the old testament tyrant of a God destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah” didn’t Pat Roberts say that the reason God sent Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans was because Ellen Degeneres had a home there? I mean, c’mon. Seems to me human beings do a far better job of causing their own demise than any outward forces of nature.
also, the statement that “it’s not natural” is extremely false. Not only do a great many animal species use same-sex mating or behaviors to establish hierarchies in social groups, it is used for bonding and even, in such species as dolphins & bonoboes, as a means of obvious pleasure!(which reinforces bonds) when I worked on a horse breeding farm, i personally witnessed a stallion mount and anally penetrate a gelding with what can only by described as consenting actions from the gelding described.
please reference the books:
Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl
and
Homosexual Behaviour in Animals: An Evolutionary Perspective by Volker Sommer
both books are astonishing and I enjoyed the format and the way the information and direct observations, both in captive & ‘natural’ environments.
rtr
June 19th, 2008 at 7:22 am
jasontimmer- i completely agree. actually i said in comment #139 that i am gay myself and am whole heartedly pro-gay marriage. And I also agree that theft and murder go beyond morality, but in my opinion so does homosexuality. Since I didnt choose to be gay, I dont understand how it is a question of morality as much as an understanding by ignorant people. (and yes I know the definition of ignorant and i am not calling names, i am stating the fact that many people are unaware of the reality of homosexuality)
June 19th, 2008 at 7:22 am
jasontimmer – I am a master debater, so you’re set there.
green – I’m really not that smart, I just say stupid things to upset the intelligencia here at the ‘verse. But at least I know enough about grammar and sentence structure not to write something as inarticulate as:
“You can’t legislate morality or values until you are hurting others with your actions:”
er . . . uhh, huh?
June 19th, 2008 at 7:23 am
Marykerbie- if it is a learned behavior then why wouldn’t both twins have learned the same behavior? Presumably they were brought up the same. Also, what about siblings brought up in the same household with the same morals?
Do you really think gays and lesbians would choose to live a life were their right to love and be loved is constantly called into question? What about the boys in India, Irag, and other countries where you can be hanged for homosexuality? Do they choose?
June 19th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Miriah,
My nanny is a lesbian and with her partner for ten years. Her partner was married for 20 years and had two kids. Some people may have gay traits early on, but some others become “gay” out of preference. You can throw all the scientific garbage at me you want, but alot of “facts of Science” have been debunked or after a few years withdrawn.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:24 am
ringtailroxy- I enjoyed your post. well put.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Love knows no boundaries!
June 19th, 2008 at 7:26 am
that was a great sentence, wasn’t it? I am guilty of typing without proofreading.
You cannot legislate morality or values. You can legislate actions that infringe upont the rights and liberties of other individuals.
better?
June 19th, 2008 at 7:27 am
NO. Gay marriage should not be legal. It isn’t legal in God’s eyes; why should it be legal in the eyes of men (government)?
June 19th, 2008 at 7:29 am
seperation of church and state, Rick. That’s why
June 19th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Marykerbie-
what you have described, the twin scenario, shows what little you know of human behavior. Just because 2 individuals are genetically similar, and even raised in the same household with the same values & rules, does not mean that both siblings will exhibit the same character traits!
many twins don’t share all the same likes and dislikes, because, no matter how you slice it, we all have individual personalities that are formed within the womb. why do i think this is so? because i have seen ultrasounds on pregnant mammals and some fetuses actually exhibit such behaviors as being more dominant and pushy in the womb.. and show those characteristics immediately after birth!
there is a foolhardy craze now to “clone’ pets. I find this not only highly disturbing, but an obvious proof of man’s selfishness.
Just because you can clone your dead dog does not meant that the new dog will have the same personality and behaviors as the deceased one! The reason is that the life experiences that you shared with the former pet will NEVER EVER be repeated again, no matter how hard you try! Your life was different 15 years ago, and the way your mannerisms and the way you think grows and changes as well. not to mention that the amount of $$$ spent on cloning a dog could not only adopt an animal on death row in a shelter, if you where to donate the $10,000 you would spend on a clone could save substantially more animals in the shelter that desperately need help!
rtr
June 19th, 2008 at 7:29 am
hello all.
this is my first comment here, so be nice.
i support anyone’s right to marry and have the benefits our society gives for such unions. as for the view of the religious, i view most religions as clubs. they have their rules and their jargon and their secret handshakes. it is ridculous that these “clubs” get to dictate anything to anyone beyond their members and their buildings. if a gay couple wants a religion to accept their marriage then the couple should work with them. what i want to know is: where are all those “defenders of the sanctity of marriage” when tv shows like “marry a millionaire” or drivel like that pop up on screen??? defend marriage where it is most threatened.
if i repeated anyone’s comment, please forgive i didn’t read all of the others. most of them, though.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:30 am
For the Bible Tells me so is an interesting documntary which refutes religious arguments against homosexuality. It taks the verses from the bible and puts them into context to show the bible never calls homosexuality a sin. people have posted it on youtube in segments, the whole thing is about 90 minutes long. I highly reccomend it whether you do or don’t support gay lifestyles. It gave me new insights.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:30 am
OK on the whole issue of nature vs. nuture to determine sexuality…personally I believe it’s nature, because I didn’t consciously choose to be heterosexual, but who cares how you decide it? If someone is homosexual, whether by biology or choice, what difference does it make? Regardless of sexual preference we’re all human beings and are thus entitled to the same rights. True, the governments cannot regulate which churches recognize gay marriage-nor should they be able to, due to the separation of church and state. But the government itself should have to recognize gay marriage, because homosexuals are citizens of the nation just like heterosexuals and are therefore entitled to the same protection under our (supposedly) secular laws.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:31 am
” Some people may have gay traits early on, but some others become “gay” out of preference.”
Why, like Green said in 203, would someone choose to be gay when the majority of the people around them shun them? That would mean they are choosing to potentially loose thier familes and friends so that they can have sex with someone of the same sex. I dont know about you..but that sounds kind of iggnorant to say. I want you to go find a gay person that woke up one day and said “I think I will be gay now”. Im positive that every homosexual person you talk to will tell you that they felt those urges as a child.
And if it was a learned trait..again, like green said, why wouldnt every child in a home be gay? Or every child in a home be goth, or catholic?
June 19th, 2008 at 7:32 am
Gay and love are not the same thing. Holy hell! Gay is a choice, a consious decision! Not a birth defect or transmutable disease. Its a choice people. so is love. choose who you love.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:34 am
ringtail – we are not animals. Animal behavior shouldnt apply.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Oh…forgot to address this part as well
“My nanny is a lesbian and with her partner for ten years. Her partner was married for 20 years and had two kids.”
Ever think she was bi-sexual and fell in love with a man first? Then she found a woman who she also fell in love with?
June 19th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Hey… I’m so happily canadian.
BUT did anyone ever consider the fact that this whole gay marriage debate is distracting people from rioting about the gas prices or the war or the rising cost of everything. its so easy to be pissed about whether or not gays can marry (which who cares, let them do it if they want it!) but no one seems to be truly discussing this that are affecting us in a extremely significant way. Ever seen the movie Wag the Dog?
June 19th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Mona:
That was the silliest post I have ever had directed to me.
The tendancy of people to engage in 3 second analysis is absurd at minimum, and quite possibly rude.
That you can, in any way, ‘feel in my comments’ anything about my relationships are beneath discussion.
I was not raised as a Roman Catholic and as such I was not taught some Papal Moral Code. Perhaps if we have some cultural similarity your assesment may be valid, but my cultural background negates any concept of ‘fault’.
It is also very presumptuous of you to use the word ‘wife’ or ’spouse’ when refering to the mother of my child.
Mona: Please apologize for your post directed at me.
It is interesting to read about your gay friends. I heard similar comments from liberal white folk who turned their back on the marchers of Selma, Alabama. And while I know that you would never turn your back on your gay friends, these “some of my best friends are…” brings back so many memories.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:37 am
Green,
How convenient.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:38 am
green – I’m really not trying to goad you or anything like that and I’m pretty sure I get what you’re trying to say. I think you need to re-read your second post though – should be ‘You can’t legislate actions that infringe . . .”
My beef here is that sickening catch phrase about not legislating morality and values, when in fact laws are based on basic values we all share. Of course it’s obvious that stealing and murder are wrong. My friend, those are MORALS and VALUES. And they have indeed been legislated. Where we differ here and because we’re over 200 posts is that some see homosexuality as immoral and some do not.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Rick- if it isn’t legal in “gods eyes” then why are there so many gay animals? I have a suspicion that you have no idea what god’s plan is.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Miriah; or more likely, married the guy because she denied the fact that she was gay. 20+ years ago people got married because it was expected of them. Proclaiming your sexuality was not a practical option in most communities. Get married or stay single. Those were the options. (Except for the two unmarried lesbian school teachers I knew, both now deceased, and they were extremely careful. No outward physical signs of affection. Ever.)
June 19th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Wow. The people in this thread seem to be WAY more enlightened than the “Climate Change Is A Hoax” yahoos on the previous topic. Nice change!
But this one really is a no-brainer. Government should not be interested in sexual orientation. To think that “marriage” somehow has a one man/one woman definition is silliness. This is only propagated by small-minded people who are somehow threatened by the existence of homosexuals. People are born straight or homosexual and should all have the same rights and privileges.
End of story.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Science has also shown that some people are predisposed to addiction. They still make a CHOICE on whether to actually become an addict or not.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:42 am
actually, I meant you CAN legislate actions that infringe on others rights (as in murder, rape, theft)
The difference is: do we legislate all moral values? I think it is my moral responsibility to offer my seat on the bus to an older person- should we sign that into law if majority agrees? NO
June 19th, 2008 at 7:43 am
Yes Mom, I know 2 gay men who married women to hide it from thier families due to how religious thier familes were. Its quite sad that people feel so uncomfortable with thier feelings that they cant even tell thier parents.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:44 am
Homo’s are sick and twisted people. I have been around them in N.O. to see that they aren’t happy, aren’t monogamous, diseased and will die a horrible death and they are morally corrupt. If anyone thinks that good can come of that you are stupid. Who in their right mind enjoys having their guts ripped out because their butt isn’t designed to have a pole shoved up it? They can’t control their bowls because their sphincter is ripped to hell and this is normal? They give each other AIDS and you want your children around those kinds of disease carriers? You call that love? They are spiritually dead, given over to a reprobate mind. They are not born as such but because they live a life contrary to God he gives them over to their sin. The answer is in the bible several times If you will read it. The bible is a record of mans history of 6000 years and you can clearly see what works and what doesn’t. God says homo’s are an abomination to him. That what I call “it don’t work like that!”
June 19th, 2008 at 7:44 am
God? Men? Government? So it’s all in the same bag to you? What is legal in God’s eye is God’s own business, don’t put men and government up there with your Holy Maker. And that comes from a person who has no religion. Listen to yourself. Do you have a tape recorder? If you do, record yourself, play it back then weep. You will learn that YOU are insignificant in the eyes of god, men or even the government.
XOXO
Mona
June 19th, 2008 at 7:45 am
Mary- you would rather a gay or lesbian feel the desires for a member of their own sex and never act, live a lie?
June 19th, 2008 at 7:45 am
Marykerbie- people are predisposed to addiction and therefore if they do something that is addictive they are very likely to become addicted- choice in this case- taking the addictive substance
being “predisposed” to homosexuality means that when you hit puberty you are “predisposed” to get awkward erections from you male teacher instead of from the hot girls in your class (personal experience)- choice in this case- coming out of the closet
June 19th, 2008 at 7:45 am
Mona: I agree with StevenH. You do owe him an apology. He was illustrating the best way to make it legal. I can in no way find where he appeared tortured by his kids sexuality. Worried? of course. It makes life that much more difficult – as if it isn’t tough enough already.
I think maybe you mis-read his comment. I have been guilty of the same thing. See post #134.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:46 am
Jason,
Sorry you feel that way. I have the same suspicion about you.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:47 am
@Tempyra (#44) I couldn’t agree more.
Personally I feel that a government should be moral and as I view morality as being defined by God and not any particular religious institution, society, or culture then I would say that a government’s laws should be in harmony with God’s law.
That said, its also obvious that our government is not moral, in fact, in order to prevent other atrocities that had previously occurred the American Government was established in a manner that was simply devoid of any particular moral system. I don’t think its very fair that other issues of morality like adultery or divorce are not dealt with by our legal system while we are also trying to use morality as a cloak for preventing homosexual unions.
Like Tempyra and others I’m sure, I feel that we ought to redefine the role of government in ‘marriage’. Its obviously a loaded term because its steeped in religious history and culture. Why not just make it so that government’s provide civil unions with equal rights and protections to any who desire one? Then if you want to get married, go to your church.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:47 am
my answer is … yes.
Marriage is tough. If a same-sex couple thinks they can handle it – great for them.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Larry- your comment is sick, and you are a biggot. People like you make me weep for this country. God save your soul
June 19th, 2008 at 7:48 am
larry- ever heard of porn stars? Jenna Jamison for one- she most likely doesnt have very good bowel control either and that was from the poles shoved into her (that means hetero-sex) and i dont even want to limit that to porn stars – try anyone who has ever had anal sex
June 19th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Marykerbie; Please read comment #131 and then explain to me how that is a choice.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:50 am
mom; about those teachers, thats so sweet. I have a pair of aunts that were just able to get married a few years ago. They had been together for over 20 years. I feel like this discussion makes me feel really patriotic. (WOO canada)
June 19th, 2008 at 7:50 am
226. Larry
Wow, who are you calling stupid? Are you stuck in the 80’s mentality that AIDS is a gay diease who are perverts? What about the straight people who have anal? LOL…sorry…I love the iggnorance of the modern humanity
June 19th, 2008 at 7:50 am
Kiwiboi: I think you were right in one respect- homosexual marriage, in the grand scheme of things, has very little to do with the unraveling of family and community values. And I do think that family values should be of the utmost concern to everyone in every corner of the world. And by family values, I mean the focus on the growth and nurturing of our children, in every aspect of their lives- education, health, confidence, manners, etc. There is nothing more important.
The concept that I oppose is that of “traditional” family values. What tradition? The one where the daddy works 9-5, mommy stays home in her apron baking apple pie, all the while the children go to school and do their homework? Worked for Wally and the Beav, didn’t it?
Unfortunately, that family only existed on TV. We have a tendency to glorify the past, especially when we see shows like “Leave it to Beaver” and such. What they didn’t show was the misogyny, racism, intolerance, and abuse that were prevalent at the time. I like to think we as a society are progressing from those days. And if we’re not, then we should be.
So why can’t Ward and June be replaced by Dick and Bob? Are gay couples incapable of caring for and nurturing their adoptive children (whom they must fight for and truly want)?
To quote myself: “And by family values, I mean the focus on the growth and nurturing of our children, in every aspect of their lives- education, health, confidence, manners, etc.” Give Dick and Bob a chance.
Or you could go back to the good ol’ days of intolerance and ban gay marriage. Unless you are homophobic, which you are not, then this will not bring you any closer to the society you desire.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Huh! Larry? Are you describing your life experience? Just because one gay guy gave you the clap doesn’t mean that all gay guys are diseased. You just got one bad apple, it doesn’t mean anything
XOXO
Mona
June 19th, 2008 at 7:52 am
There’s a little thing called seperation of church and state. America isn’t the land of the free it you’re christian, it’s just the land of the free. Everyone has the right to be with who they love. Who cares if they piss off the bible belt…those people need to be knocked down a few pegs off their heavenly throne anyway.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:52 am
OK, I guess when the conversation turns to ‘poles’ being shoved it’s time for me to leave.
Another reason those in Jr. High should be in school the whole year long. You people just slay me.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Green, No not at all, If you fall in love with someone of the same sex, more power to you. I’m not against gay relationships at all. Like I said earlier, My nanny is a lesbian and I have known several other gay couples. What I’m against is people believing you are born that way. I wasn’t born with a southern accent. It was a learned accent. I wasn’t born to love fried chicken, It was a learned taste.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Chicken and accents are SO NOT the same thing….Christ!
June 19th, 2008 at 7:56 am
and I wasn’t born straight, I just decided to be. Aren’t I lucky- oh I mean didn’t I make the right choice
June 19th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Marykerbie: And my aunts gay bull? How did it learn to be gay? or the male cat that I had that tried to nurse the babies?
Your assertion is a big fail. Or the family with 6 kids, and one of them learned to be gay?
Baloney.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Rick – who says it is not legal in god’s eyes? a “factual” book written by sheep herders 2000 years ago? Evolve!
June 19th, 2008 at 8:01 am
I hope that this fundamental discussion of the meaning of heterosexual love and the union of two persons will lead many to seek a deeper truth than they have heretofore discovered. I am sure many commenters believe in the existence of God, the Prime Mover, the First Cause, the Supreme Being possessing infinite perfections. One of those perfections is Truth. It follows therefore that God is the Objective Standard of all Truth, He gives all things meaning, and only through Him can human beings grasp the true meaning of existence. One may argue that collective humanity does create standards outside of its individuals, and that is correct. However, if those standards are not in accordance with the Natural and Moral Laws created by God, those standards lead to exploitation, destruction and despair.
It is because humanity began to reject Absolute Truth in favor of individual “truths” during the Late Middle Ages, and fully rejected Him during the Enlightenment that we are now caught in the trap of relativism when we attempt to pursue “truth” in any matter. Having denied the existence of Absolute Truth, people gradually denied the existence of any earthly authority so that most people now believe that “what’s true for you is not necessarily true for me.” Every question or argument leads to relativism, then meaninglessness and ultimately, chaos. Because we refuse to accept any truth other than our own, we can give nothing meaning beyond our own perceptions. If there is no God, then our own confused ramblings are the ultimate philosophy. Even the philosophy of a mentally disturbed human is as worthy as that of a brilliant Doctor of Philosophy, because there is no objective standard of perfect truth outside our own minds. Of course that means there is no such thing as “ultimate” or “worthy” either, because in order to make real comparisons, society must accept a common standard.
As truth has no meaning outside God, humanity is also without meaning. There is no reason to think, and likewise there is no reason to be. Homosexual or heterosexual, marry or don’t, it doesn’t matter because marriage means nothing, and human relationships mean nothing. As one can see plainly from the “it doesn’t matter” opinions of most commenters, Western humanity is embracing meaninglessness as its common standard! “Gay marriage” is meaningless. There is no marriage. There is no physical and spiritual union.
God’s first covenant with humanity was before the Fall, when the first Man and first Woman were joined together in the first “marriage.” Of course there have been other “loves” between persons from the beginning of time, both wholesome and disordered. But marriage between man and woman is the first and only love which God made holy through a sacrament and physical union. Does that mean heterosexual love is the greatest love possible between two human beings? No. But it is the only love which is capable of uniting to create a new human being. God created the first humans complementary, as Man and Woman. God made their love life-giving. That was His definition of marriage from the beginning, not mankind’s. He did not define the love (which is not a physical union) between two males or two females to mean the same thing.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:02 am
That is what is great about having opinions. Not everyone agrees with you and that makes for great debates. Got to get to work!
June 19th, 2008 at 8:03 am
#208; I always thought God encouraged us to love everyone for who they are…and since when should religion have any say on the government? We live in a democracy, not a theocracy. I personally believe that marriage should be legal between any two consenting adults, provided that they are old enough. Race, gender, wealth, religion; none of that should ever matter when it comes to two people declaring their love for eachother.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Well too bad that opinion is not an opinion. Chicken and homosexuality is hardly the same thing….lol
June 19th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Mom424, “I agree with StevenH. You do owe him an apology.”
He sounded like a gay basher to me. Maybe I did mis-read his comment.I will apologize to him if he asked me to (in a NY minute!). But as far as you are concerned, you are not, hmm, concerned.Get it?
June 19th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Alex – I whole-heartedly agree with you!
June 19th, 2008 at 8:08 am
DLK… shut up
June 19th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Marykerbie/ Miriah- I just wanted to throw this in there. Either way you believe (born into or learned thought)- where does your taste for chicken come from? Why does one twin like lima beans and the other one not? Were they born liking the taste or did they aqcuire it? Either way it is a natural coming on of a like of dislike that has nothing to do with choice.
I personally think that one is born with it, but I just thought that I would ask that. Are you born to like chicken or do you learn to? because I know a few people that arent very fond of chicken no matter how much they eat it
June 19th, 2008 at 8:09 am
Bottom line:
If you have a problem with gay marriage, you’re a fucking idiot.
Religion is the downfall of humanity.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:11 am
225.
“because I know a few people that arent very fond of chicken no matter how much they eat it”
Thus…not learned
June 19th, 2008 at 8:12 am
APinTN- I was born with an aversion to fruit: apples, pears, bananas. Never liked it, I would throw it across the room as a baby. I stopped trying it after a while. Everyone else in my family eats fruit.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:14 am
“Religion is the downfall of humanity” – I love it! Thank you.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Yes. It should be legal.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:15 am
If you go for the entire marriage is a Christian institute, then what do all the others religions do? Are you saying my parents aren’t married because they’re Hindu? Everyone should be able to be married, and they should have a choice whether to make it religious or not. Forgive me if I’m making some mistake; I’m not that familiar with the Christian religion. And the only reason people find homosexuality wrong is because it’s something different from what they’re used to. And there’s nothing gross about them holding handas or kissing or having sex. We’re just used to having a man and a woman in a relationship. If most people were homosexual, chances are some would find the thought or sight of a man and a woman kissing or showing affection disgusting. Most people aren’t trying to shove an homosexual agenda down you throats. We’re just trying to make things fair for everyone.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:20 am
252 Mona:
1) I did ask you to, See #217.
2) I apologize in advance to you for noting that in spite of your saying “I don’t think I would be as tolerant as I’m nowadays if I had chosen a religion.” (see 184) you seem to think that ‘God’ is a somehow something other than a man made fantasy (see 227).
I do not understand – please explain…
June 19th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Rick- sorry, poor argument. You haven’t answered why animals, too, are gay.
I have to sign off now, go to bed. I will go ahead and give myself the last word
: gay marriage is not a threat to anyone. People need to find better things to worry about. Gay marriage is fine.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:23 am
I’m torn on this question, because of far too much personal experience re: friends who were gay, and seeing the horrible aftermath of all kinds of discrimination…not to mention the AIDS factor (yes, I know it’s not directly on-topic, but, by extension, health care for partners, it is).
My undergraduate work put me into a world filled with gay men. They became my friends, some of them became very close friends. I was witness to the discrimination they faced in the world outside of University, even outside our common major.
My grad work continued my exposure to gay men and my attitude, by this time, had already become a non-issue.
My entire career was spent in the company of men, and women, whose sexual orientation was “other”, and usually, for the sake of their career, covered up.
I see both sides of this issue quite clearly.
I just have more personal experience with the gay community than most people do, so my attitude may be a tad skewed.
So.
After all that, I’ve decided not to answer the question.
All of my horror stories are banging about in my brain, along with my 13 years of Roman Catholic schooling, and my personal morals. It’s busy up there right now. This is not a simple “yes or no” question/answer. The ramifications on both sides are complex.
I know what I believe, but it deserves more than I can give it here.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:28 am
I agree, people who bash homosexuality are insecure about their own sexuality. They are afraid and choose to hide behind god. Well, I got news for you, God is LOVE in it’s pure form. God doesn’t instigate intolerance. So quit hiding behind God, you screaming closet cases! And get to live a little.
But yes, as I said earlier, nowadays the medias are shoving gay lifestyles down our throats. And too much of anything is too much.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:30 am
I just want to quote a classmate who during a discussion on gay marrige said:
“Maybe if we bully them(gay people) enough they’ll turn straight.”
Thinking like that is sick. Not being gay.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:31 am
i am nost definately not insecure about my own sexuality, Mona, I’m not hiding behind God. Take your theoretical bull shit and eat it.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Larry & others…
it is so amazing how everyone is so worried about everybody else and what they do as consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes or cars or forest preserves! what makes anal sex so repulsive to some people? i have never understood that…
(TMI WARNING!TMI WARNING)
I am a female, in her 30’s, and I have a very satisfying sex life with my long-term boyfriend. i don’t have any loss of control of my bowels or AIDS from having anal sex throughout my life. Not only do I enjoy it, i have found that such an intimate sex act reaffirms our trust, sensitivity, and bond.
(WARNING OVER! WARNING OVER!)
The problem is that too many people have a deluded and biased image of sex and what is acceptable as sexual expression. If it feels pleasant, exciting, and a little naughty, what is the big deal so long as both participants are happy and trusting of one another? So what if some people like to be tied up and whipped or tickled by feathers, swap partners with swingers, attend fetish parties, and generally explore the wonders of human sexuality? as much as I cringe to say this, we, above all other species, appear to have the most creativity in our sexual desires… because, after all, the largest sex organ we have is our BRAINS.
Sure it might be unusual for some people-and not everybody is as comfortable with their bodies, partners, or sexuality to completely immerse themselves in such “carnal pleasures”.
This is why early papal decrees during the middle ages prohibited such behaviors… because the church felt that if people where busy fornicating and discovering the pleasures of the flesh that they would be distracted from committing themselves to the subservience God demanded, therefore keeping the general population under control and setting the stage for such ideas that some people are born, by the grace of God, into higher positions and others, born into poverty by a vengeful God to serve early Lords, Dukes, and Kings.
*sigh*
just be concerned with your own family, your own life, your own desires, goals and achievements. do your part to promote conservation of resources so other generations might have the same privilege to enjoy the planet as you do. quit worrying about what other people do, unless it DIRECTLY harms you, your family & friends, or the planet and humanity as a whole. life throws enough drama at us without us creating more for ourselves by getting involved in other people’s business…
it’s far easier to take a stand against Gay marriage than to take a stand against the war in Iraq or raising gas prices or the prevalence of nursing home abuse.
it is time this country stopped supporting special interest groups and their agendas and began to look at everybody’s individuals rights as sentient, capable beings and support those freedoms above all else. and yes, this means that i support anyone’s right to NOT support Gay Marriage. but I do not support any right to force others to conform to your way of thinking. express yourself-condemn if you must-but do not allow the government to judge for you and us what is moral or ethical. we are all capable of deciding for ourselves what those are!
gay marriage, and the raising of children by gay couples, will not dissolve heterosexual marriage. that’s obvious enough in the statistic that 50% of all marriage end in divorce. half. and that was happening long before any gay marriage ideas where mainstream. why does this happen?
because a great many back-water, uneducated people still feel that if a young woman get accidentally pregnant, the only solution is for the two people involved to get married. back in the earlier chapters of American history, this worked well, even if couples began to despise one another, because it was such a social blemish to be divorced. many Christians felt that divorce was an abomination and shunned those who did it. (especially females-it was almost seen as a defect that a woman couldn’t keep her man happy… even if he beat her or got drunk all the time or whatever)
as with any oppressive social belief, this has been generally abandoned and now personal happiness, is, as it always should have been, the goal of our lives. Not to condemn others, not to remove those we dislike, but of our own rights to pursue the things and achievement that bring us satisfaction. (without harming others or the planet)
gotta go clean house now. crazy sex last night left the living room in shambles…
rtr
June 19th, 2008 at 8:33 am
ringtailroxy: I think you needed a warning for that last sentence too
June 19th, 2008 at 8:34 am
oops… apologies all around…
rtr
June 19th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Uhh, first off, the people of California voted AGAINST gay marriage yet our retarded government goes ahead and allows it. If the people vote against it then it shouldn’t be legal, period. If you’re religious at all either, it specifically says that a man shall not lie with another man. And people are not born gay. I have a couple gay friends and one even said she was heterosexual up until after high school and then just decided she liked chicks better. It’s a preference.
And here’s my argument for it…pedophiles. The majority of people are against it but there are a lot of pedophiles out there so it’s ok cause they were born being pedophiles? If an older man wanted to marry a 10 year old boy it would be ok?! So when all the pedophiles protest out in the street we should accept their way of life?
June 19th, 2008 at 8:37 am
CAUTION: The following response is dripping with sarcasm.
Ravthewave,
Oh, YES! I see it now! Your brilliant argument has led me and a billion other people to recant our faith! Wow! You ought to be a motivational speaker! You’re incredible! I never considered it was just the words of simple sheep herders!
Chris (#266),
What an astute observation! You might just win a Nobel Prize with that one!
(If you need to, you can go to http://www.merriam-webster.com/ to look up those big words. You might even find some alternate colorful modifiers to use to expand your own vocabulary!)
I’m outta here.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:37 am
My view: No, I do not think it should be legal. /end
June 19th, 2008 at 8:40 am
ringtail, thanks for that, I think I just went through puberty again.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:40 am
You people are retarded.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:41 am
A recent neurological study (June 16th, actually):
“Brain scans have provided the most compelling evidence yet that being gay or straight is a BIOLOGICALLY FIXED TRAIT.
“The scans reveal that in gay people, key structures of the brain governing emotion, mood, anxiety and aggressiveness resemble those in straight people of the opposite sex.
!!!—>”The differences are likely to have been forged in the womb or in early infancy…”
June 19th, 2008 at 8:42 am
I miss MPW…I need lovin
June 19th, 2008 at 8:43 am
well dang, WordPress cut my comment short.
I had linked to the actual article, so here it goes again:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
June 19th, 2008 at 8:43 am
sorry mona…unnecessary on my behalf. lol.
i just dont believe you. lol
mwah…
June 19th, 2008 at 8:49 am
bucslim-
if you are being facetious, than i have accomplished my goal here today. sex is supposed to be fun, no matter what your preference is. and what people do, gay or straight, it is acceptable, so long as no one is taken advantage of, abused, degraded without consent, or harmed .
pedophilia? no, it hurts future adults. bestiality? no, it hurts animals.
plus, like Kiwiboi, Randall, and rushfan, I have found your regular commentary ion these lists engaging, enlightening, and entertaining. why the hell couldn’t i have met individuals like ya’ll when i was a younger, cuter, more naive little kreachure?
ring-a-din-ding roxy
June 19th, 2008 at 8:50 am
B_rad… the pedophile arguement doesnt work in the same way the ‘what if they try to marry animals arguement’ due to the 2 consenting adults thing. its not okay for a adult man to marry a 10 year old girl either.
As far as the nature and nurture thing goes, has anyone ever considered that some are born with it and some learn it?
June 19th, 2008 at 8:51 am
“gay marriage, and the raising of children by gay couples, will not dissolve heterosexual marriage. that’s obvious enough in the statistic that 50% of all marriage end in divorce. half. and that was happening long before any gay marriage ideas where mainstream. why does this happen?”
This statistic is so ridiculous yet everyone always uses it to make a silly claim about marriage between heterosexuals. You have to understand that your “50% of all marriage end in divorce” statement is completely inaccurate. That 50% is made up of the same people who get married and divorced over and over…it’s the same people!!! It’s more like only 10 – 15% of FIRST TIME marriages end in divorce. And then again, you gotta look at populations like in L.A. and New York where there are a lot of people who marry a lot which skews the % even more.
I just really hate when people throw that statistic out there so blindly.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:52 am
I CNAT BELIEVE THIS!
I just had a debate about this in class and i was on the Agree side, meaning that they should get married, and (as people are talking about it) adopt.
Nowadays you have to go through a whole list of things that you have to be in order to adopt, and yet we (Britian, and i am guessing America, Canada and Oceania) need more people to adopt.
Like said before, would you stop an infertile couple not adopt, or an old couple?
We isn’t it the reason for adopting, when you are not able to have kinds, and i also agree with what is said consistantly above.
You CANT help who you love, and you are born gay, when you are gay (I just read what i wortew and i just thought DUH!!??!!)
Also, what is the meaning of natural, becuase as far as i know, there have been homosexuality for as long as there have been human, private parts shouldn’t get in the way of this, and nor should that fact that you can’t have kids.
It’s unfortunate that a lot of people think it is worng, or maybe it is just thier religion talking for them, and being a christian myself, and can say that i am able enough to talk for myself and stand up for what is right, or what may seem wrong for some people!
just think about it! =]
xx
June 19th, 2008 at 8:53 am
cant, btw!
(i am talking about the second word there =])
June 19th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Larry 226. You are so out of line. People with HIV or AIDS in some countries in Africa have sex with virgins (rape) because they believe it will heal them. They are as ignorant as you are. Get a life. Look around you. See the world. Meet people. Get your fool head out of your ass and stop worrying about what other people have up theirs. It is none of your business. And I’m sure if a girl said to you that you can’t f*ck her pussy cuz she wants to keep her “virginity” but you could f*ck her ass, you would jump at the chance. In a New York minute.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Are you remotely interested in knowing how the Christian community is blogging about this? If not, fine. Just don’t go there. Personally, I found it to be interesting.
http://kevinbussey.com/2008/06/19/will-gay-rights-trample-religious-freedom/
I’ll not be responding to any comments. I just wanted to post this link.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:56 am
I never said the child wouldn’t be consenting. Look at the kids in school hooking up with teachers. Everyone is aghast when that happens. And you can’t compare my argument with the marry an animal argument cause animals aren’t human! It’s completely different! You’re comparing apples to oranges.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:56 am
ringtail, keep talking like that and I’ll actually have to come in your house instead of just outside your window at night.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Two things I must admit before I go on. One: I haven’t read all the posted comments (I read the first one hundred, refreshed the page, and found another hundred waiting for me). Two: I have a very biased opinion, since this issue hits very close to home.
I don’t believe that being homosexual is “learned”, and I’ll tell you why: I grew up in a family of seven children. Four sisters, an elder brother, and my dear twin, Haydn. All of my elder siblings are now married and popping out children like the good little heterosexuals they are. I, myself, have a young son. My twin? Well, I suppose you could say he’s a man’s man. In all senses. How has he managed to learn something which six people before him haven’t? Are you (people who say it is learned) implying homosexuals are more intelligent? Because if you are, based on some of the previous posts, I would have to agree!
I love my brother. My whole family loves my brother. He is the kindest, most gentle, unassuming person one could ever meet. He is not “diseased” or “promiscuous”. He is not a “fairy” — he could kick many a straight man’s arse on the soccer pitch, and he has. He doesn’t throw his sexuality into anyone else’s face. In fact, I’ve yet to see him and his partner do so much as bump shoulders, so discreet are they with their relationship. To all intent and purpose, he is the most normal person I have met (certainly more normal than me!), and yet he is denied things I will forever take for granted, because of who he loves. This, obviously, I find to be ridiculous.
I’m not a religious person, I didn’t grow up with religion in my home, so I will never understand what is so immmoral about falling in love, but in all honesty I don’t WANT to understand, if it will leave me sounding so bigoted and close-minded. My brother’s relationship has never affected me in a negative way, and frankly it’s none of my business who he is with, just like it’s none of his who I decide to marry (if, forces willing, that ever happens).
I’m not attacking those who think homosexuality or same-sex marriage is wrong. I’m simply sticking up for my brother. Try to see it from my point of view: I simply can’t understand why the person I am closest with in all the world is not allowed the same liberties (define that word the way you will) as I have. It boggles my mind.
On a side note, it’s funny how those who say the word “marriage” is defined solely as a union between man and woman don’t seem to bother actually looking it up. Try it, I think you’ll be surprised with what you find.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Well, StevenH, as you mention on post 227, you feel like I should apologize to you. I don’t! But I will anyway. That is how I was raised. Can you please tell me again why I was so rude to you? I read post #227 and it was a little bit all over the place. You said something about me being silly and/or presumptuous? I’m sorry I offended you. I really am. I’m sorry you sounded such like a gay hater. It was my mistake. I’m not sorry your kid is gay, but apparently you are. So please, try to work out your family problems in peace and in private and I will totally shut up about it. That was none of my business. I should not have ever badmouthed you, you know, about your affliction and all,… you know, …gay kid. You have all my sympathy. And I wish you the best in life, like not having a gay kid from not your wife (how presumptuous of me indeed!)
XOXO
Mona
June 19th, 2008 at 9:00 am
B_Rad- the problem with the pedophile argument isnt consent, it is the fact that the child isn’t of proper age to make the decision to marry someone. This is why every state has laws that require a certain age (at the very least 14) for all marriages
June 19th, 2008 at 9:02 am
B_rad i’m saying that beastiality marriage and pedophil marriage are comparable in that you are taking the two consenting adults out of the equation. Children do not have the knowledge or life experience to have such relationships. Adults do. Disagree?
June 19th, 2008 at 9:08 am
roxy: Are you calling my comments naive? Because I would’ve certainly preferred being included in the “engaging, enlightening, and entertaining” category…
So close, yet so far.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Hmmm… I am sad I am just getting in on this at comment 302 – do I somehow not get notified of the new postings?
I personally think the state should be out of marriage all together – *everyone* should be able to have a civil union with the non-related-consenting-adult (did I get all the necessary qualifiers in?) partner of their choice. Marriage, in the church, is separate. If you find a church that is comfortable marrying you, fine, that is between you and your church, and the state should automatically recognise that as a civil union. Then no one is being denied any rights, and no one’s religion’s toes are being trampled on as they are sticking to their spiritual duty only and leaving the paperwork to the bureaucracy as it should be.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:11 am
bucslim:
oh, that’s what all that grunting outside was!
i thought it was ‘possum choking on a mango…
rtr
June 19th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Yes, it should be legal but they way they went about it in California frightens me. When you give the courts more power than the people you’re inviting them to be oppressive.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Rick – Thank you, I appreciate your kind words.
WWFSMD!
-you must not have been touched by his noodly appendage yet.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:16 am
shaunism- what about the people who are currently enjoying benefits from government run marraige? Do you take away their tax breaks or are they grandfathered in.
Also? When someone is dying and they got married in a church, who has legal rights? Their blood relatives or their chosen spouse?
June 19th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Kreachure:
oh-no! the way I wrote that is misleading…
I was referring to my more naive days, and that i was a little creature once… you know… fornicating in the forest and all that fun stuff…
i had simply copied your name and intended to paste it in the same sentence as Kiwiboi, Randall, and rushfan. my bad. further apologies.
here’s a joke we all know-
“How do you know when a blonde has been using the computer?”
There’s white out on the screen!
rtr
June 19th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Robert- when you put it that way, it scares me too.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Green: I don’t mean take away any rights; civil unions should have the full range of rights, obligations & benefits that marriage has now. I just think the religious and secular aspects should be kept separate.
Robert: I think many people who benefited from things like universal suffrage and the ending of separate but equal would agree that sometimes the court has to lead the way with liberties over the people.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:30 am
It should be legal. Those anti-gay-marriage people that claim that it makes God angry or that he doesn’t approve of it…well, do you really think He would make it possible to be gay if it would just make Him angry???
June 19th, 2008 at 9:30 am
ravthewave:
Thank You! for introducing the beloved FSM into an already thoughtful and considered discussion.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Gay marriage should absolutely be legal. I didn’t read all the posts, but here are my responses to the ones I did read.
1. Love and marriage go hand-in-hand. It’s a way of telling the person you love that you’ll be with them forever and then you also get the legal benefits of such. On the same note, I feel that couples who have lived with each other (no matter sexual preference) for a certain amount of time (say 5 years) would also be eligible for the same benefits married couples are.
2. Whether you feel marriage is a religious institution or not, the officiate is the person who decides if they will perform the ceremony or not. You can’t say a priest wouldn’t do it and a judge would, because it would be up to them as individuals.
3. Whether you believe being gay is something you are or something you choose is irrelevant to whether or not you want to marry a person of the same sex or not.
4. I feel the government puts their nose into too much of our business. That said, people should not be allowed to have sex with those underage or animals, etc because it is the government’s job to protect those that cannot protect themselves. If two consenting adults have made a choice to marry, whatever their sex, they should be allowed to do so. It is not hurting either party – the only people it hurts are those who feel the act is wrong, not those involved in the act.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:33 am
B_Rad -
You make an awful comparison between gay marriages and allowing pedophiles to marry children. You may think you’re making a valid point, but you aren’t – how do you compare a personal belief to something that physically harms a child?
Gay marriage does not physically hurt you and does not damage our society any more than it already is – with or without the title of marriage, there will still be homosexual couples. Some would like to have an official title to their relationship, symbolizing a dedication to each other.
If you don’t support gay marriage…well, don’t marry someone of your gender. You can still be just as happy in your religion if your gay neighbor gets married or not – simply put, even if you don’t support it you don’t have to be a jerk about it. Feel free to voice your opinion, but it’s just that – an opinion. Once you start to become violent and harm other people, you’ve become nothing more than a 2-year-old child throwing a temper tantrum.
Oh, and if you think our government is so “retarded,” well…move to a different country.
It’s becoming a part of our culture and it’s not harming anyone physically or mentally (yes there will be the crazy sociopaths no matter what their sexuality so save your argument), which is why it has stayed.
One thing I would like to know, however, so any commentor please feel free to send me any resources….
Marriage pre-dates Christianity. Was it considered a religious ceremony even before Christianity?
June 19th, 2008 at 9:40 am
I find it’s a waste of time making laws. But I am against it because of the health risks (anal cancer, torn rectums, AIDS, suicide, etc), and the fact human bodies are not designed for gay sex. But in the end it’s a waste of time to make laws because it won’t stop anyone.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:41 am
@FifthSonata (#315) – You’re right, Christianity is a relatively young religion and marriage was around a long time before that.
However, if you consider that the Jewish, Islamic, and Muslim religions all reference the Torah (or Old Testament) as scripture then I believe that an argument can easily be made that the first marriage would be generally viewed as that which was performed by God joining Adam and Eve.
I don’t know of any culture that used the term marriage that could predate this reference by the Old Testament. Does anyone else?
June 19th, 2008 at 9:46 am
stevenh – no, thank you for acknowledging the FSM!
The FSM would never be angry with you if you were gay.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:48 am
A copy-paste mistake? TOTALLY believable!
Nah I’m just messing with ya Roxy! We all love you and your saucy ways!
Anyways, I tried to find a quote from an episode of Greek where college freshman Dale (a Southern Baptist nerd) is intent on “curing the gay” out of Calvin (also a freshman), and Calvin plays on. Dale quotes a passage from a book of the bible which according to him says that homosexuality is bad; then Calvin asks Dale if he’s actually read that book of the bible, because it also says that many other things are wrong, such as wearing a shirt with fabric blends (which Dale is). I failed to find such quote, and thus this half-assed retelling.
The point of which is, the Bible says many crazy things about what is right and wrong; that doesn’t mean it’s always right.
Or people would be stoning women to death nowadays, among many other ridiculous things the bible says are okay to do.
PS. GREEK rocks
June 19th, 2008 at 9:58 am
I got to about comment #100 or so before I wanted to comment. So, apologies if it’s been said before.
In the States, and probably other countries, marriage is defined and monitored by the government, specifically the state government, and is no longer empowered by religion. As someone pointed out, atheists marry. Priests, captains, and justices of the peace can marry, so it’s not just the religious.
That being said, it’s mostly the religious now who have issues with gay marriage- and religion has no place in the government.
Yes to gay marriage, if they are two consenting adults. I know it eggs on the question of prostitution (two consenting adults), but further details need to be looked at. Gay marriage is not brought from a cesspool of disease and drugs, like prostitution- and it’s never forced.
317. Islamic and Muslim refers to the same religion. A Muslim is a participant of Islam. And no, they do not use the Torah, they use the Koran.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Seems like nogaymarriages also believes that the clitoris should be illegal and all women should have them removed as the clit has no procreation function.
I’m all for equal rights for homosexual couples. I don’t care whether it’s called a union or a marriage; I just think two people in love who want to legally bind themselves to each other should have the right to in all ways regardless of what’s in their pants.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Why marriage: individuals who want to get married usually do it for religious reasons. The point that concerns me is the redefinition of what marriage and a family is. As far as the gay lifestyle, would the species survive if it was the norm? Also, those who live this lifestyle, particularly males, have a shorter lifespan than heterosexual individual. Finally, if it were such a natural practice, why is a lubricant needed???
June 19th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Mark: you’re against gay sex for a lot of reasons. I won’t slap you in the face about them being applicable to heterosexual couples as well, (okay, anal cancer? Do you mean to say you think only sexually active gay men get prostate cancer? And what about lesbians?) but suicide? Yeah, being gay makes one suicidal. Well maybe, if you feel that way about people who are gay.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:16 am
chersey-(321)
i agree with your stance on gay marriage but disagree with “the clit has no procreation function”
look up a little thing called “vaginal tenting” and the clitoris’ role in sexual arousal. with female orgasm, the strong contractions that occur during clitoral stimulation also allow the uterus to contract as well…
so, if you are a courteous lover, and you and your partner are heterosexual, and climax together, and she is ovulating, the chances of fertilization are greater than if she did not have an orgasm. (of which that amazing little ‘clit’ had a staring role).
human sexuality i sooo interesting…
rtr
June 19th, 2008 at 10:16 am
And sorry people, but I’ve barely read any of this and I’ve already seen it twice: it’s D-E-F-I-N-I-T-E-L-Y. Definitely! Get it right! [/end giant pet peeve]
June 19th, 2008 at 10:27 am
ghost-(322)
during the time of ancient Greece it was ‘the norm’ for men to have male lovers. as a matter of fact, many men where married for the sake of procreation and had male lovers. i read somewhere that the love between two men was more valued than the love between a man and a woman.
also, you show how ignorant you really are.
with our human population at 6.2 billions and counting, it doesn’t seem like the homosexual community has any profound impact on the human population.
especially with those crazy people like the woman in Arkansas giving birth to her 16th child. and she’s only 39. she had her first at the age of 21, 4 years after she was married. that means she was married at 17. and that she spent almost ALL of her adult life either pregant, nursing, or getting pregnant again!
(WARNING! TMI ALERT! WARNING!)
also, as a WOMAN who enjoys an occasional bout of booty-love, lubrication is NOT always needed. that’s what ORAL SEX is for! seriously. yes. call me nasty. call me gross. but if I was single, you’d be calling out my name!
also, heterosexual couples (like me and my boyfriend) use lubrication all the time-makes things more fun, less work, and sometimes, more tasty! (we prefer the fruit flavors…)
rtr
June 19th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Ringtailroxy: I didn’t know that! I’m not if I’ll ever need that info, but it is good to know.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:28 am
*not sure
June 19th, 2008 at 10:37 am
****
#315. FifthSonata
Was it considered a religious ceremony even before Christianity?
****
Of course it was! Every society known to man, that is, every society who left some kind of record of their daily lives, included marriage as some sort of special event. Certainly the Jews have a rich religious history regarding marriage, as do all of the other major religions predating Christianity.
Taking a bit of a leap, since there have been discoveries of “cavemen”
(I hate that term) buried with flowers and trinkets, and some skeletons with healed bones, which would have meant they would have had to be tended to by others for weeks and weeks, gives us the picture of a society already versed in some of the higher ideals of mankind. It isn’t too much of a stretch to imagine some sort of ceremony binding a couple in wedlock.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:42 am
yes, let them get married, simple answer. Nobody should be able to say who you fall in love with except yourself, which is pretty dfficult on its own, nevermind having to deal with legal issues on top of these feelings.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:46 am
It should totally be legal. If 2 men or 2 women love each other, they should have every right that straight couples have, including tax breaks and the like. As for the religious implications, aren’t most religious supposed to be founded in mercy and kindness? Ignorant people have been abusing and twisting religious views to make their own prejudice seem valid. Gays are born gay,it isn’t a choice. I know several gay people who wish everyday they were straight because of the kind of people who are opposed to gay marriage and gays in general. They cannot help being gay any more than I can help being straight. Everyone deserves the right to wake up in the morning and look over and say to themselves “Why the hell did I marry that?!”
June 19th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Give me one non-biased opinion why it should be illegal
June 19th, 2008 at 10:51 am
B_Rad: Where to begin with you! First of all your sample base for your “it’s a preference” conclusion is astoundingly huge! ONE chick you knew in high school. That’s more than enough to draw a conclusion from. Right.
Secondly, as I understand it, the government of the United States, including the court system, exists to protect our inherent rights as human beings, not to satisfy and enforce the will of the majority. I’m sure that the majority of Southerners in 1850 would have voted to keep slavery legal. That doesn’t mean that slavery is right. I’m also sure that the majority of people at the beginning of the 20th century opposed interracial marriage. Again, doesn’t mean they were in the right. I could go on. Tyranny of the majority and such.
The Court in California ruled (as I understand it) that not granting homosexual couples the same rights and privileges as straight couples violates their civil rights as defined by California and United States constitutional law.
And I agree.
I’d love for this issue to be put to rest in America so that we can focus on more important issues. If gay marriage were to be permanently allowed tomorrow, I doubt my life would be at all affected, nor would anyone I know. We’d just see a bunch of smilin’ gay people walking around.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Wow. Showed up late for this party. I just read the vast majority of the above posts (enough to read honorable mentions of your truly) and I must say I’m most impressed with everyone’s honesty. (I’m looking at you ringtailroxy:) )
I personally don’t dwell much on this topic because I have never heard a convincing arguement or had an inclination to believe there’s any reason why gay people shouldn’t be allowed to get married. Of course, I don’t have any religous indoctrinations to overcome, as it sounds like lots of you do. Glad to hear a lot of the old stand-by arguements against gay marriage are still around: God made Adam and Eve…blah…god hates fags…blabity blah…what’s next, let your pedofile nanny get married to your dog?…bleep bloop blop…One thing I think is good for society and this debate is that gay people are represented on TV in a variety of roles, not just stereotypes. I love Jeff Lewis on Flipping Out on Bravo. And how mainstream is Ellen? I betcha even homophobes can’t help but watch her show, albeit in a darkened room rocking back and forth muttering and brushing their dolls hair…
June 19th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Fuck marriage. But yeah, gay marriage should be legalized.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:03 am
although I hate to admit I visit ebaumsworld, I find the de-motivational poster absolutely hilarious! this one in particular…
why am I posting it? because of people like this, it’s okay if a million people are homosexual.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/222937/
rtr
June 19th, 2008 at 11:04 am
opps-that’s supposed to read
“why am I posting it? because of people like this, it’s okay if a HUNDRED million people are homosexual.”
rtr
June 19th, 2008 at 11:07 am
To the statement of: “marriage is inherently religious”… that is dead wrong. All it takes is a quick look at Webster’s Dictionary, and you’ll see that it’s a ‘consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law,’ not by ‘God/Church/Religion/etc.’ The addition of religion to the contract is just that: ‘additional,’ giving a further faith-based association to the relationship between the married individuals.
My personal view is that marriage of any two individuals, regardless of gender, tends to be a good thing. Unless someone can PROVE to me that married people are a detriment to society and to the stability of a nation or people, I am pretty sure that married couples will generally IMPROVE their communities and society as a whole. A family (married or otherwise) should be defined not by X and Y chromosomal relationships, in specific pairings and quantities, but by the fact that caring, loving, responsible and nurturing members join together to help give each other and those around them a better chance at happiness, fulfillment and self-actualization.
I gotta say, I really abhore those who, thorougly narrow-minded in their beliefs and practices, would deny fellow human beings the same rights and privileges that they enjoy.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:08 am
“CK2005……………….just shut the f**k up. you do not know how stupid ypu sound bro. like cmon seriously……..let the guy say wtvr he wants regardless of how stupid it sounds………………just shut up bro…..please”
So let him say stupid things, but don’t say stupid things myself? “Ypu” make a lot of sense! “wtvr” dude! Way to attack me and make no point whatsoever!
Why are there so many of these idiots against homosexuality? I think I just answered my own question.
I personally don’t even want to get married, but if I wanted to I would like to have the same rights that everyone else has. If I fall in love with a girl I can get married, but if I fall in love with someone who has testes I can’t? How does that make any sense? Would you people be happier if they got a sex change?
I’d really love to hear something besides “it doesn’t make babies” and “God said so”. Oh wait, it’s not wrong, so people hide behind that garbage.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:09 am
On The Unhealthy Homosexual Lifestyle
http://www.home60515.com/4.html
June 19th, 2008 at 11:10 am
lol that link says gay people have more cancer
I’m SURE that’s from being gay
June 19th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Also, it baffles me that there are people who sit around going MAN, THERE ARE TWO GUYS MAKING OUT RIGHT NOW, AND THAT PISSES ME OFF. If you don’t like homosexuality, don’t have sex with someone who has genitals like yours, and shut the hell up. If there are two guys doing it on top of you when you wake up on the morning, sure, be upset. Other than that, it’s not affecting you in the slightest.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:13 am
This is completely out of the context of the debate, mostly because I feel all that can be said has been said and no one is changing their minds about any of this, but I just have to say I love this site. Had this debate taken place on almost any other site on the internet, there would be more comments along the lines of, oh, say Larry’s (286) and less (more or less) intelligent conversation. But, not this site. This thread is abound with people who are defending and backing up their beliefs more than simply throwing one word in and making others wonder why they said that.
And, just so this comment doesn’t seem out of place, I am just going to toss my two cents in. I think a whole basic point of the argument is wether or not it should be called marriage. I think that the only thing homosexuals like myself want is equality. Call all marriage something else (say “civil unions” or “the end of the party”) and open it to all couples, and the debate will be over. Then, leave it up to the individual churches to decide if they want to bestow upon the couple the sacrament of marriage.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Well said, JackOH88
June 19th, 2008 at 11:15 am
There are a few things that I’d like to respond to that have been said above.
One is that marriage is a religious institution. It is in one sense, BUT there’s the other sense, the civil and legal sense, as well. A CHURCH marriage is indeed religious, but thanks to the separation of church and state that has no bearing on what the government can and cannot do. The legal recognition of a marriage is totally seperated from any religious definition by necessity.
Secondly, to the people that say “well I like gays just fine, but I don’t think they should get married,” Either you’re for equal rights or you’re not. I find that argument comes dangerously close to, “oh sure I like blacks, but I still don’t want them in my schools” circa 1960. It’s patronizing and insulting. The issue is a bright line, you cannot respect someone and still argue that they should not have access to the full rights and benefits of society.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:17 am
yep well said
June 19th, 2008 at 11:21 am
longball (224) -
if we aren’t animals, would you mind enlightening me on to exactly which Kingdom of Life we are? Fungi? Monera? Plantae? Protista?
you know, gang, I think I won’t comment anymore unless there are comments directed towards (or about) me.
I had forgotten how I must respect the simple fact that everyone, even back-water, homophobic, Christian bigots are entitled to their beliefs. I cannot ‘pick sides’ and only allow the sane and sensible responses of the educated and enlightened individuals to have all the cookies. (just the tasty ones with chocolate chips)
Ignorance is bliss and if people want to still believe that man was formed by an all knowing, omnipotent,omnipresent spiritual being that allows free choice but has already diictated all your life’s actions, so be it.
Just stop trying to tout your religious reasoning as scientific facts and your morals as a code of ethicals all people should follow. I’ll still spout facts and encourage you to educate yourselves-do not rely on your church, religious leaders, parents, or public schools to be the sole authority of your knowledge base. take some responsibility for yourselves.
oh-and if there is one thing I know and know well… it’s sex. especially how it’s nobody’s business unless I chose to let you know about it.
(except for bucslim… keep watching… next time, I’ll give you a REAL show!):)
rtr
June 19th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Let’s take the standard arguments one at a time:
Marriage is a union between a man and a women. False. Marriage is a personal contract between two people that society has endowed with certain rights and privileges. Because of that social endowment denying ANY couple the legal acknowledgment of that personal contract is, de facto, a denial of rights and privileges.
Marriage is traditionally between man and women. True. However, not all traditions are to be cherished. Slavery was a tradition. Women being inferior to men, and property of the husband was a tradition. Persecution of the Jews was a tradition in Europe. And denial of human rights to gays has been a tradition for centuries. Every tradition listed is wrong and demands rejection.
Gay marriage would continue to erode traditional family values. False. Traditional family values is a code for white suburban protestant values. The tradition in the United States is not the lifestyle of the majority but the Constitutional requirement that all human beings have rights and are equal. Whether or not heterosexual protestant families agree with gay marriage is irrelevant. As stated above, Traditional family values insist that the woman stay home and take care of the family in a subservient role to the husband.
The erosion of traditional family values has lead to violence and social upheaval. Demonstrably false. Crime, and particularly violent crime is almost inextricably tied to poverty and/or lowering of living standards. There is a long history, one might say tradition, of this in the United States, going back to the slums of Boston and Philadelphia in the 18th century. Further, the U.S. is a young nation and while some may expect it to be static in social tradition, that is not the way countries grow.
Gay marriage goes against the Bible. So what? According to the Bible (and the exact same book people use to make homosexuality an abomination) people who wear glasses can’t go to church. Also according to the Bible: children who talk back to their parents should be taken to the edge of town and stoned to death; women are subservient to men; every business and every person who does work on Sunday is a sinner. Further, if we were to allow the Bible to dictate law and tradition in the U.S. we would have to outlaw every other religion currently practised that was not Christian.
People who support gay marriage are just being politically correct. False, and the most ridiculous argument ever stated, but one I see a lot. People who want to outlaw gay jokes are being politically correct, people who support gay marriage are just logically following the standards of human rights as put forth in the Constitution. While it may well be argued there is nothing in the Constitution that protects gay marriage, there are protections against denying any class of people any rights enjoyed by any other class of people.
I have never seen a compelling logical argument against gay marriage and I don’t think I ever will. Every argument depends on fallacious assumptions. The argumentum ad populum, the slippery slope argument, the argument from biblical authority, etc. Countries in which gay marriage has been nationally recognized have suffered no ill effects. There simply is no defense, traditional or otherwise, that makes sense.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:25 am
tingtailroxy: Excellent link, and good point! Some interesting facts about that family: the mum has had at least two kids since that picture was taken, and all of the children’s names begin with ‘J’. You’d think they’d run out by now!
June 19th, 2008 at 11:27 am
I forgot one.
Gay marriage would put an undue burden of on traditional clergy. False. No law protecting gay marriage has EVER made it a right that they can marry in the church, nor as far as I know has any church been forced to perform a gay marriage. The vast majority of gay marriages have been civil ceremonies in front of judges, or performed by clergy in denominations that accept gay marriage.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:31 am
B8ovin:
As for your point about homosexuality being against the Bible, it’s actually not. The Bible only mentions homosexuality in the contexts of rape and prostitution. This of course is the original Bible I’m referring to, which is much different from the “versions” that the church reads today. If you’re reading a version instead of a translation, you’re not reading the same Bible. Not that I believe a word of it is true anyway. It’s an interesting read nonetheless.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Before I posted the link, I wrote a detailed explanation of homosexuality and the effects it’s having on our society, but it went to moderation. It’ll be interesting to see if it’s posted or not.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:39 am
336 – RTR: that link is priceless…
re your comment 326: There was a quote in Ancient Greece. I do not remember it exactly, but it went something like: “For travel get a horse, for a son get a woman, and for love get a man”.
The premise being that only a man can understand another man – hmmm, now that I think of it…..
June 19th, 2008 at 11:43 am
No! The entire purpose of marriage is to bond together so that hopefully, you can reproduce with that significant other. Gay marriage does not fulfill the purpose of marriage itself. A guy can’t be impregnated by another guy and a chick can’t shoot semen into another chicks crotch!
June 19th, 2008 at 11:43 am
ringtail – great, I’ll get to work on fixing my ladder and polishing my binoculars whilst I polish something else.
On a more serious note, I want to make clear that I do have some religious beliefs and I hold on to them very strongly – of the Christian persuasion. I’m tired of being painted as a closed minded bigot. Sure, there are plenty of those folks out there who swing their Bible like a cudgel at anything they think is immoral or ungodly. Stop thinking all Christians are those glassy eyed kool-aid drinkers you see on TV. To lump me in with those folks is a mistake. But that is not to say I’m going to give up my faith just because some of you think I’m a bigot. My faith brings meaning and fulfillment to my life and I take it seriously.
Some of you folks are just as intolerant of religious people as you suppose I am of homosexuals. Aren’t you supposed to be the enlightened ones who are inclusive of everyone’s viewpoint?
And now I’m sure some of you will go back to find that in my posts I like to say naughty words and how that makes me a hypocrite. To that I’d like to say, bite me, eat my shorts and blow it out of your ass.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to get over to ringtail’s house and check out the free show.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Maybe it was the length, let me split it up and try again…
Part I
I could write a book proving how this is all detrimental to our society, but the majority here (liberals, children, uneducated (as evidenced in the way they write), and simply, a product of the times–end times, that is) would just try to find what they consider, the wittiest way to dismiss it without giving it any real consideration.
First of all, homosexuality has NOT been proved to be a genetic trait. Even if it were, though, it would be a defective gene just like any other defective gene that causes disease. Is there a genetic predisposition? Maybe, but alcoholism and drug abuse are supposed genetic predispositions as well. But, they can be avoided or treated.
However, in our moral filth of a society, homsexuality is not discouraged but encouraged! Now, it’s become pervasive in the schools all the way from kindergarten on up! Our children (as some are on this forum) are being ACTIVELY INDOCTRINATED into it in the public schools.
Recruiting is their main goal!
Homosexuals, lesbians, bisexual, transsexuals, et al, do not reproduce [except in small numbers through artificial insemination], so they must continue to prey on the innocent: your child(ren) and the younger the better. The mega push is on to indoctrinate your teenager into these dangerous and perverted deathstyles at a rate that is frightening, and yet, Americans sit back, smile and bask in their ability to be “tolerant of others who are different.” (http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd18.htm)
I find that funny, in a way, because while they’re being taught evolution–survival of the fittest, that organisms adapt to SURVIVE–they’re also being taught that those who can’t procreate (and I’m not saying sex is just for procreation, it is also for the enjoyment of a (man) husband and a (woman) wife) are not only acceptable, but should be welcomed with open arms. So, if the majority of us turn into homosexuals, where would the human race be? EXTINCT!
It has always been the homosexual agenda to take over society (of interest: http://www.traditionalvalues.o…..ildren.PDF and http://www.home60515.com/5.html and myriad more information if one would but simply look). And how would they do that? By indoctrinating the youth into their beliefs. And so, they set out to have schools teach it as an alternative lifestyle. Of course, the perversion that is Hollywood and the mainstream, leftist, media were on the bandwagon from the get-go so kids were being hit from every which way with this indoctrination:
June 19th, 2008 at 11:45 am
I haven’t read all the comments- way too many. Gay marraige should be permitted throughout the entire U.S. This is something a friend of mine sent me:
my friend sent this to me i think u would like to read it
I am the girl kicked out of her home because I confided in my mother that I am a lesbian.
I am the prostitute working the streets because nobody will hire a transsexual woman.
I am the sister who holds her gay brother tight through the painful, tear-filled nights.
We are the parents who buried our daughter long before her time.
I am the man who died alone in the hospital because they would not let my partner of twenty-seven years into the room.
I am the foster child who wakes up with nightmares of being taken away from the two fathers who are the only loving family I have ever had. I wish they could adopt me.
I am one of the lucky ones, I guess. I survived the attack that left me in a coma for three weeks, and in another year I will probably be able to walk again.
I am not one of the lucky ones. I killed myself just weeks before graduating high school. It was simply too much to bear.
We are the couple who had the Realtor hang up on us when she found out we wanted to rent a one-bedroom for two men.
I am the person who never knows which bathroom I should use if I want to avoid getting the management called on me.
I am the mother who is not allowed to even visit the children I bore, nursed, and raised. The court says I am an unfit mother because I now live with another woman.
I am the domestic-violence survivor who found the support system grow suddenly cold and distant when they found out my abusive partner is also a woman.
I am the domestic-violence survivor who has no support system to turn to because I am male.
I am the father who has never hugged his son because I grew up afraid to show affection to other men.
I am the home-economics teacher who always wanted to teach gym until someone told me that only lesbians do that.
I am the man who died when the paramedics stopped treating me as soon as they realized I was transsexual.
I am the person who feels guilty because I think I could be a much better person if I did not have to always deal with society hating me.
I am the man who stopped attending church, not because I don’t believe, but because they closed their doors to my kind.
I am the person who has to hide what this world needs most, love.
I am the person who is afraid of telling his loving Christian parents he loves another male.
Yeah- just sharing that. Focus on “I am the man who dies alone in the hospital because they would not let my partner of 27 years into the room” Civil Unions may have some of the same privilages, but not all. And then stuff like that happens. Some patients die because they’re partners aren’t allowed to make life altering decisions for them.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Part II
For those who have been influenced by “superstars” such as Cher and Elton John to “accept those of the gay lifestyle,” here’s a short laundry list of what sexual deviancy brings to the participant:
(Anal) Douches, Lubricants: Allergic reactions, Rectal fatty tumors Active Fellatio: Physical abrasions, Oral gonorrhea, Herpes progenitalis I and II, Nongonococcal pharyngitis (Chlamidia and others), Oral condyloma acuminatum, Syphilis, Hepatitis B, Enteric diseases, Lymphogranuloma venereum, Granuloma inquinale, Chancroid Passive Fellatio: Herpes type 1 and 2, Nongonococcol urethritis (Chlamidia and others), Gonorrhea, Neisseria meningitidis. Anal Intercouse, Active: Nongonococcol urethritis, Escherichia coli, Gonorrhea, Hepatitis A, B, non-A/non-B, Herpes, Warts -molluscum and condyloma, Syphilis, Trichomoniasis, Epididymitis/prostatitis, Fungal infections, Lymphogranuloma venereum, Granuloma inguinale, Chancroid, Cytomegalovirus. Anal Intercouse, Passive: Physical protitis, Rectal gonorrhea, Warts -condyloma and molluscum (rare), Nonspecific proctitis (Chlamidia and others), Herpes, Syphilis, Hepatitis B, Trichomoniasis, Corynebacterium, Lymphogranuloma venereum, Granuloma inguinale, Chancroid, Cytomegalovirus, Candidiasis. Analinction (dung-eating, “rimming”): Enteric diseases: Gay bowel syndrome (explained below) PLUS Escherichia coli and Helminthic parasites, Oral warts, Oral gonorrhea, Syphilis, Lymphogranuloma venereum, Granuloma inguinale, Chancroid. Fist/Finger Insertion, Passive: Internal scrapes, Anal sphincter tears, Perforations of the colon, Acute abdomen, having to wear a diaper. Toys/Apparatus: Allergic reactions, Friction dermatitis, Physical torsions, Varicoceles, Peyronie’s disease, Fungal infections, Lost rectal objects, Testicular strangulation (”cock rings”).
Gay Bowel Syndrome is a collection of bowel diseases which lead to dysfunction of the lower bowel tract and is prevalent throughout the “gay” community. GBS requires one wear a colostomy bag. Shigellosis is an acute bacteria infection like salmonellosis, it can lead to a diarrhea-induced dehydration death in infants and the elderly. Infected individuals [HIV] should never handle food, yet how many “gays” work in restaurants and handle food?
Hepatitus A and B – a viral liver disease spread by fecal contamination (A), or by blood (B). The latter type is considered to be transmitted “by ‘parenteral injection’ of saliva or semen positive for B antigen through breaks in anal or oral mucosa during anilingual (tongue/anus) contact or proctogenital intercouse (penile/rectal sodomy)” (New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, p.302.) This is normal, natural and healthy?
When God created man and woman, do you really think he would have intentionally programmed humans to engage in behavior that brings such pain, misery and death? (http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd18.htm)
June 19th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Part III
Then, anti-homosexual comments (free speech) were labeled hate-speech, and now a pastor can even get in trouble for PREACHING (according to their RELIGIOUS beliefs (isn’t that protected somewhere in the CONSTITUTION???) against the sin of homosexuality. Christians and others who believe homosexuality is a sin or just plain wrong, are now labeled bigots.
Christian businesses are getting in trouble for refusing their services to homosexuals: http://www.npr.org/templates/s…..=91486340. I would imagine it won’t take long before it is a crime for a church to marry the perverts. And yes, many of them are not just perverts, but really CERTIFIABLE SICKOS! If we exclude sex that is practiced by few of them, i.e., in a “committed relationship,” you still have the pedophiles (can anyone say NAMBLA?) and the truly twisted, way-out-there sickos that parade carefree in San Francisco and Mardi Gras. Does anyone take notice of the illegal, sicko, acts performed in PUBLIC at these types of events>! Certainly not the mainstream media!!
They aren’t the ones getting the majority of the media coverage. No, only the nice 80-something-year-old ladies who’ve been in a committed relationship for fifty-something-years are. I read an article just the other day where the couples getting married in San Francisco were, in essence, advised to keep it toned down. In other words, since they new the media would be covering events, they wanted to portray a nice, sweet, loving image. One gay man made this understatement, “In other words, no brides in bride dresses.”
Wanna see what perverts really enjoy? Just type “gay porn” into Google and be ready for some of the sickest, most perverse “sex” you’ve EVER seen!!! I did and it came up with 20,600,000 results. No, I didn’t watch any as I’ve come across enough of it just innocently browsing the Internet to know what kind of madness is in this stuff.
And, lest we forget! However AIDS originated, it’s a FACT that it was spread in the homosexual community for some time before it became mainstream. In fact, it was first called GRIDS–gay related immunodeficiency syndrome.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Part IV
Homosexuality is shameful, both to the individual and to all of us, as a nation.
According to the writings of Toynbee in “A Study of History” (Has been acknowledged as one of the greatest achievements of modern scholarship), rampant homosexuality is prevalent in dying civilizations throughout recorded history.
Romans 1:
God’s Wrath Against Mankind
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
America has fallen!
June 19th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Emma Lou – Comment 111 already posted that crap.
If i want to hear people, gay or straight, bitch about how hard there lives are after all the shit i’ve been through or stories you read about every day then i wouldn’t be here. Too effin bad they can’t hack it at life. Suck it up and move on is the only advise to those selfish bastards that think because they piss and moan people with sympathize. Eff that. Such a Cop-out. Deal with your shit, dont pass it off to other people who dont give a flying fuck.
Not directly towards you, but in general. Your friends an idiot for sending it and anyone who reads it and feels sorry is retarded.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Why is the Church (in the US) against gay marrage?
Could it be on economic and not moral grounds?
If the federal Government or a State recognizes gay marrage, and a church based adoption agency refuses to serve the married couple can the church be sued? The Catholic Charities of Boston (where gay marrage is legal) is out of the adoption business. They did not want to be forced to help gay couples adopt.
If an organization is supported in any way by the state (in the form of a tax-exempt status, perhaps) can that organization be forced to (a) perform gay marrage or (b) loose the tax exempt status?
I see many court battles in the future (in the USA, at least).
June 19th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Are you saying it’s ok to be a pedophile as long as they aren’t trying to marry a kid? I’m making the point that being a pedophile is just “wrong” and not accepted in general, as is being gay.
“Oh, and if you think our government is so “retarded,” well…move to a different country.
It’s becoming a part of our culture and it’s not harming anyone physically or mentally (yes there will be the crazy sociopaths no matter what their sexuality so save your argument), which is why it has stayed.”
You are a complete moron if thats the only thing you can say. So you think it’s ok for the government to ignore what the people are saying? You are so ignorant it’s sad. There is a small percentage of people who behave in a way that is considered wrong by the MAJORITY or the WORLD and that small percentage is trying to force it on everyone. I’ve been in San Fran and happened to walk out of a BART station in the middle of a “Gay Pride Parade” which was actually nothing more than a parade of sexually deviant psycho’s dressed up like Mr. Slave or hardly wearing anything at all while there are kids everywhere being subjected to it. If you think that is a natural way to act then you are mentally fucked up, sorry.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
bucslim-
aw, thanks for the kudos! since you openly admit to having been in the bushes last night, you are well aware I am also an amateur nudist. so tonight, I’ll do something extra-special-I’ll wear some slinky lingerie! (but don’t tell my BF-he’ll think it’s for him and you’ll get all the voyeuristic benefits only an atheist exhibitionist like myself can deliver!!)
on a more serious note, bucslim brought up a very good point.
I need to apologize for my inconsiderate grouping of all Christians as ” back-water, homophobic, Christian bigots” because that’s simply a terrible stereotype based on my teenage years stuck in the bible-belt of Gamecock country. (all you Souf Cakalakians would understand)
so, for the third? fourth? time today, I offer my apologies. It’s actually not easy to completely absolve oneself of stereotypes, type-setting, and bias. I’m still working on it-the older I get, the more intelligent I become.
or I’m getting early Alzheimer’s and think I’m 16 again… you know… when we all knew EVERYTHING…
rtr
June 19th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
S_R:
Really? That is your proof that homosexuality is destroying our society? First of all, not one of those sex acts you described is exclusively homosexual. Fellatio, anal intercourse, rimming, using toys/lubrication/douches, finger insterion is done by all kinds of heterosexual couples! They are just as likely to catch any of those diseases. And I’m not even going to start with overly-religious people condemning others to hell NOT being considered hateful … come now! Religion can be wondrous and fulfilling to many — it should not be used to slander those who are different.
And as for gay porn being disgusting … did you try typing in just plain ole’ “porn”? There is plenty of disgusting, degenerating porn that straight men enjoy, as well. The ones I find particularly disgusting and “sick” are those where men stick it to young women who are passed out cold. Oh yes, that’s wholesome!
June 19th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
OH! I forgot the bathroom issue… It seems (I can’t find it right now) that homosexuals want the right to use the bathroom of the gender to which they associate themselves. That means that men would be able to use women’s bathrooms.
Wives, teenaged girls, infant girls, and decnt females of all ages would be subject to these perverts whipping out their schlong in front of them. Or, how about the pervert who claims to be homosexual just to go in the women’s restroom and ogle females of all ages.
It’s sad and yet hilarious how easily people are blinded to what’s REALLY going on! You call Christians “followers” and “easily lead”–ROTFLOL!
June 19th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
S_R:
“Homosexuality is shameful, both to the individual and to all of us, as a nation.”
That’s an opinion, and nothing more. And based on what? Primarily it issues from a Judeo-Christian-Islamic point of view, which, one must remind you, is not the standard view that has prevailed throughout history. There have been many cultures that did not view homosexuality as “shameful.”
“According to the writings of Toynbee in “A Study of History” (Has been acknowledged as one of the greatest achievements of modern scholarship),”
Excuse me, but you’re fudging the facts there. Toynbee was a controversial historian (this isn’t the same Toynbee who was an economist) and his volumes have *not* found wide acceptance and in fact are more or less discarded today. His influence was negligible and “A Study of History” is NOT “acknowledged as one of the greatest achievements of modern scholarship.” Not by any of the mainstream academic historians I know of.
“…rampant homosexuality is prevalent in dying civilizations throughout recorded history.”
And that’s just bullshit, and an example of why Toynbee doesn’t have influence. To begin with, homosexuality is never “rampant.” It is practiced by the percentage of a given population that is homosexual, that’s all. This percentage has probably remained fairly static throughout human history–there’s certainly no reason to suppose that it “spreads” or “grows” like a virus or a weed. Homosexuality in ancient Greece was essentially accepted and was a component of the ancient Greek culture for over a thousand years by all counts. This alone puts the lie to the idea of homosexuality accompanying “dying” civilizations. There were gay Greeks when Greece was in its infancy, and at its height, and when it was in decline. Same with Rome. Same with ancient Japan.
Of course, (and no doubt you’re ignorant of this) sexuality itself was not viewed by these ancients in the way we view it. See my comments here: http://www.listverse.com/history/top-10-myths-about-the-romans/ …comment #84.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
“Wanna see what perverts really enjoy? Just type “gay porn” into Google and be ready for some of the sickest, most perverse “sex” you’ve EVER seen!!! I did and it came up with 20,600,000 results.”
LOL
I’m officially done with this debate. There is nothing from the other side but ignorance, so what is the point? None I say.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
I think I might be falling in love with roxy…
June 19th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Okay I saw this ridiculousness and had to comment:
“OH! I forgot the bathroom issue… It seems (I can’t find it right now) that homosexuals want the right to use the bathroom of the gender to which they associate themselves. That means that men would be able to use women’s bathrooms.
Wives, teenaged girls, infant girls, and decnt females of all ages would be subject to these perverts whipping out their schlong in front of them. Or, how about the pervert who claims to be homosexual just to go in the women’s restroom and ogle females of all ages. ”
I’m sure you homosexual haters don’t want gays in your bathrooms either do you because you’re afraid we’ll try to look at your dicks. Next you’ll say we need our own bathrooms. Then drinking fountains. Then schools. Bigots.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
S_R
and it appeared as if you broke down your novella into various parts so that comment in moderation was deleted. 
novellas as comments are discouraged.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Back off ravethewave, I saw her first. You come near her and I’ll cut you in ways that will make you useless to a woman, you’ll have to find a man to marry.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Oh, and by the way, I would like everyone to note that I did not call S_R a nut, a fool, a harbinger of idiocy, a dastardly liar and distorter of the truth, a moral nincompoop, a seething bigot, a hate-filled moron, or a despicable human being.
I WANTED to… but NOooooooooo… you people think I’m a “bully.” So I behaved myself.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Alright alright i’ll back off but not too sure even a man would want me if you cut me those ways…
besides, theres probably only room for one in those bushes.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
All humans deserve the same rights.
It’s not anyone’s business if their beliefs differ, or who they love. There’s much bigger things to worry about than two people of the same sex loving each other.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
http://listverse.com/comment-faq/
i’ve humbly suggested a button be placed in the navbar to this for those who either have not seen the line after the comment box or are not aware we now have a FAQ.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Randall:
“… a harbinger of idiocy … a moral nincompoop….”
I don’t think anyone could have said it better.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I think gay marriage should be completely legal. Actually I think polygamy should be legalized before gay marriage, but that’s just me. One benefit of polygamy and gay marriage is there are more options for people to live together under the same roof, therefore taking up less space and resources. Plus why should anyone regulate who or what you choose to love and share your life with. I think taking up that kind of commitment should be rewarded with the same government benefits also. Whether it be a man and a man, man and 4 women, or 2 women, a man, and 3 goats. Peace, harmony and love in all cases. Marrying anything doesn’t hurt the next person nor does openly fucking a horse in your front yard. You should be able to. Gay marriage doesn’t hurt anyone, and neither does bestiality.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
marriage isn’t a right, it’s an option. An option for any 1 man and 1 women to enter into a union which comes with various benefits. Gay people have the exact same option as everyone else. Any gay man can get married to any women that is willing. As can a gay woman marry any one man. It’s all the same and all equal across the board. If gay man can’t legally marry another gay man, a straight man can’t marry a straight man. Looks like we all have the same option. But it’s not a right; if it was a right then the government would get involved and issue marriages to people when they wanted one. But because it’s not a right someone like my aunt can want to be married for more than 15 years and have it not happen for her.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
S_R:
And of course the idea of homosexuals “recruiting” followers is downright insane. As always in cases like this…. I suspect a little bit of the ol’ Methinks He Doth Protest Too Much Syndrome—perhaps, therefore, S_R… you might be hiding something from yourself? Latent and suppressed… tendencies, perhaps? That you’re monumentally ashamed of? Perhaps… seething with self-hate are we?
I’d lay money on it.
At any rate, clown, I’ve been all around this world (and yes, jerkoff, I am firmly and proudly heterosexual… but Randall is friend to all god’s creatures as long as they’re friendly to him, unlike supposed “christians” such as yourself) and have never known ANYONE who confessed to being “recruited” into homosexuality. Perhaps such people exist–but shame is a powerful thing in the human psyche, and one can easily suppose that there are many people who, having once been taught that being gay is EVIL, and then discovered that they WERE in fact gay, later revert to claiming that it was all a “mistake” and that they were “duped” or “recruited” into it… such a claim having no basis in truth, of course… rather, they simply couldn’t live with the shame and self-hatred and went back to being suppressed–and blamed someone else. Or Satan. That poor bastard gets blamed for everything.
See… only people who have a deep-seated problem with sexuality *in general* can think the kinds of crazy things you do. Me, I knew girls and women were exciting and desirable when I was four goddamned years old. At this very moment, in fact, there’s a lovely young woman outside my office window who is leaning nicely against a pillar, having a conversation with a friend… I feel no shame or self-hatred in appreciating her very nicely shaped figure and spectacular ass. Why should my lust be less “wrong” to god than the lust of a gay man scoping out another guy? Well of course it shouldn’t be. God’s smarter than that. Smarter than you, S_R, certainly.
At any rate, though, as I say–it takes a kind of hatred or at least distrust and revulsion towards sexuality in general to think the nonsense you think, S_R. To imagine that homosexuals can be “recruited” like Amway salesmen… I want to laugh, but I’m too busy being sick.
Have you ever indulged in self-examination? (The emotional/psychological kind, deve). Of course not. Had you done so ever in your life, though, you’d know damn well that sexuality is with us, if only in a nascent form, from our beginnings. I fell in love with Diana Rigg when I was four and lusted after the girl who lived down the street from me when I wasn’t much older. Now, had I been brought up in an environment of shame and self-loathing, in a family that taught that such things were “bad,” then I might today be a suppressed and twisted asshole like yourself… who could believe that sexuality is “changeable” and “recruitable.”
Thankfully I was not and am not… and I pity people like yourself.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
This isn’t even an argument really. As most posts have shown, they think it’s fine. The only objections are based in religion, as they are in the media. The separation of church and state, while a myth, should have come through long ago on this issue and legalized. The fact that it took this long is shameful, and reveals how much this government is controlled by religious doctrine.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
easy, bucslim, you’re the only voyeur for me!
(psst… rave-there’s a large Sabal Palm by my bedroom window in the yard next door…just avoid the neighbor’s rottweiler and you’ll be alright…)
a special note for ravethewave-awesome reference to the FSM! May his noodly appendage anoint you with the marinara sauce of truth and wisdom! and a sprinkling of parmessan cheese for love!
I really have to sign up for the forums. Comments are awesome, but friendships are made in the forums. kinda like drinks at a bar are flirtatious, but at a barbecue it’s always friends.
jfrater-please look for me. I originally signed up for the forum access a year ago, but never accessed it and forgot all my codes…
rtr
June 19th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Homosexuality is inborn, it happens in nature too. It is no choice, and forcing someone to live against their basic desires is wrong. How would we like it if we were forced to have sex with men, to be considered acceptable and avoid abuse.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Homosexual practices and abortion: We all know they are wrong and medical studies show the damage of partaking in both practices; however, we as flawed individuals will always find reasons for justifying our actions.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Randall – would you be interested in joining my group of ‘fruitisexuals?’ We’re on a membership drive to support ourselves and our right to bone watermelons and cantalope or any other bulbous melons with a hole cut out of it.
Come out of the fruits and vegetable section of your local grocers and join us.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Wow. Just wow. The medical dangers of homosexuals? You fall for that? Where to begin? One) There is NO sexual activity that is exclusively homosexual, as someone else pointed out. Two) the homosexual population is UNKNOWN so ANY study that purports to show that homosexuals have x (x being any particular disease) more often than heterosexuals is flawed. There is NO direct distinction between homosexual sex and heterosexual sex practices. Inter-vaginal, oral and anal sex ALL have health risks, and cervical cancer related to sexual activity doesn’t even apply to homosexuals or lesbians so you have an entire category that is hetero only.
As for the idea that gay marriage is an attack on the church, ridiculous. No church has to perform a marriage. That gay marriage might offend certain religious people, again, so what?
Finally, Itshouldallbelegal: do you know of any way to tell if sex with an animal is consensual? I mean if a man marries a goat does the goat in some way understandable to a human agree to the marriage? Certainly two men agreeing to a bond and a man agreeing to a marriage with a non-communicative animal are NOT the same thing. We can accept one as legitimate and deny the other. Slippery slope arguments don’t apply here.
As for polygamy, I don’t know. It was certainly legal in biblical times by certain tribes. If a man lives with four women there is no law denying this right. I’d like to hear arguments both ways before I can say one way or the other.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
“Why should my lust be less “wrong” to god than the lust of a gay man scoping out another guy? Well of course it shouldn’t be. God’s smarter than that. Smarter than you, S_R, certainly.”
I agree with this whole heartedly. Same for any guy who is checking out his dog, or any animal. He should of course get permission from the owner if he wants to act on it and it should be the parent discretion if it involves kids. Alas, that much is still not legal. It took a long time for homosexuality to be accepted, and we’ll keep fighting for bestiality and pedophilia.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Itshouldallbelegal:
Yeah, that’s cute, creep. But the association (and paralleling) of homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality are old fallacies and everyone knows it. It is basic to our understanding of sexuality that it requires consent of an adult mind. This lets kids and critters off the hook, pinhead.
The slippery slope argument is a discredited one. Look it up sometime.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Meh, who cares let it be it’s not going to change anything for anyone, the anti-homosexual lobby will keep complaining and the pro-homosexual lobby will keep winning, it’s the right of every person to do as they wish.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Hope says; “Homosexual practices and abortion: We all know they are wrong and medical studies show the damage of partaking in both practices”
Really? Do more women die from complications resulting from abortions or pregnancy and childbirth? I think “medical studies” will give you the answer. And once again, which “homosexual practices” are exclusive to homosexuals, and what is the percentage of homosexuals who practise them? Would you consider fisting a homosexual act even though more heterosexual couples participate in it? Maybe we should ban driving because some homosexuals die in car crashes. OR should we say that because some homosexuals drive driving is a “homosexual activity” and is deadly.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Itshouldallbelegal:
Let’s assume you understand logic. Do you agree that children should not be allowed to drive because they are not physically and emotionally developed enough to accept the responsibility? Do you agree that two adult males are allowed to drive? Do you see the difference between the two? You must then be able to understand that a society can accept the consensual ability of two adult homosexuals and deny the consensual ability of children. The acceptance of one does not lead to acceptance of the other.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
bucslim:
As you well know, the only melons and canteloupes I’m interested in are the ones that come attached to Brooke Burke.
You, on the other hand–I always suspected you as a fruit-lover. Glad to see you’re coming out and freeing your mind of all the ol’ repressive baggage.
Of course this won’t stop me from sic-ing the FBI on you, buc, if you take one step near MY supermarket. Weirdo.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Seriously, it can be completely consensual with animals. Did you hear about the guy who died in Washington because the horse penetrated too deep and was too big? He didn’t force that, the horse was willing having sex with him. How many times have you scene youtube videos where a dog or some other animal tries to go at a guys leg or something?
As for kids, I think that the circumstances should be special and I also think the 12 should be the limit and only with parental permission. This worked in the past, marriage used to happen at a much younger age and still does in some countries.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Itshouldallbelegal -
“…and we’ll keep fighting for bestiality and pedophilia…”
made me think of that news story of the man and the horse. the man died. so if that is your ‘thang’…please, have at it.
course the only problem w/ that story too, sadly..i think the horse was destroyed.
btw..this topic is in reference to gay marriage. not grotesque, illegal and insane stuff like boinking animals or damaging children. so it’d be nice if folks stuck to the topic. k?
leave the animals alone. and seek professional assistance immediately if you have inclinations towards children. you’re sick and need help.
and again..i support gay marriage. i also support gay parents being able to adopt. anything straights can do by law should be afforded to gays too. as for nature/nurture…so what? there have always been gays. there will always be gays. love is love is love. get over it. let people live and love and be happy. allow gays to adopt children. there are so many foster kids who need parents now. there are so many so-called ‘unadoptables’ due to illness or age or whatever…what they need are loving homes. doesn’t matter if its w/ Jane and Joe or Dave and Steve or Mary and Diana.
me stop now.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
I have always thought that people would be better drivers if they started learning at a younger age. The key is parental permission and adult supervision. Perhaps the open road or heavy traffic shouldn’t be where they do all of there learning at first but I would feel better about a 16 year old driver who has been driving since 8 than one who started at 15.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
An animal reacting to sexual stimulus is not “consent”. Dogs will crave food they don’t like until they taste it. Birds react with fear even though they are not threatened. It takes a cognitive assertion of understanding to constitute consent. A child can agree to a sex act without understanding what it means, but this does not mean the child has given consent.
From a strictly medical point, I understand what you are saying in regards to children, but from a scientific and social perspective I think you’re way off. Sexual acts have mental and social consequences that children can not understand readily. The error should be on the side of protecting the child from itself (like child-proof caps on medicine bottles). An assumption of complete understanding can only come by letting the child mature safely.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Wow, B_Rad, just wow.
You’ve completely misconstrued my point and can’t seem to debate something without throwing insults. You’re putting words into the comment I typed that I didn’t use.
But OH MY GOSH YOU’RE SO RIGHT, that small part of the world you witnessed completely represents the rest of the United States! I guess ALL gay people are interested in leather gear, parading around semi-nude, and commiting public displays of sexuality! I guess what’s they’re doing is so much worse than their heterosexual counterparts who engage in that same sort of culture!
OH! Yes, I completely said that sexual fetishes are so natural! WOW! You’ve really taught me that a desire to wear leather clothes is so similar to homosexuality, even though I made no mention of fetishes in relation to sexuality.
—In case you don’t understand, I was being completely sarcastic. Gay Pride parades are widely publicized and parents should be intelligent enough to control their children if they do not want them exposed to something – I am not condoning or expressing an opinion about fetish parades, it seems I must make myself completely clear to you – they should not let their children near the activity.
I’m sure heterosexual parades receive much less scrutiny from you, even if they’re doing the exact same activity.
Consider this my last comment to you, because your lack of cognitive ability is strongly evident. Just promise yourself this – when or if you graduate high school and go to college, make sure to enroll in a postmodernism course or something related to multiculturalism. You desperately need to see the world through a different understanding.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I must go tell my mother she did a horrible job of raising me, give my college degrees back, and find the nearest hetero fetish parade…
June 19th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
I think every person on this planet deserves the right to be happy and it’s such a shame that people cant be because of religion, society and ignorant people who have been brought up homophobic or anti- gay marriage.
It’s disgusting that people are so prejudice against other humans because they know nothing about raltionships or having feeings for the same sex and what’s ironic is that most of those people are closets anyway!
I’m completely in favour of gay marriage. All the homophobes should be the ones who deserve a punishment.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
I agree with Itshouldallbelegal to a point,
Polygamy should follow closely behind gay marriage.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
FRUITISEXUALS!
LOL!
might as well make this legal too…
when i was a child, i was very much into science fiction books… i read anything i could get my hands on-from Douglas Adams to Roger Zelazny, and some other unknowns.
some of the unknowns books where downright unusual.
I can’t remember the name of one short story that i read, much less,, who was the author- but, the superior race of humanoid beings on another planet, in the (near) future (that surprisingly spoke English and looked like us) had developed a way of reproducing by actually having sex with a boggy field. yes. the men would strip nude, and proceed to screw the dirt after making a hole with his fingers he’d slip his manhood into and make “a deposit”.
what the civilization did was to remove the eggs from all the female population, and have machines inject the eggs into each “deposit”. then after 9 months in the soil, these babies where picked, kinda like Cabbage Patch Dolls, and given to the government to be assigned social positions and jobs.
i don’t know who wrote it, but it left me with a creepy feeling that I have yet to shake every time I work in my garden barehanded…
(please don’t trample my Fakahatchee Grass this evening, buslim. and no playing in the compost pile, either.)
rtr
June 19th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
I’m reposting this because it looks like it got ignored and it’s not a bad argument. I’d at least like the see what the opposition has to say:
marriage isn’t a right, it’s an option. An option for any 1 man and 1 women to enter into a union which comes with various benefits. Gay people have the exact same option as everyone else. Any gay man can get married to any women that is willing. As can a gay woman marry any one man. It’s all the same and all equal across the board. If gay man can’t legally marry another gay man, a straight man can’t marry a straight man. Looks like we all have the same option. But it’s not a right; if it was a right then the government would get involved and issue marriages to people when they wanted one. But because it’s not a right someone like my aunt can want to be married for more than 15 years and have it not happen for her.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
“I have always thought that people would be better drivers if they started learning at a younger age. The key is parental permission and adult supervision. Perhaps the open road or heavy traffic shouldn’t be where they do all of there learning at first but I would feel better about a 16 year old driver who has been driving since 8 than one who started at 15.”
I didn’t read through all the comments to see how the topic got shifted here – but I like this idea. I grew up in the country and had several farm friends and we often drove around on the fields and lots. My farmer friends were the best drivers I’ve encountered – but the challenge here is not all parents are intelligent enough to guide their children safely in a location that can ensure they won’t be a danger to others.
I was lucky to have acres of private property to drive tractors and cars on.
I really support driver’s education coming back into the schools, no matter what age!
June 19th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
If the argument toward homosexual marriage is that it doesn’t hurt anyone as long as it’s consenting adults; the next debate will be about legalizing bigamy/polygamy. Talk about a can of worms.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Melanie:
No, it won’t open up into that. Polygamy/bigamy is usually a victimization of women. Not harmless. Clearly there are often victims.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I think this comment thread deserves a little pick-me-up:
http://www.cuteoverload.com
Disclaimer: This website is packed so full of cute animals you’ll probably barf a rainbow.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Should homosexual first cousins be allowed to marry? Or homosexual siblings?
June 19th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
roxy – thanks for the invite…but from the sounds of it we might be at opposite ends of the country/world. No palms where i reside.
…and may his noodliness guide you as well… the FSM is the true creator, loves all and only bias to migits.
- I keep the gospel on my desk at work for all to see.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
for anyone who says that it shouldnt be allowed because no one should get married because its crap, if people want to do it they should be allowed to, regardless of orientation.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Randall – not in all cases. There will be supporters (for polygamy). Multiple moms and/or multiple dads.
Here’s an issue – if gay marriage is legal, then employers would be required to provide insurance/benefits to gay spouses in addition to heterosexual spouses, regardless of their moral standing.
So religious entities will be required by law to provide benefits to gay spouses, even though it’s against their beliefs? Christian schools/universities/churches?
June 19th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Ah, rav -
have you hugged a pirate today?
June 19th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
ringtail, I’m not ever going into that damn compost pile of yours to get a better angle. I had a rash on my loins and I was itchin for weeks. No amount of Gold Bond medicated powder could take away the redness and irritation from non-aerobic bacterial infection. Plus I think I lost a sock in there a while back.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
That’s a good point, Mel. Schools and employers won’t be able to descriminate. I think that’s part of the overall debate. They descriminate now, so they won’t be able to once gay marriage is legal.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
No it should not be legal. This is the same slippery slope (no pun intended) that got us to this point in the first place. The issue really is that the homosexual agenda has no limits. Look at Barney Frank, he works with the man/boy association to promote their agenda and there is no end in sight to the depravity. Do any of you have limits on what is considered normal?
Of course, if homosexuality is determined before birth, with DNA testing this will all be a moot point as the abortion industry will take care of most of this in the future. Once a prenatal test is produced for this issue no one would willingly have a homosexual baby, much like in India where many baby girls are aborted as worthless.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
FifthSonata – not today, but i keep a picture on the wall in my office who very much resembles a pirate which enatils a small machetti in his mouth, red beard, shirt off and orange bandanna. i have the privelage of staring at it from 7am to 5pm. Just delightful.
Not to mention tomorrow is a religious holiday for me, as is every Friday.
Suckers!
June 19th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Frank: it is the right of everyone to do as they wish??? So if you wish to rape or kill, it is your right???
June 19th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
that was not me
June 19th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
ravethewave-
the FSM is a most honorable and beloved figure in my life! I am hoping a fellow Pastafarian will love me as much as the FSM does and send me a FSM Pirate Fish for my 11 year old, gas-guzzling s.u.v.
lookie here:
http://www.rof.com/product_p/2295-pq.htm
and
http://www.rof.com/product_p/2290-pq.htm
his noodliness lays his grease appendages upon those who loving buy things for complete strangers, you know…
rtr
June 19th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Also, once you have gay marriage, right along with it comes gay adoption.
woman/woman have child, man/man adopt. After the divorce, who gets custody? The mother can no longer be considered the primary caretaker. Not that it’s law, but it’s certainly the norm. And it would affect heterosexual divorce cases as well.
Having children is the biggest issue. With multiple marriages nowadays, parents do pass away, remarry, there will be situations where mom was religious, mom dies, dad marries man, and maternal grandparents take dad to court, etc.
For those who believe that gay marriage is immoral, there would be nothing from preventing your spouse from divorcing you, marrying in the same sex, and raising your children.
My point is, it’s not just about 2 consenting adults. There will be many children impacted by this decision, and former spouses as well who never intended for their children to be raised in a homosexual household.
Just a thought.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
bucslim-
oh, whew! when I was mulching the hibiscus last week i was wondering what that white, stringy, glob of goo was…
ringtailroxy
June 19th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Come on. The people who oppose gay marriage are the same kind of people who disown a child or sibling because they are gay. It is all about learned prejudice. People like Chaz, who posted above. Comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and NAMBLA!? You are seriously warped. Gee, hm, I dont see any difference between a concentual, loving relationship between 2 men, and a group of men looking to rape children.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Gay don’t recruit? I think not. Ever see Queer Eye For the Straight Guy? Insidious! I showed my son an episode of Will and Grace- and by the end he was doing jazz hands yelling: “Just Jack!” Ruined! I made him wash his mouth out with holy water and stare at the blank TV until he saw a vision of the Virgin Mary. He saw it, and we sold the TV on EBAY for a tidy profit.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Melanie, employers aren’t required to carry any insurance at all. If they do offer insurance they must offer it to all employees regardless of their “moral” retardation. It should be pointed out that religious morality is a choice, and all claims from the basis of that choice are in themselves choices. This is why we have protected rights, regardless of sexuality. I am sick of the pious crying that they can’t do their jobs because of moral pressure. It is certain that some decisions are based purely on business regardless of religious beliefs thus, it seems disingenuous to cry that human rights are an undue burden.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
roxy-
well you just might get lucky… I have wanted the second link for some time now but they have been sold out.
I will let you know when I plan on purchasing one for myself and you just might receive one as well. Depends if I had been touch by his noodly appendage yet that week.
Besides it is not everyday you meet a fellow Pastafarian!
June 19th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
LOL over 420 comments inside 24 hours. Saw that coming!
June 19th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Chaz, I have limits on what is considered “normal” depending on the context. For a civilized society I think the limits on normal include: not torturing, not going to war with a country for no legitimate reason and not lying. For instance, saying Barney Frank works with NAMBLA is a lie. Saying there are no limits to the mythical “gay agenda” is a lie. So yeah, I have limits on what I consider “normal”.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Marriage is a religous institution, as stated before, so I don’t see the point in having a traditional ceremony. The legal aspect of it is a different story. If 2 people insist on being together, then why not have the legal benefits of living together? In a perfect world, there would be no homosexuals and gay marriage, but people are born with this condition. So if they choose to live together, theres no way to stop it. They might as well have the legal benefits that a heterosexual couple has.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
mara,as i said,as respect for others’ religion.
it would never fit the definition of marriage.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
My 2 pennies:
Allow gays and lesbians to marry. Nowadays we love to scream “discrimination”, yet with those same voices we discriminate. Homosexuality is not a choice, it’s born into you. If you were to ask most GLBTs (gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual), they will tell you they remember being attracted to the same genders as children, at a time when they technically shouldn’t “know better”. You don’t fall in love with a body, you fall in love with a mind, a soul, a heart. All we are doing is punishing them for loving. If you were in their shoes, and society looked down at your choice of partner, how would you feel? You’d be forced to choose between your love and your family, told you aren’t a fit parent, maybe even beaten by perfect strangers? There’s a reason they say love is blind…..
June 19th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
ringtailroxy, I am glad that you too were touched by his noodly appendage! The Flying Spaghetti Monster condones gay marriage, therefore I do as well. See how dumb that sounds? Now some of you know how we feel when you are against gay marriage just because the church is as well.
And on the topic of the idea that being homosexual is a choice that someone makes, do you straight men honestly believe that you could make the choice to be gay? I could not possibly choose to do that. It is how I was born. We were born naturally how we are and could not choose to do otherwise. We (straight men) never made a choice “I think I am going to like girls.” It is not something that you could decide upon.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
addendum:
If a child raised by a man/woman household can turn out gay, then can’t we reasonably assume that a child raised by a man/man or woman/woman household may turn out to be straight? Your parents do not define 100% of your personality.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Holy cow! I almost turned into Rushfan (even e-mail address showed up in my fields)… I think we have a problem with the web page cookies and such…very scary… someone could have been me by mistake too!
KittyM, I think I’m in lo… *ahem* …ah, Anywhooo…
Marriage is a contract simplest terms… can you imagine a contract for having to buy a pontoon boat that you didn’t want, just because you wanted something that floats on the water? What if you wanted a canoe or a raft? …Marry a woman when you want a man (or visa versa)… because that’s your only option??? How ludicrous is that? I’ve heard some doooooozies in my day, and a few folks have come up with a few wild ones here; but the good news is that we’ve all got our opinions, and can voice them freely here (with a modicum of decency of course) as well.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
there is no gay gene. It’s so easy to get on here and just say “It’s scientifically proven that being gay is genetic.” It just isn’t genetic. There is nothing genetically exclusive to people who say they are gay, no gay diseases, no sports that gay people are just better at than other people. What are bisexuals then? half breeds? You can’t look at nature either, just because male elephants will hump each other doesn’t mean they are gay, they are just acting on their animalistic horniness. What does it mean when a dog humps a guys leg?
June 19th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
OH!! Just thought of something… when reading about the ‘perfect world’ thought from someone above…
Earthworms come together for sex effectively as MALES and leave post-coitus effectively as FEMALES… interesting, yes? There’s nothing to say that perfect is something other than what we may collectively believe or wish it to be today. Ah, the marriage of worms…
June 19th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Malfore – I disagree, I think that’s a biased statement, although I realize you were responding to the pedophilia comment. But just because you oppose gay marriage doesn’t mean you are homophobic and would disown a relative.
B8ovin – I realize they are not required to offer benefits. But if they do, they most offer them equally. If gay marriage were legal, a religious organization that believes and teaches that homosexuality is immoral will be required to offer benefits to gay spouses also. Religious institutions will most likely stop offering benefits to all spouses, because it would be doubtful they would compromise their beliefs.
If gay marriage is legalized, why shouldn’t we legalize polygamy? The argument that it won’t be legalized because it’s a victimization of women won’t stand, because a lot of heterosexual marriages are a victimization of women. Free will is free will, and consenting adults are just that.
No, I am not gay, and I am not a polygamist. And I don’t believe being gay is a choice. I have gay friends, and if my children were gay (or are gay) I would be fine with it. I could care less what the neighbors think.
There are 3 primary reasons I can think of for a legal marriage – to follow your moral beliefs – to obtain government and employer benefits afforded to spouses – legal recognition and protection. Anything else? Besides the whole declaration of love and eternal commitment thing that fails 50% of the time?
June 19th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
ravethewave:
you are correct, we are far and few between, but becoming more numerous and prosperous!
did I mention I was VERY impressed to see the FSM reference from you earlier? I was introduced to the FSM during my World Religion class 3 semesters ago. mainly because some lame-o student tried to forge the honorable Bobby Henderson’s works and plagiarize it as his own for a final project. (we had to create our own religion)
after my abrupt intro to Pastafarianism, I became a devout follower and smile whenever I meet another. We are growing in numbers! Proof of the FSM love and kindness!
thank you for just thinking of me with such love and compassion! what a divine present and proof of the FSM eternal love for those who believe!
(in case you where wondering, my religion was Procyonidism, … the worship, deification,and personal sacrifice for the crafty raccoon…Procyonid Lotor)
ringtailroxy
June 19th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
no gay gene..tendencies perhaps..it’s a choice whether you live it or not..
June 19th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
`quote` Legalizing same-sex marriage isn’t just about the legal and practical recognition of our love and our partnership. It’s about social recognition. It’s about being seen as a full member of society. Kudos for the California Supreme Court for understanding that. Let’s hope the rest of the country figures it out eventually. /`quote`
source -
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2008/06/i-do—-and-why.html
to fully appreciate this sentiment and gain a better understanding of gay marriage as an issue in this country…you must read the article in its entirety. she is an excellent writer. i have been in awe of her writing skills in regards atheism for a long time. her blog also contains entries re: the sex industry and is therefore not suitable for minors. also could be NSFW.
this is not just about sex. it is not just about love. its about being treated equally before the law.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
jardojo:
When you say “in a perfect world, there would be no homosexuals” do you mean those people who were homosexuals would never have existed, or their “condition” wouldn’t have? Because if you mean they would never have existed, we as a culture, society, human race would have missed out on quite a lot.
We wouldn’t have Socrates, Plato, many of the Greek gods, ancient leaders/kings/conquerors (Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, Marc Antony, Tiberius, Caligula, Nero …). We wouldn’t have the works of Horus, Ovid, Virgil. There’d be no Donatello. There’d be no Raphael. There’d be no Mona Lisa, because Leonardo DaVinci was a promiscious minx. Hell, there goes three of the Teenaged Mutant Ninja Turtles!
Am I not hitting home? Do I need to have some more modern names? Oscar Wilde, Virginia Woolf, Mary Renault, Henry David Thoreau, Laurence Olivier, Cary Grant, Rudolph Valentino, Walt Whitman, Langston Hughes, Janis Joplin, Andy Worhol … those are just off the top of my head. I could go on.
It’s not “in a perfect world, there’d be no homosexuality.” No, in a perfect world, there’d be no discrimination.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Hmmm doody. There is no gay gene. That is unequivocal fact or just your opinion? I agree that it is not scientifically proven but that doesn’t mean it won’t be. Or that it will be. But it homosexuality surfaces at young ages despite the social stigma attached to it suggesting a pre-defined tendency. There is no reason to reject a homosexual gene because of the existence of bi-sexuals. If the one behavior is genetic or pre-determined then the other one can be as well.
Animals ARE homosexual by the way. Lifelong homosexual actions in mammals has been observed many times. Those who argue against this only focus on the occasional actions of some animals without referring to the studies that contradict a mere behavioural anachronism. And dogs humping a leg is a sign of dominance and has nothing to do with homosexuality, but then no animal behaviouralist suggests otherwise.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Mr. Groucypants: Why would homosexual siblings want to marry? Incest is a totally different ball game and the comparison is lame.
Randall/Melanie: Yes in all cases. The women are subservient to each other, they even have designation – 1st mother, 2nd etc and all the females are subservient to the man. Harmful any way you choose to look at it. Love and marriage should always be between equals – gay, straight, and all permutations in between.
Melanie: And the problem with gay adoption is? As long as the parents love each other and their children, what is the problem? Who gets custody in the case of divorce? The same as it should be in a heterosexual relationship (it isn’t, but it should be this way), not the mother necessarily but the parent most capable. Where I live, shared custody is becoming the norm.
It appears that S_R is one of those whack-jobs from the God hates Fags church. Likely protests at military funerals too.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
“Homosexuality is not a choice, it’s born into you. If you were to ask most GLBTs (gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual), they will tell you they remember being attracted to the same genders as children”,
Again no scientific proof, it’s easy to just say that but there is no evidence for it. If they actually discovered a “gay gene” it would be on the front page of every news paper and website.
Also you can love anyway, and live with anyone you want but it doesn’t mean you have to pork them in the ass or smack your pelvis against there’s and adopt kids. That’s what I don’t get, why does it have to get all sexual? I mean there are brothers and sisters who choose to live together but they don’t engage in incest, they just really get along and enjoy being with each other. I have no proof for either but I’m guessing that the majority of homosexual activity doesn’t even consist of wholesome monogamous love relationships.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
roxy-
it is funny that people will still plagarize in college. Especially the FSM,he must have thought he was the one and only Pastafarian. That would have been my favorite class. I’m sure.
The more we talk the more eager I am to find that palm tree…
btw, I love the idea of Procyonidism. It would take me weeks to come up with something worthy enough. Did you have to go in to detail or just the basic premise?
June 19th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Melanie:
Is it your contention that, in your words, “If gay marriage were legal, a religious organization that believes and teaches that homosexuality is immoral will be required to offer benefits to gay spouses also.” such organizations routinely employ gays? Well, yeah, IF they employ gays they’d be required to insure their spouses. That’s a big IF.
You also say, “There are 3 primary reasons I can think of for a legal marriage – to follow your moral beliefs – to obtain government and employer benefits afforded to spouses – legal recognition and protection. Anything else? Besides the whole declaration of love and eternal commitment thing that fails 50% of the time?”
I’m not sure what your point is. Do you contend that these are not good reasons? That homosexuals should not pursue these reasons? Also, a few comments about your last statement. The 50% failure rate is no longer valid. That was the rate in the mid-80’s. Secondly, that rate was for heterosexuals. There is not enough data to even guess what the divorce rate for legally married homosexuals would be. Also, even accepting the 50% rate for divorce that leaves half of the married population committed to marriage. Prior to Massachusett’s legalization of same-sex marriage NO homosexual could make that commitment.
June 19th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
I’m not sure if I understand some of the above posts, but according to them, if homosexuality is allowed, then so should be incest between two siblings who live together…
Hmm.
I live with my twin brother, who is gay…so what does that make me?
A twincestuous pervert, I suppose.
June 19th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
kittym: And I’m an only child, so I think that means I like sex with stuffed animals…
June 19th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
kittym: So THAT’s there are so many naked statues and drawings of men in ancient times. I don’t want to be contrarian, because I agree with your point, but Caesar, Antony, Nero and Caligula were all gay? Maybe they experimented in college, but… Never heard of that.
June 19th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
FUCK NO!!!!!!!
June 19th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
I’ve tried to be equitable and support my arguments with reason but then I read this: “I have no proof for either but I’m guessing that the majority of homosexual activity doesn’t even consist of wholesome monogamous love relationships.”
If you don’t have proof then why would you say this? It is, in fact, a bunch of nonsense. Firstly, you don’t define “wholesome”. Secondly, the majority of older homosexuals and lesbians are in long term relationships. The younger ones mimic the heterosexual young in not committing to monogamous relationships until older and more settled. Demonizing homosexuals for behavior that is consistent in heterosexuals is akin to demonizing sexually active women and accepting sexually active men.
And the reason it is “all sexual” is because that is the definition of homoSEXUAL, one who finds sexual pleasure with a partner of one’s own sex. Siblings do not engage in incest because they are not sexually attracted to one another. Homosexuals engage in sex precisely because they are attracted to each other.
June 19th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Meanmofo, help me out. Do you mean gay marriage should be legalized but intercourse shouldn’t be?
June 19th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Chershey, either stuffed animals or auto-stimulation.
June 19th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Yes. It s/be legal. The goverment ought to saction gay marriage. Since however it’s against some people’s religion (I’m agnostic BTW) the law must also say that no church should be compelled to perform such marriages. In the U.S. we’re lawsuit happy, and if gay marriage is made legal it’s only a matter of time before such a suit is filed. A law written the way I describe SHOULD prevent such nonsense.
June 19th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Okay, so I stopped reading in the 280’s or so, when I saw this:
“And here’s my argument for it…pedophiles. The majority of people are against it but there are a lot of pedophiles out there so it’s ok cause they were born being pedophiles? If an older man wanted to marry a 10 year old boy it would be ok?! So when all the pedophiles protest out in the street we should accept their way of life?”
I would just like to point out that this argument (and other similar ones, such as “what next, people marrying dogs?!”) fall within the category of the “Slippery Slope Logical Fallacy” and it pisses me right the hell off when people make these arguments thinking that they don’t sound like idiots. The problems with the argument I’ve quoted are so glaringly obvious!
Some of the main points throughout this conversation have been a) choice (or lack-of) and b) harm (or lack-of).
While it may be true that gays & pedophiles do not have a choice in being “who they are” they do have a choice in how they act on it. A gay person acting on his(or her)…gayness by getting into a relationship with another consenting gay person, does no harm to either party. A pedophile acting on his (or her) pedophile-ness by banging a 10 year old does potentially irreparable physical & emotional damage to the 10 year old.
I feel like I’m rambling now, and I don’t really know if my comment made as much sense as it did in my head…I’m gonna go back & read the rest of the comments now.
June 19th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
The “fuck no” was for gay marriage…I just don’t agree with it…
June 19th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
given the insanity and idiocy of some of the more rabidly homophobic comments…
i’d say we should be promoting asexuality, masturbation, mandatory sterilization, eugenics to cleanse for homophobes…etc etc etc
June 19th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Logar: Oh yeah, those sculputerers (I know that’s wrong, but I can’t be bothered to look it up) were raving homosexuals!
Ceasar and them … maybe not completely gay, but they had homosexual encounters/relationships. I should have clarified that. I did a paper on this very subject my last semester in school, and it absolutely fascinated me!
Chersey: We’re a sick, degenerate lot, eh??
June 19th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Gay marriage, civil unions, legalized buggery… All fine by me. Some of my best friends are Gay/Bi.
Happy fuckers too, I get a bit jealous of them sometimes! All smiling and giggling. What makes them so special? So what if they have managed what they were looking for in someone one the same sex. Being all cutesy, Bragging about How they are going to be spending their honeymoon on some beautiful beach in California. They get to do whatever they want with that extra money that they are not spending on children. Bah!
I was going to make this a lot funnier but my allergies are kicking my ass and I can’t think.
Legalize Gay marriage! Just because your life sucks doesn’t mean the world has to suffer.
June 19th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
If/When gay marriage is legalized, all of the above will happen. Someone somewhere will find themselves in one of the precarious situations mentioned. If there’s a loophole, they will find it (not meaning gay people, the comment is a generalization). Yes, and whether or not a church employs someone who is gay, the verbage and availability of it must be disclosed in their benefit document. And who’s to say the employee must disclose they’re gay before they’re hired? That’s a violation of their rights. Once they’re hired, you cannot terminate them for that reason. So yes, some church somewhere will end up in a legal battle over this moral issue.
And as far as polygamy, you’re looking at it from the Mormon perspective. No one says polygamists have to be from Mormon descent. My point is; consenting adults. And like I said, many heterosexual marriages aren’t healthy and equal but we don’t prevent them legally. So how can we outlaw polygamy if our arguement is “to each his own”?
I’m not saying gay people aren’t entitled to the same rights and recognition as heterosexual people. I’m just throwing arguements out (the purpose of a debate).
Same thing with children. I’m not saying gay people should not adopt. But I guarantee you people will say, “when I voted for gay marriage, I didn’t know that meant my ex-husband’s new husband is entitled to his death benefit, not my children!”
Ya know it’s gonna happen.
June 19th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
The “equal rights” argument doesn’t work. I’ve posted this before but got no response:
marriage isn’t a right, it’s an option. An option for any 1 man and 1 women to enter into a union which comes with various benefits. Gay people have the exact same option as everyone else. Any gay man can get married to any women that is willing. As can a gay woman marry any one man. It’s all the same and all equal across the board. If gay man can’t legally marry another gay man, a straight man can’t marry a straight man. Looks like we all have the same option. But it’s not a right; if it was a right then the government would get involved and issue marriages to people when they wanted one. But because it’s not a right someone like my aunt can want to be married for more than 15 years and have it not happen for her.
Also the latest gallup poll says:
Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?
40% should be valid, 56% should not be valid, 4% no opinion.
So in this case most Americans are against gay marriage. Oh ya in california, it wasn’t voted in. Some judge overturned the vote against it. In my opinion that is unconstitutional and un-american. If a state votes it through, then fine, but robbing people of there vote it wrong. By majority, America doesn’t want gay marriage.
June 19th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
this is the problem with really good/controversial lists. this is the first time i saw this one and there are already over 450 comments. there is no way i can read them all.
can someone give a synopsis?
June 19th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Just FYI, my post is based solely on my opinions, not on any facts, I just want to share.
I have read so many very well written comments for this post, I was very surprised to here so many arguements defending gay rights. I also learned quite a bit.
Anyways, the reason I am posting.
In my eyes, a wedding is a ceremony, a celebration of a couples love for each other resulting in a marriage. That is my definition of a wedding/marriage. Just the same as a graduation ceremony is a celebration of a person graduating. I see nothing wrong with a couple, any couple, being able to celebrate their love for each other the same way as everyone else. Now I do agree that it is just a piece of paper, but that does not stop me from wanting to get married one day, so me and my lover have one day a year that is permanent, in which we could celebrate our marriage. Yea, sure, a couple could choose any day at all to just celebrate their love, but it wouldn’t really be the same now would it?
And now that I have babbled on and on, let me repeat that my post is based just on my opinions.
In conclusion, I fully support gay marriage. I firmly believe that a person does not choose their emotions, they do not choose who they fall in love with. They can try to hide it all as much as they want, but they would still know, deep inside. As someone else said, why should anyone be allowed to tell someone they can’t get married to the one they love most. What is it of their business anyways. All that should truly matter is their happiness.
There’s my two cents…
June 19th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Sedulous:
No, everyone does NOT have the same option, because by your logic you are implying that a straight person can marry who they love, but a gay one cannot. Do you see the unfairness in your statement? It makes no sense! And by saying that a straight man cannot marry a straight man because a gay man cannot marry a gay man, then a straight man cannot marry someone he loves if a gay man cannot. It’s only fair, after all.
June 19th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
ravethewave:
not only did I have to have my own creation story, but there had to be historical mumbly-jumbly thrown in (so it would have some bearing with human history) and have “rules or patterns of behavior that would benefit humanity in some way, whether it be applicable to today’s society or an ancient one”.
oh-and it had to be a minmum of 25 pages long. mine was 32 pages, because I included many of my own drawings and a mysterious “raccoon written” tablet that was yet to be deciphered, but had many interpretations. (it was nothing more than a rubbing I made of raccoon pawprints in a dried mud bank of a small canal…it DID look strangely geometric, and possible “conscientiously” prepared, waiting for a spiritually awake human to discover…)
anyhow, I’ll tell you more about it later. Maybe we could create a controversial religion that bemoans of the followers of the FSM as non-believers in the Ginormous Raccoon of Eternal Adumbrate Touching… a.k.a. the G.R.E.A.T. ONE.
(he is also known s “the very humongous procyonid of everlasting, obscure, tactile stimulation”.)
no lie. I wrote it all in one night, and got a B.(I’ve learned the intimate art of procrastination) seems the Professor felt I “borrowed” a little too much from some Native American beginning-of-the-world stories to create my G.R.E.A.T. creation story for Procyonidism. (which I did, but I was unaware of exactly how much Native American folklore the Professor was actually familiar with…)
oh-well… just an idea…
ringtailroxy
June 19th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
DiscHuker, note my name. Everything I say is right and should be read. Disregard all other posters, unless they agree with me. (JOKE)
SEDULOUS: You must be kidding. Your argument is circular. Homosexual marriage is not a right because a man doesn’t have a right to marry a man, but a homosexual man has a right to marry a woman, therefore the homosexual doesn’t have the right to marry a man. Well, you don’t get to decide that one right is valid and the other is not. The argument is whether or not a homosexual has the right to follow his conscience. Much of the argument here is that the religious have the right to follow THEIR consciences and therefore homosexuals do not. This is called hypocrisy. Where you err is by limiting rights to a particular choice. There is no valid reason to do this.
Your second argument concerning polls is called argumentum ad populum, appealing to the popularity of an issue. This is a fallacy and is particularly a fallacy in the U.S. The Constitution is written primarily to defend the rights of private minorities. It limits government interference in private decisions. Nor does it uphold popular interference in private decisions. Popular opinion is not nor should be an indication of what is legal.
As for the Supreme Court of California, it is charged with discerning whether laws, no matter how popular, restrict individual rights guaranteed by the California Constitution. They found that this particular law was unconstitutional. There is nothing illegal about it. The majority does NOT get to decide what is right with the majority. Example: Suppose California had a majority of atheists, and they voted that the non-taxation of Church property should be changed, counter to the California Constitution. The California Supreme Court, pursuant to their established powers, would have to overturn this popular vote. Courts are only “activist” when they do something you disagree with.
June 19th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
“No, everyone does NOT have the same option, because by your logic you are implying that a straight person can marry who they love, but a gay one cannot. Do you see the unfairness in your statement?”
That doesn’t make any sense. It’s nice, even best if a marriage is based on love but that isn’t a requirement. The requirement is one man and one woman, can’t be close relation and can’t already be married. You can be gay as long as it’s one man or one woman. To say that a gay person can’t marry whom they love but a straight person can is dumb. What if the straight man loves another man’s wife….uh oh I guess they can’t get married. What if he loves his sister….too bad. What if he loves a woman who doesn’t love him, I guess he’s SOL. So you should try using actual logic. Gays have the same rights as everyone else. If they vote it in that marriage is a right and you have a right to marry anyone want. Then fine but at this point it isn’t a right, and for the most part you can’t have same sex marriage, so EVERYONE DOES have the same option; any man CAN marry any woman and any woman CAN marry any man.
Involving “love” in this argument at all is stupid, it’s too vague. Maybe half of marriages fail become half aren’t even based on love. I think that should be the next discussion topic “What is love?”.
June 19th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Sedulous:
Forgive me, I never received the marriage checklist, so I don’t know the requirements.
And, um, no — a man should not marry a woman who is already married. That’s illegal. Same with incest, so marrying his sister is out of the question as well.
To be honest, I now have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Can you break it down and explain it again for me please?
June 19th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
hey B8ovin, did you even read what I wrote? IT would be awesome if you would try doing that for me pal. I didn’t refer to marriage as a right at all. Marriage isn’t a right period. Not for straights or gays. No man has the “right” to marry a woman….he has the option. If you had read what I wrote you would have realized that I was saying.
Secondly I said:
“In my opinion that is unconstitutional and un-american. If a state votes it through, then fine, but robbing people of there vote it wrong.”
So did you read the part where I said “in my opinion”? Ya so I think it’s wrong, I didn’t say it was illegal. There’s another vote concerning this issue I believe in September, I’m guessing same-sex marriage will again be voted against.
I haven’t read the california constitution…..does it say you have a right to get married? Same-sex?
Make sure you read what I wrote before replying.
June 19th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
yes it should be legal they should have every right to be miserable as the rest of society who have married.
June 19th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
You said not everyone has the same option with marriage because gay people can’t marry who they love. I said that they do have the same option because it’s not about marrying who you love it’s about having the option to marry a woman if you are a man and man if you are a woman, regardless if you love them or not. So I gave you examples of when a straight man could love someone but be unable to marry them to prove my point(a married woman or his sister).
June 19th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
All right, Sedulous, I’ve read and re-read your previous posts again (multiple times), and I THINK I know what you’re saying.
You are saying that marriage is an option, not a right. OK, I see your point there, and I will re-word what I mean to make it easier for you to understand. This debate is abiout whether or not gays should have the OPTION of marrying EACH OTHER. Does that make it easier for you?
And another thing: who says that a requirement of marriage is that it be between one man and one woman? That, I believe, is another thing we are debating here. Check the definition of marriage, I guarantee you will find more than one entry.
And by the way … no, a man cannot marry a woman who is someone else’s wife because, wait for it … SHE’S ALREADY MARRIED! And no, he can’t marry his sister because … SHE’S HIS SISTER! And yes, the poor confused soul is SOL if the woman he loves doesn’t love him back. That is the part of your reasoning I don’t understand, because you yourself said “The requirement is one man and one woman, can’t be close relation (sister) and can’t already be married (other man’s wife).” LOGICALLY speaking, that doesn’t make any sense.
June 19th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
I just read your last post, and now understand that whole “can’t marry his sister” thing, so disregard my last paragraph please, because that was what confused me in the first place.
June 19th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
if everyone believes that marriage is so fucked up the why are you pushing the whole marriage thing?
I dont agree with gay marriage because it disrespects the sanctity of marriage (for believers, at least).
Gays should have their own unique union equivalent to marriage.
June 19th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Not the government’s decision. Marriage should not be (and originally was not) a government institution. It was an institution put in place by the Church. The government got involved about a hundred years ago for health reasons.
It amazes me that the same people who call for the separation of Church and state also call for the state to handle affairs of the Church. Check your history people.
And while I am a Christian, this statement has nothing to do with my religion. I am not hating on homosexuals. It really doesn’t effect me if homosexuals decide to get married. I’m not going to hold anyone who doesn’t share my world view, to my standards of how to conduct my own life accordingly. I wish peace on everyone.
My comment stems from my libertarianism. If the question is “Should the government do this or that” the answer USUALLY is, “the government should not be involved.”
That’s what I say anyway.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Kittym, I like talking to about this, I think you are reasonable and I think you are really trying to understand what I’m saying. I think because it’s being typed that it’s not coming across the way I want it to. That’s okay.
One reason gays want to marry each other is because they want “equal rights”. First I say that marriage isn’t a right, it’s an option. Second, marriage as we know it today, being between one man and one woman (although not specifically defined as such in every constitution)is available to everyone including gays. So my point is that gays can get married just like everyone else. A man with a woman and a woman with a man.
You had said that it’s not fair because gays can’t marry who they love and I said that straight people can’t always marry who they love. If a straight man loves his sister he can’t marry her though he may love her.
Making sense? If not we can drop it. It can be too hard when it’s in text.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Sedulous: I now understand perfectly, and apologize if I came off a tad harsh. Blame my lack of sleep, since I haven’t been getting much of it lately. I thought you were being condenscending and sarcastic when you were listiong your reasons, not that they were genuine, and you’re absolutely right, it IS difficult to understand people in text. Much easier when you can hear their tone of voice!
June 19th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
yes
if two people love eachother then that should be all that matters
June 19th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Your damn straight they should! (no pun intended). I can’t wait for the first same sex divorce. At least one of the guys is gonna walk away with everything!
W
June 19th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Yay for gays! I want to be married someday and be able to have cool married people benefits. I’ve always looked forward to having a marriage, not having a civil union. It’s perfectly natural. I think the gay penguins would agree with me.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
YES! marriage is the joining of two people that love each other and if two men or two women love each other then they should have the right to be married.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Dischuker: Synopsis as follows. Most think it is a good thing, some wishing for it to be called something else as they see it as something which may further erode family values. (I think that is BS, selfishness and ridiculous expectations are what I blame). There are a few religious folks here that don’t object either, but don’t wish for it to be called marriage because they feel it to be a union between man and woman, but otherwise feel they should have the same rights. There is the odd person who believes it to be a life-style choice and not an accident of birth, but they have generally been contradicted by evidence from the animal kingdom.
Then there are the absolute nut-jobs like S_R (in my opinion one of those fools from the God hates Fags church) who copy-pasted a bunch of lies from some ultra right wing whacko site that blame cancer and a bunch of other diseases and moral decay on homosexual behaviour. Of course he failed to recognize that all the practices mentioned are done at least as often by hetero as homo sexuals. (Although not me personally, you would have to ask Ring-Tail Roxy for specifics, I am kind of an anal-phobe, if you get my drift).
I am actually very impressed with the tone of debate. Other than the odd nut-job; very restrained and intelligent conversation. No name-calling (or at least not much) even when the idiots deserved it.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
I’m all for the legalization of gay marriage, or union, whichever you want to call it.
I’m not going to start on the whole “It isn’t natural. Homosexuality is a choice” crap. But I can tell you right now, I’m gay, and it isn’t a choice. Just like being straight isn’t a choice, and being left handed isn’t a choice. You are what you are. Bigots, just learn to accept!
June 19th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
There is no reason why gaya shouldn’t be able to marry.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Go to this website if you want to know the TRUTH about homosexuals. Its called godsaidmansaid.com, all the answers you need to know are on this website.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
@brain_storm
There are no answers on that website. Those are all opinions based around a book. To those who do not believe in that book, that will prove nothing to them. Pushing your religion on people rarely works.
In my opinion, the state should have no say on this topic. If there truly is a separation of church and state, it should be up to the individuals. This is a matter of human rights, and marriage/love between two consenting adults should be alright, regardless if you like it or not.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Didn’t a president once say that the state has no right peeking into the homes of it’s citizens?
What happens behind closed doors should stay behind closed doors. I have an uncle who’s gay. And he has to be one of the coolest, nicest people on the planet.
If two people love each other, age, race, religion and sex shouldn’t matter. Besides, Humans aren’t alone when it comes to same sex love. Orcas and certain dolphin’s also ‘mate’ with their own sex. And scientists have actually managed to turn certain tape worms gay by turning on a certain switch in their brains.
In any case, big brother doesn’t have the right to tell someone who they should love, and who they should marry. Wouldn’t that defeat the purpose of marriage to begin with?
June 19th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
It should be legal. Jesus said love your neighbor. You neighbors can be gay so henceforth Jesus is pro-gay marriage. I hate the whole they can’t reproduce bullshit. It that’s the case Monica and Chandler as well as all infertile people gay or straight have no right to marriage. This shit is all coming from a ever Sunday church going catholic.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I mean I am a church going catholic ,and I am Pro-Gay marriage, as well as pro-choice.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
JG: just because you go to a church doesn’t make you a believer of their doctrine. the same as sitting in a garage doesn’t make you a car.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Whoa, don’t say that Jesus is pro-gay marriage. Don’t use scripture out of context. Just because Christ says to love everyone, does not mean people can get away with anything just cause we are supposed to love each other.
Personally, I say no. In the way I see it, God created marriage. If he intended it to be something between the same gender then acting upon homosexuality would not be a sin. We don’t have the power to change something we did not create.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
How can being gay be a genetic trait? Wouldn’t the “gay gene” have died out if the people that originally had the gene never passed it on because they never had children? How could someone be born gay when their mother and father… well weren’t gay? If this was the case then surely some people would have a gay gene still.. but there would be less and less gay people, not more. What’s up with that?
June 19th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Rushfan thanks for pointing out the failure of logic on my part, of course you can’t do what you wish that would bring down society. In essence what i was trying to say is that what two consenting people decide to do with each other should be between them. If they wish to marry they should have that right at least on the civil side, it is up to churches/congregations to decide if they wish to perform these ceremonies in a religous setting.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
So Ringtailroxy, Bucslim, and Ravthewave can correspond and flirt, and we have to read how she likes it up her ass but others cannot? Talk about discrimination.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
i’m just hate when you can just tell someone is gay, by their voice…. what the hell is up with that? do whoever you want, but stay away from the flaming shit
June 19th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Black Missile :
lol! yeah… it amazes me how some people classify certain sex acts as “homosexual” when done by partners of the same sex, but it’s all good and dandy when done by partners of the opposite sex!
oh-and with a name like “Black Missile”, i would prefer it if you kept very, very far away from my posterior! :ambulance:
ringtailroxy
June 19th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
aww… my little smiley didn’t show up!
:-O
rtr
June 19th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Black Missile:
okay.. it’s pretty late… so tis is my last try…
” oh-and with a name like “Black Missile”, i would prefer it if you kept very, very far away from my posterior! [IMG]http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Transports/ambulance-041.gif[/IMG] ”
ringtailroxy
June 19th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
i give up…
June 19th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
I love that argument about not putting words in Jesus’ mouth. The whole Bible is anecdotal. Jesus never taped recorded anything. Every word that supposedly came out of his mouth is put there by some author. In any event, he never said anything at all about homosexuality. BUT, he hung around with twelve guys and one woman who he never put the moves on. I’m just saying.
Sedulous. I’ve reread what you said and you’re right. You mistakingly referred to marriage as an option. It is not. It is a right. An option is open to all. Already several states have banned gay marriage, thus making it a right to marriage to some. You can argue the semantics all you want, but the RIGHT to get married is only allowed to some, pal.
Secondly can an opinion that posits “unconstitutional” not be paraphrased to mean “illegal”? They are one and the same. You basically said the decision was illegal, pal. Opinion or not, you put this forth in a discussion and I rightly replied to it.
And you are still making the fallacious argument that the options are necessarily limited. Gays can marry women but not men. That’s not an option it is a restriction. There is a BIG difference. When you take away even a single option it is no longer merely a question of options. Try preventing a heterosexual couple from marrying and see if it isn’t a “right”.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Simple answer? Yes. Why? Because I do. I think that if you love someone, then you should be able to have the choice to get married.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
I’ll say it again… Legality has nothing to do with it. The government should stay out of it! No one wants to listen
June 19th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Yes. Definitely, one-hundred-per-absolute-cent yes. I have lived only a couple houses down from a gay couple before (here in New Jersey, fyi). Some of my co-workers have been/are gay. One of my closest friends revealed himself to be gay to me one day. I can tell all of you, as a free-thinking, misguided late teens to early twenties Repub, exactly how many sleepless nights I spent thinking about them and their “acts.”
A grand total of zero times.
Gay people used to bother me, when I was younger and, frankly, an idiot. My good friend coming out to me was a major part of changing that attitude around (If he was a great person before, why would this new knowledge make him a bad person now?). I see absolutely no harm or problem with letting them live their lives the way they want. After all, this IS still America, and America was founded on just that principle.
(Author’s note: I realize, after writing the post, that many will read this who are, in fact, NOT from America. But I think it still sounds good, so I’ll leave it as is. It’s inspiring either way, no?)
June 19th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
to nat u said
“If two people love each other, age, race, religion and sex shouldn’t matter”. So you think it would be alright if a 30 year old man/woman and a 10 year old boy/girl were to get married? Or what if a man/woman wanted to marry there pet? or what if a father/mother wanted to marry there son/daughter? What if someone wanted two spouses? I think marriage needs to be defined by a federal law. Either as an union between two consenting adults 18 years of age or older or an union of a man and woman 18 years of age or older
June 19th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Probably tangential, but the Sydney Morning Herald website currently has a story about human/robot relationships: http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/coming-soon-meet-the-wife-shes-a-robot/2008/06/20/1213770901374.html
June 20th, 2008 at 12:01 am
I hear a whole lot of people here saying there’s nothing wrong with gay marriages and they give great reasoning as well. However, I can’t help but hear very strong undertones of political correctness.
Let me throw a word out there. Sodomy. It may be a very negative word but it is what it is. A little bit of research tells you more about sodom and gomorrah and what happened to the people.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there was an earthquake or some other calamity that befalls California.
The argument about being genetical inclined to being gay is ridiculous. How can someone who is undoubtedly born from straight man and woman have a gene that makes him/her gay. Hence, sexual orientation is definitely not genetic or in-born.
June 20th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Tomo, not knowing anything about evolution and genetics doesn’t mean you get to talk like you do have knowledge. A genetic trait need not be “turned on” through all generations. Two dwarves can have normally sized children; two blind people can have sighted children, etc. While they certainly have traits for dwarfism or blindness, they also have traits for normal development. Hence, straight men and women can give birth to homosexuals. Further, dormant tendencies that do not spread over an entire population need not be selected for by natural pressure, therefore homosexuality can exist for untold generations without being selected out. Remember, men have the genetic code for nipples.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:07 am
I’ve been seeing too many comments about how God created marriage. You’re wrong, God created fist fights and fucking. We decided to put rules on it.
1) Marry whoever or whatever you want, Keep it decent though. Keep your hands off of kids and don’t ruin the gene pool. If you feel the only thing in your life that brings you joy is you hand, Fine, but don’t expect tax exemptions.
2) Don’t marry and attempt to consummate your relationship with your cat, you’ll kill it. You horse won’t notice. This is not my thing!!! But there are a few freakies out there. Not my business if you like getting kicked in the nuts after sex or laid on by your bull.
3) Polygamy is alright in my books. Several cultures have rules about it. My favorite, “You can’t marry what you can’t afford”, a nice way of saying don’t marry more women than you can feed, house, care for, or cope with. I have a few polygamist friends, consenting adults who are just as miserable as the rest of us.
Tomo: “I wouldn’t be surprised if there was an earthquake or some other calamity that befalls California.” I think you need to stop starring at your pastors wives cleavage. Don’t you have a Godhatesfags rally to go to. Westborough douche bag.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:18 am
And a gay couple were to have a kid, whose last name is it gonna have?…….
June 20th, 2008 at 4:08 am
Well, I think that marriage, as it is defined “the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife” should be between a man and a woman.
I’m not saying that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to live together – I couldn’t care less – but being married..that’s just stretching the term to the extreme.
Why not invent another type of “marriage” – gayrriage of a sort. That would close this chapter forever
I know, semantics..
June 20th, 2008 at 4:09 am
dr. Hannibal Lecter: That smacks of “Separate but equal” to me…
June 20th, 2008 at 5:49 am
Not. If the nature designed 2 sexes then we should comply and not changing the rules. I am not fanatic in any way, but to see 2 men having sex relations is absolutely outrageous. I don’t want them around me, just look at that “hominid” Chris Crocker and you’ll see what I am talking about. Just the thought that some guy wanna kiss me makes me puke. I hope their penises fall of.
June 20th, 2008 at 5:50 am
Well, no, not really, I didn’t say we need to cage them for crying out loud. I have nothing against gay people, they can do whatever the hell they want (well, except raising children, I’m a bit biased there).
What I’m arguing here is the expression “marriage”. It is *defined* as a relationship between a man and a woman. So obviously, to create a marriage you would need all the ingredients. It’s like trying to create an H2O molecule with two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of sulfur. It a molecule alright, but obviously not water.
I’m not saying that hydrogen sulfide is bad (incidentally, it is toxic:)), it’s just a different molecule.
June 20th, 2008 at 6:10 am
Tomo: Before I begin, I’m not saying homosexuality is at all or strictly genetic (we still don’t know…) however you can’t use this argument:
“How can someone who is undoubtedly born from straight man and woman have a gene that makes him/her gay. Hence, sexual orientation is definitely not genetic or in-born.”
It’s called recessive genes if you want to use that argument. How can someone born from two average sized parents be so tall (like in my family). How can someone from two brunette parents be born blonde? How can someone from two normal parents be born with a mental disability?
Again if you want to say it’s not genetic, that’s fine…you just can’t use that argument because it makes no sense.
June 20th, 2008 at 6:13 am
Dr. Hannibal Lecter; And why shouldn’t gay folk raise children? Because it is catching? Grow up, homosexuality is likely caused by fluctuations of testosterone in utero. There is a fairly well distributed study of pregnant women during the Blitz of London. Now I don’t remember which trimester, but increased stress (which lowers estrogen levels and increases testosterone in females) resulted in a much higher proportion of homosexual children. A little less easy to quantify, but that same stress during a different trimester ended up with a higher portion of heterosexual but very effeminate men. Its all in the hormones. Of course there are other reasons for these kinds of fluctuations, this one was just easy to track.
June 20th, 2008 at 6:16 am
63jax; You are obviously unsure of your own sexuality. A little self-loathing I’m seeing here. Are you sure you’re not gay and suppressing it?
June 20th, 2008 at 6:18 am
Marriage is defined like that by one religion. Other religions allow multiple partners in a marriage, right? So do we base marriage on a single religion, or allow people to choose which they wish to fall under- if any. Secular Humanism is technically a religion- so there’s the basis for a religious gay marriage.
And people saying it’s not natural? Why? What else can it be? Everything is “natural”, not that it matters. If “nature” wanted only heterosexual couples then “nature” shouldn’t have made people gay.
June 20th, 2008 at 6:25 am
dr. Hannnibal Lecter:
Yes, yes, it is quite plain that you don’t have anything against homosexuals. Oh, except they shouldn’t marry. Other than that … no, wait, they shouldn’t raise kids either. Hmm. Yes, quite obvious you have nothing against them.
June 20th, 2008 at 6:30 am
Mom424: Unlike you I am sure of my own sexuality and if you are not able to figure out what I wrote there I will translate it for you: I HATE FAGS, and if you are a fag I HATE YOU TOO.
June 20th, 2008 at 6:32 am
do what you want, but dont allow them to adopt children, kids need both a father and mother figure.
you do choose to be gay, you dont “discover” your gayness.
June 20th, 2008 at 6:34 am
Re: definition of marriage – for most of marriage’s history, it was “defined” as the union between one man and many women. Times change, things change. History and tradion are no excuse for oppression or discrimination.
June 20th, 2008 at 6:34 am
Mom424 is completely right. Did you know- a psychological study carried out testing homophobes reaction to gay porn found that 80% were aroused, compared to about 10% for non-homophobic people who classed themselves as straight? Repression!
June 20th, 2008 at 6:38 am
Hobolad,What?! lol. You make me laugh, you are all gay and now you make a coalition against heterosexuals. Help!!!
June 20th, 2008 at 6:39 am
I’m totally against it. Not because I’m against homosexuality, but because I’m trying to protect the gays from the institution of marriage.
That being said, people think our history of human nature and society is accurate simply because that’s what hey have been told. You don’t see scientists (the ones who don’t have their worldview pre-hijacked by a religious or political agenda) spouting about how unnatural it is.
Same sex unions exist all throughout the animal world. It’s an evolutionary advantadge that provides more caretakers for less offspring as most mammalian animals exist in group form.
We live in a complete lie of the rugged western conqueror of nature mythology… modern historical anthropologists, for instance, almost universally agree that no such thing as the ‘caveman clubbing his woman and dragging her back to his cave’ ideal… in reality we lived as groups and women were actually more sexually liberated than they are now. Multiple partners with multiple children create less tendency for individual violence within the group and create more incentive to work together harmoniously. In modern day Iceland (which, coincedentally has been named as the best country to live in on the planet) women having 3 or 4 children with 3 or 4 men is the norm, not the exception. That’s because it’s how we are actually supposed to be. It was completely common for every child to look at every man as his father and every woman as his mother and for people to work together. This is relevant because it shows the easy bridge to understanding how homosexuality in a small percentage of the population would be an evolutionary advantadge. It is also relevant because it shows how screwed up we- not nature- are. If we can live in a society that perverts and calls our more natural ways of living unnatural, then how can you trust anyone who is trying to tell you that homosexuality is wrong?
And if you want to argue ‘natural selection’ I would probably (after I stopped laughing) try to explain to you that the concept is based upon inter species competition- the species that is most adapt at survival will dominate. Your particular genetic variance within said species is not that important. If having a given 10% of the species turn out homosexual provides less offspring and more material and care-producing adults, then it fits perfectly into the equation as an advantadge for the species.
Of course, trying to use science to debate with people who have an agenda against natural things is often futile. As for my agenda? I’m an average hetero male with an average hetero wife and I don’t even have any gay relatives.
p.s. If you want to argue homosexuality is unnatural because you think sodomy is a perversion of the evolution of the body, I think it’s only fair you ask yourself why you aren’t standing on a rooftop declaring to the world that you think getting oral is an abomination. Same thing, hypocrite
June 20th, 2008 at 6:40 am
63jax:
Yeah, I’m in agreement with Mom on this one (we agree more with our Moms as we get older)… you’re showing some definite self-loathing, dude. Self-deception is a powerful thing, jax. I’d bet big money that you’re not really “sure” of anything related to your sexuality–you’ve just convinced yourself you are.
See, jax–we (truly) straight men who are more enlightened and free of spirit figured out long ago that more homosexual men means less competition for us, for the hot chicks.
They’re no threat to me, therefore. Why are they such a threat to you?
June 20th, 2008 at 6:45 am
Its really funny when people try to insult others by calling them gay.
June 20th, 2008 at 6:45 am
Also- sorry for the double post- about the genetic versus choice argument- what difference does it make? If it’s genetic, choice is involved in whether a person embraces their sexuality- if it’s choice, there must be something underlying to make people want to make that choice.
And not allowing gay couples to adopt children? What would that prove? So instead of having two mother or father figures (that’s if genders are restricted to playing their “role”- which I disagree with, but anyway) a kid just stays in a home with no parental figures?
There are more kids without families than there are families adopting kids- to restrict it even more isn’t helping, it’s just trying to enforce archaic meaningless rules, not helping in the slightest.
June 20th, 2008 at 6:48 am
Ok people!!! I love gay people. I will tell my wife and my child that I am gay and I don’t like women anymore. I hope you are happy now ,you destroyed a marriage.
June 20th, 2008 at 6:49 am
I say yes. Why shouldn’t they be able to get married? Honestly, what goes on in their bedroom, or if they want to walk down the street and hold hands, there is nothing wrong with it. They’re good people, who simply want to get married. And I hate when people give me that BS about how marriage is ’sacred’ and all that jazz. They let Britney Spears get married in VEGAS and she got it anulled only moments later. And AMERICA is not a THEOCRACY so I don’t see why the President can’t think outside of his Church and in a rational, and un religious way. This is why religion and government don’t mix. It’s a disaster, and basically we’re denying people of rights. All because some people think homosexuality is wrong. I always say: if you don’t want gay marriage then DON’T HAVE ONE!!!!!!!!!!
^_^
June 20th, 2008 at 6:50 am
Randall, are you gay? I wanna meet you! I wanna show you my gayness! I could love you, you know…come on
June 20th, 2008 at 6:52 am
@kittym: I never said they shouldn’t marry, don’t go randall on my ass and claim I said things I never did. All I’m saying is that it shouldn’t be _called_ “marriage” in that case.
And regarding the children, I don’t think that raising a child is a job for two men or two women (and it is a *job*). This may come as a shock to you, but men and women are indeed different and perceive the world differently. A child should be allowed to learn from both. Not to mention the complexities of growing up in an “unnatural” environment.
(Yes, I said unnatural, simply because of genetics, obviously, a man is “designed” to have sex with a woman and vice-versa, regardless of our moral, religious and cultural inheritance.)
Also, gay pride parades are a piece of crap. They are nothing but an act of instigation and do not help the gay community in any way. I’d say it has the exact opposite effect. If you’re gay, live your life like the rest of us and shut the hell up. We don’t care. But if you go around naked, “protesting”, you can always bet on some asswipe to go after you and kick your ass because he disagrees with your way of life.
June 20th, 2008 at 6:54 am
Suredeath (110):
When did I say christianity was the only religion?
June 20th, 2008 at 7:00 am
Well everyone percieves the world differently. Should we assign kids to one right-wing, one left-wing parent? One jazz-fan one metal-fan? That’s if the different is there, or noticable- which I’m not sure of. Socially, yes, the genders tend to be raised differently and so may be different because of that- but not necessarily and anyway, who’s to say that would make any kind of a difference? Or to put it another way- who’s to say that it would be worse than not being adopted at all?
And can someone tell me, if it’s not natural- then *what* is it? And why does whatever it is make it unnatural?
And gay people wouldn’t need to make a fuss or have parades if they weren’t a discriminated against minority.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:01 am
There is actually a formulae for determining the commonality of homosexual behaviour that is easily quantifiable; it’s existed for a while. This is why you don’t see anthropologists or biologists that are at their same respective levels that Hawking would be, arguing this thing in the media. It’s only the pundits and people with half-truths they like to twist. The people who study animal and human behaviour don’t have any ‘issue’ to debate.
I could give you the formulae, but it would probably tell you things about yourself you aren’t ready to confront.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:01 am
63jax:
A) It’s apparent you can’t read, or only read selectively.
B) I highly doubt you have a wife–as, from your (extremely) low humor level and poor sentence structure (as well as your attitude) it’s evident to me now that you’re a kid–15, maybe? So…
C) Go study for your finals and do your chores, and leave the adults to their important talk.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:03 am
Lecter: women weren’t ‘designed’ to put your penis in their mouth. It’s a capacity, not a design.
If you swear off of ever getting oral again, I’ll believe you actually believe your own argument.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:05 am
Also, protesting is generally a nice way of saying ‘please stop killing us, or beating us savagely and leaving us to die from exposure intertwined in razor wire fences.’
June 20th, 2008 at 7:18 am
@Hobolad:
No, right-wing and left-wing have nothing to do with it. It is a fact that male and female brains operate differently on biological level. For example, in average, man wants to be respected and woman wants to be loved. Of course, things are not black and white, there are deviations where everything is reversed. So it’s not just because they were “raised differently”, it is – up to a point – but there are obviously some genetic predispositions.
“And gay people wouldn’t need to make a fuss or have parades if they weren’t a discriminated against minority.”
And how do the parades help? I’m curious.
@Mr.Graves:
“women weren’t ‘designed’ to put your penis in their mouth.”
I never said they were, did I? (Are you saying that vagina is _not_ meant for penis and vice-versa?)
“please stop killing us, or beating us savagely and leaving us to die from exposure intertwined in razor wire fences.”
And who is actually doing this? I’ll ask again, how do the parades help??
“If you swear off of ever getting oral again, I’ll believe you actually believe your own argument.”
Heh, no sane person would do that; but I also won’t go around on a parade and claim it’s perfectly natural and “normal”, whatever that means.
In a nutshell: if you like it, do it, but shut the hell up.
It’s that simple.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:21 am
WHAT FOR?
Curious how everyone went for the gay topic instead of the marriage issue.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Lecter:
Yes, once again–you incautiously and recklessly say a lot of shit and then worm around what you said when confronted. So instead of “don’t go all Randall” I think it would be more appropriate to suggest that you cease “lectering” all the time on this site, and admit that you make a pattern of shooting your mouth off with little or no rationality or logic (and with little attention paid to the facts) and then squirming like a pike on a hook when you’re contradicted.
Your statement that raising a child is “not a job for two men or two women” is silly, and, in fact, baseless. And your attempt at justifying this based on what’s “natural” or “unnatural” is not only offensive, it borders on stupidity (though of course one can admit seeing where you were going with it–of course we tend to think that an ideal parental situation is a man and a woman working in partnership… but further thought, as I will show, belies this to some extent). Let’s just think about this for a second. By your logic, then, a single parent is simply inadequate to the task of raising a child, as much as two gay men or two lesbian women. So… should all children who lose a parent be placed in foster care where male AND female parental figures are available? Or should we force the widowed parent to remarry in an appropriate space of time, to ensure that the child is properly raised? Well no, of course, both are ludicrous ideas.
But then so is the notion that gay couples can’t raise children or can’t do it as well as a hetero couple. Granted, it’s often true that a man has things to teach a son, or a woman to teach a daughter–but the reverse is also true–men can teach daughters and women can teach sons. It isn’t gender roles that parents are teaching kids for the most part–or at least it shouldn’t be–it’s teaching them to be full and rounded adults. The success of all this depends on the parent, on their mindset, and their capabilities as mature adults–not on their sex.
When I was 8 months old, my father died at the age of 42 of cancer. I was raised by my mother until the age of about ten or eleven when she remarried. My stepfather, however, was older and paid no part whatsoever in my life. But I had male role models, some real, some fictitious. I also had two friends in a similar position.
We all turned out just fine, being raised by our mothers. Similarly, I have a friend from college whose wife (another friend from college) tragically died of cancer at the age of 30. He was left to raise his son alone. Today the kid is 15 and doing very well–in fact I know far worse kids raised by a man AND a woman in concert–and there’s just the point–it’s not the gender combo–it’s the *quality* of the parenting, no matter who it comes from.
I’d rather see children raised by a gay couple who are intelligent, loving and nurturing (and who know their duty as parents) rather than a straight couple who are neglectful, stupid, and abusive. Any day. The former usually makes for good kids who grow up to be decent people. The latter often makes for troubled and tragic kids who grow up failed and miserable. You pick which is better.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:31 am
“No, right-wing and left-wing have nothing to do with it. It is a fact that male and female brains operate differently on biological level. For example, in average, man wants to be respected and woman wants to be loved. Of course, things are not black and white, there are deviations where everything is reversed. So it’s not just because they were “raised differently”, it is – up to a point – but there are obviously some genetic predispositions.”
Maybe they do operate differently, maybe they don’t. I’m just saying that everyone is different and in different areas. Who’s to say what a child needs? Does a child need a parent that wants respect and a person who wants love anymore than a parent who’s a jazz fan and a parent who’s a metal fan? I mean, you’re saying it’s genetic- then surely the genetics of the child would come through in any case? If not, then it doesn’t matter what the genders of the parents are.
What problem exactly do you think same-sex parents would cause and what evidence is there of it?
And it’s not simple. Imagine if people who engaged in oral sex had their rights restricted- should *they* just shut the hell up about it? No marriage for them, no adoption, discrimination, etc etc?
June 20th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Lecter:
More ignorance on your part:
Mr. Graves said: “please stop killing us, or beating us savagely and leaving us to die from exposure intertwined in razor wire fences.”
And you actually asked, “And who is actually doing this?”
Do you know nothing? Are you not aware of the brutal hostility gays have had to endure for countless years? In America alone there have been unnumbered crimes against homosexuals–violent crimes… beatings, murders… but America is *hardly* alone in this, and in fact many western cultures have even worse records, as do many other cultures. Mr. Graves *does* refer to a specific crime committed some years ago against a young gay man, who was tortured and beaten and left to die, as noted, entwined in a barb wire fence. Of course, as a foreigner you couldn’t be expected to know about this, though it was big news here. But all the same, similar crimes have occurred throughout the world at different times–homosexuality used to be a crime in your own part of the world, I believe punishable by long prison confinement and even death.
So let’s open up our eyes and look around the world, shall we?
June 20th, 2008 at 7:51 am
Lecter: (you said)
(quoting me)-“women weren’t ‘designed’ to put your penis in their mouth.”
I never said they were, did I? (Are you saying that vagina is _not_ meant for penis and vice-versa?)
Ok, let me explain, I thought I was being too painfully obvious in the metaphor: First, I said nothing about a vagina. Second, I was referring to the idea that ‘homosexuality is not natural’ What is the basis for homsexuality being argued as unnatural? All of them hinge on the presumption of biological homogeny in choice of partnership- men have a penis and a woman has a vagina and they go together because they fit and thats what nature (or god) wants.
I shouldn’t have to continue because it should be obvious by now, but let me fill it out: the mouth was not designed for sexual purposes. Therefore oral sex is no different than sodomy, if you are going to use ‘natural and unnatural’ as a basis for whether sexual behaviours should be accepted or not.
So, if sodomy (what about male-female sodomy?) is unnatural, so is oral sex, and therefore any who engage in one while decrying the other as wrong, is a…
wait for it…
hypocrite.
The only difference is social compunction- what you have been told- not cold hard science. Let us move on:
I said:
“please stop killing us, or beating us savagely and leaving us to die from exposure intertwined in razor wire fences.”
And you replied:
And who is actually doing this? I’ll ask again, how do the parades help??
Matthew Shepard? That’s an easy one. Or, just for fun, google violence against homosexuals. Try the Wiki page. I for one like the stories where big tough men gang rape and beat 110-pound lesbian teenagers to death. These have names, places, obituaries and convictions. Not just stories. Violence against homosexuals based on their sexual orientation is commonplace.
I said:
“If you swear off of ever getting oral again, I’ll believe you actually believe your own argument.”
You replied:
Heh, no sane person would do that; but I also won’t go around on a parade and claim it’s perfectly natural and “normal”, whatever that means.
No sane person would call homosexuality unnatural or wrong either. Natural, yes. The people who study biology and anthropolgy- gay or straight- generally agree.
‘Normal’ is entymologically derivative from the Latin for the term ‘average’. Not ‘right’ or ‘good’ or ‘better’. ‘Normal’ is a statistical statement. Having blue eyes ina world full of brown eyes is not ‘normal’.
That is no basis for telling people that blue eyed folks should not be allowed to have all the rights of brown eyed people. Being ‘average’ shouldn’t be a badge of pride- if anything it should make you take a cold hard look at yourself.
Finally, you said:
In a nutshell: if you like it, do it, but shut the hell up.
It’s that simple.
In which I would like to conclude with:
If they were given the chance to do it, without being persecuted, treated like lesser humans, killed for commiting no wrong act, then they wouldn’t have to speak out to force society to accept them.
If they had the opportunity to do it and shut the hell up about it, they would have, a long time ago. Society was in the wrong on this one, not the gays. If you personalize that to feel like everyone is accusing you, it would only be logical if it was because you were clinging to the attitudes that made their persecution the impetus of the reversion that now occurs.
June 20th, 2008 at 8:04 am
dr. Hannibal Lecter:
Don’t you dare patronize me about what it takes to look after a child. I know ALL about it, and I do it on my own without any help from the biological father. So is my son not going to grow up a good person, because he doesn’t have a father? And is that my fault? No, it sure as hell isn’t. Are you saying that my child will never have as fulfilling a life as one with a mother and a father, because our situation isn’t “natura”? If you are, then I’m not going to waste my time debating with you, because to me, you are sickening.
And by the way: my GAY brother lives with me, and helps me raise my child, and I don’t give a damn how “unnatural” you find that. I’ll be sure to teach my son tolerance and acceptance of others and my brother will help me acheive that.
June 20th, 2008 at 8:22 am
I love the whole “it’s unnatural!” argument despite the fact that their are literally thousands of examples in NATURE of homosexuality, transgender. How about the fact that many species of frog can spontaneously switch genders. So not only is it natural but if you believe in Intelligent Design then GOD F’ING DESIGNED HOMOSEXUALITY INTO NATURE!
June 20th, 2008 at 8:50 am
@Randall: I’m just gonna go right ahead and ignore your insults and remind you that we agreed not to cross paths:
We agreed not to cross paths. And don’t worry, I’m not “lectering”, that is your domain. Hypocrite.
@Hobolad:
“I mean, you’re saying it’s genetic- then surely the genetics of the child would come through in any case? If not, then it doesn’t matter what the genders of the parents are.”
Up to a point – yes. but you have to admit that parents have a huge ass role in everybody’s life.
“What problem exactly do you think same-sex parents would cause and what evidence is there of it?”
Don’t really have any concrete evidence, I’m just guessing here. Maybe things would be different if everyone shared the view that gay parents are OK, we can assume that there would be no consequences. But, as it is now, the child will probably be bullied in school etc. It is sad, but true nevertheless.
“Imagine if people who engaged in oral sex had their rights restricted- should *they* just shut the hell up about it?”
Yes.
“And who is actually doing this?”
You didn’t actually answer my question. Let me do it.
Psychopaths. They do this kind of shit. And they don’t care if someone is gay or not. They will find another reason to do it anyway. And don’t even think about “not all gay haters are psychopaths”, because they are.
“‘Normal’ is entymologically derivative from the Latin for the term ‘average’.”
So then we agree about what I said? Homosexuality is not average? OK, good thing we got that sorted out.
“That is no basis for telling people that blue eyed folks should not be allowed to have all the rights of brown eyed people.”
And I never did. I also never said to any of my gay friends they shouldn’t be gay.
“Society was in the wrong on this one, not the gays.”
Agreed. But I still don’t think parades are positive. I think there has to be a better way.
@kittym:
“Don’t you dare patronize me about what it takes to look after a child.”
I’m not patronizing you. I’m just saying that your child will have to look for a substitute male role model, The role is _normally_ (or in average) played by the biological father. That is all. I can be a positive or negative thing, if the substitute role model is more adequate for a parent.
“So is my son not going to grow up a good person, because he doesn’t have a father? And is that my fault? No, it sure as hell isn’t. Are you saying that my child will never have as fulfilling a life as one with a mother and a father, because our situation isn’t “natura”?”
Let me answer those: No. No. Aaaaand…that would also be a “no”. I never meant to say those things, no need to get defensive.
“my GAY brother lives with me, and helps me raise my child, and I don’t give a damn how “unnatural” you find that.”
I don’t really know why are you under impression that I hate gay people. I don’t. Honestly. And if your brother is going to help you raise your child to become a good person, kudos to both of you.
Now, everyone, before you reply to my post with the “unnatural” in it, I want to take good look at the word. Notice how it’s in the freaking quotes. Now, when you’ve noticed that, read the thing in the brackets. Now read this:
Your head is not designed for you to walk on it.
Notice the practical bit of it. As in “not practical”. Now, if someone comes around and starts walking on his freaking head, I say – good for you! I would still say it is “unnatural” – with quotes. I apply the same criteria for gays.
If you’re happy, and you’re not hurting anyone, do whatever the hell you want. I say, good for you!
@imimrtl:
“How about the fact that many species of frog can spontaneously switch genders.”
Haven’t seen a human do that lately. They must live underground or something.
Have a good weekend everyone and remember, I don’t hate gays, I just hate the whole human kind with no prejudice.
June 20th, 2008 at 8:56 am
dr. Hannibal Lecter (543): I am sure children of interracial marriages were bullied and teased when they were uncommon, but I certainly don’t think that means the parents shouldn’t have gotten married or had children.
It can be a brave, difficult thing for the first person to step up, but it makes it that little bit easier for everyone who follows.
June 20th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Lecter:
“Hypocrite,” Lecter? I do not think it means what you think it means.
At any rate, I’ve said nothing in the least hypocritical. And yes, I would gladly not cross paths with you again, as you make a regular habit of disingenuousness and then avoid answering when you’ve been caught in a distortion or falsehood–but the trouble is that you *keep opening your mouth to say absurd things with no basis or evidence.* You did this overtly so on the history thread where we had our original argument, and you’re doing it again here, albeit with less ferocious absurdity and with no actual “lies,” in this case. Just ill-considered opinions.
One last thing to note: your latest answer is a perfect example of your habitual squirming and wriggling when you’ve been challenged, and this time it’s not just challenged by me but by several other people. You make flat and clear statements which others call you out on, and then in response you pretend that you were simply mis-read and mis-understood (amongst other tactics you use).
AGAIN, the original statement put to you by Mr. Graves was:
“please stop killing us, or beating us savagely and leaving us to die from exposure intertwined in razor wire fences.”
AND YOUR RESPONSE was to ask:
“And who is actually doing this?”
CLEARLY this was a jab at Mr. Graves’ assertion, the intent of which was to say, in essence, that you were challenging the legitimacy and factual basis of what Mr. Graves said. Because any reasonable goddamn human being on earth knows that homosexuals have been the target of violence and brutality for god knows how long in this world of ours. So your question is either an example of out-and-out ignorance OR it’s your typical deny-the-truth tactic. There is no other choice here.
AND WHEN the question was answered for you, (by myself AND Mr. Graves) you dance around and pretend it WASN’T answered and then provide your own utterly disingenuous and inaccurate answer: that it’s all the work of “psychopaths.” Yup, just those whacky psychopaths, who’d kill you for any excuse, so of course *they* don’t count.
This is PRECISELY the convenient excuse that was used in regards to Nazi atrocities (and by other atrocity-committing-criminals)… namely, that it was a small, core group of “psychopaths” who caused the Holocaust to happen (as well as the war itself). Let’s everyone off the hook, doesn’t it? It’s just those damn psychos. We don’t have to take responsibility as a people, or a species, or a culture. We can just lay the blame at the feet of some convenient scapegoats.
NO, Lecter, these things are NOT done simply by “psychopaths.” OBVIOUSLY they’re not nice people, they’re not tolerant or civilized people… but to dismiss them all as mere “psychopaths” is ridiculously naive and simply dead wrong. The violence and intolerance directed at gays manifests itself in MANY forms and from MANY corners of society. It is a problem endemic within us and within our cultures. That you feign ignorance of this, or deny it, shows how either out of touch you are, or shows up the kind of absurd and even offensive rhetorical tactics you use in an argument.
June 20th, 2008 at 10:01 am
I just wanna say GO MONA!!! you rock girl!
June 20th, 2008 at 10:07 am
I think the biggest misconception that people have is of marraige as a religious ceremony. The term ‘marraige’ was actually first used in Rome, before Christianity. In the year 342 Constantine made marraige a religious ceremony and outlawed same sex marraige. It was legal before then. All we’re doing here in California is setting things back to they more tolerant way they were before the government started making our decisions for us. How long will people use ancient scrolls as a justification for intolerance?
June 20th, 2008 at 10:17 am
I guess reading through some of the recent posts on this topic, I think things are getting a little more testy than they were earlier. Again, convincing someone on this topic is tantamount to convincing a dog that he’s a cat.
I still feel the same way I feel about the subject and I completely understand the argument for the opposite. Growing up in the midwest, the first openly gay person I saw was in college. Outside of that and not knowing the closeted gays in my small town, calling the other dudes in the locker room ‘gay’ or ‘fag’ was juvenile, yes, but common. Ignorance and naivety aside, my adherence to my faith is the core reason why I oppose gay marriage. You cannot convince me otherwise, because that would compromise my beliefs.
On the other hand, I’m not that opposed to to people falling in love and wanting to spend the rest of their lives with each other. How that effects me personally is debatable. When I get home from work, I wave at my neighbor and then you know what? I forget about him as soon as Sportscenter is on. I have my faith, yes, but for the most part I feel like whatever gets you through the day man. There’s plenty of heterosexuals out there doing stuff I don’t agree with and I’m not getting my panties in a bunch over something I can’t control.
I wasn’t going to post this, but I can’t seem to resist. My marriage was destroyed because of homosexuality. My wife left me for another woman. My therapist told me I would have been just as destroyed if it were a man, but I’m still trying to figure that one out. So I do have some exceptions to people who say it isn’t hurting anyone. It hurt me quite a bit. But at the end of the day, you can’t change who you are, and it must have taken a lot of guts for my ex to do what she did.
June 20th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Does anyone else have an urge to go beat up a bigot? I think i’ll stroll down to one of the local college campuses and find a frat boy. Who’s in?
June 20th, 2008 at 10:44 am
buc:
Whoa, pal… heavy thing to admit, there.
I will totally resist any impulse to kid, here, of course–we’re being serious now. And of course I don’t know the details of what happened in your marriage, and why your wife did what she did… but of course you have my sympathy. Must have been a very hard thing to get through for you.
As regards the harm done–the only thing I can say, is (and I hope you take this the right way) one might consider, in a situation such as this one, that the reason this may have happened was because that, due to the constraints of our society, and the shame and stigma attached to being homosexual, a person may have been in denial for years, before finally being able to come to terms with his or her sexuality. So the harm, really, would come to the innocent party in such a situation (i.e., the partner) from the pressures that prevented the individual from facing who he or she really was… and had he/she been free to be who he/she really was from the beginning, they wouldn’t have entered into a union with a member of the opposite sex in the first place. Something to consider, anyway.
But on the other hand, it’s also possible for someone to already be aware of their own sexuality, but to simply play at being straight for a time for whatever reason–and not face up to their culpability in hurting the other person when they finally walked away from the union when they’d had enough. But even then, the harm would come from selfishness and self-centeredness.
At any rate, I’m sorry, man. You shouldn’t have been put in that position.
June 20th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Randall – it’s all good man, I’m over it. And like I said, there is some level of admiration because I know it was a pretty bold thing for her to do considering her ultra Christian family and upbringing.
Your other description of the situation was right on. Marriages fail everyday for one reason or another.
So that’s why I try to temper my opinion on this subject. You can’t change who you are, so we all should try to get through it all the best we can.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Bucslim; My condolences and respect. You could have just as easily (maybe easier) become a bitter nasty human being; instead you chose the high road. And likely had to work hard at it. You’re a good man.
Randall;
, although I do miss some of your former nastiness.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:18 am
JFRATER!!! HELP!! This is the second time I’ve launched the page and gotten someone else’s name and e-mail address in my name/email fields (e-mail looks valid, though I will not use them). This time it’s bucslim. In this case, bucslim was apparently the last person who posted immediately before I hit the site/page. Hope this helps with fixing the problem.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Fudge… I forgot to change the name and e-mail before submitting…. sorry about that, Bucslim… deleted and forgotten now, I promise!
Thanks,
JayArr-fer-real-this-time
June 20th, 2008 at 11:23 am
funny. but since i’m registered. all i get is just a box to comment in. so long as i’m signed in. so some folks should register and sign in and they’ll not have issues w/ someone else’s info in those boxes on top of this comment area. or..if the site or system is being funky…just hit refresh. or if all else fails…delete the info you see and replace it w/ your own.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Cyn – understood very well. However, due to privacy and identity issues, this is still a bug which requires fixing.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:41 am
aw, bucslim…
I’m sorry your marriage eneded! but if I’m not mistaken, didn’t you and the woman you loved have beautiful children? i always believe that no matter what happens, there is always a love for the woman who carried and gave birth to your offspring…
regardless of why she left, marriages end for a myriad of reasons everyday. sometimes it’s a partners infidelity, sometimes it’s one partner grows in a different direction, and for others, it’s a failure of business or bankruptcy.
my BF and I have been together since he was 19 and I was 21. (I’m nor 30-ish…)and he just declared bankruptcy a few months ago, after we where no longer able to afford the mortgages on 2 investment properties (damn sub-prime loans!)
he was completely terrified I would leave him! I laughed in his face while he cried-because I couldn’t fathom leaving him at any time, much less because of a little financial trouble!
I think a great many homosexual individuals deny or outright lie to themselves for a great many years because of the social taboo in some social circles concerning sexuality.
One of my very best gay male friends was married for 10 years and has 2 wonderful children, before coming out of the closet and expressing his true self to his wife. she was upset, of course, but she was most hurt by his inability to tell her the pain and suffering he was enduring each and every day, while he pretended his life was fulfilling and satisfying.
anyway, I am tired of this “your view” thread. as i said earlier, i cannot convince others who refuse to open their minds, those using only biblical references to deny gays marriage is not only inhumane, it is uneducated and sad that they cannot accept each and every one of us based on our uniqueness. so what if gays marry. is that going to cause the downfall of your own marriage? if gays being allowed to marry one another ruins a pre-existing marriage between heteros, then that marriage was pretty weak to begin with.
rtr
June 20th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Mom – it was hell for a while, but I got three good kids out of the deal and I hope I’m a better person.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:45 am
I’m sorry but why shouldn’t other people get married because of what YOUR religion tells you. What if that’s not their religion? Is it fair for you to tell them what they can and can’t do because of what YOU believe in? Is it fair for someone who is Jewish who believes in eating kosher to keep me from eating the way I do? It just makes no sense to me.
This is why the whole banning of gay marriage doesn’t really make any sense to me.
I personally am all for gay marriage, people should have that right and the government shouldn’t keep people from that right. I mean if a certain church doesn’t believe it’s part of their values, I think it’s that church’s right to not perform gay marriage ceremonies but I think by banning gay marriage, that is definitely blurring the lines between church and state to me.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Why should gays be spared the misery?
June 20th, 2008 at 11:48 am
ringtail roxy:
“so what if gays marry. is that going to cause the downfall of your own marriage?” YES THANK YOU! That’s exactly what I use when they argue it ruins the sanctity of marriage. Oh yeah? Tell me how it ruins yours.
June 20th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
jfrater:
Yeah, that thing’s been happening to me also, every once in a great while… it’ll display someone else’s name and email in the box. So it isn’t just some once-in-a-million glitch… I’ve forgotten to report it, so you have to imagine other people have done the same.
June 20th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
someone posted w/my name yesterday and saw my email address. if it had been one of the crazies, that could have been bad.
June 20th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Mom:
My “former nastiness” is still there… it’s just reserved for people who deserve it… as always. See? I’m just misunderstood. I’m really a force for good and justice, and the American Way.
June 20th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
…if the American way is to call for America’s downfall…
June 20th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Homosexuality is wrong. Homosexual activists are destroying this nation with their obvious AND hidden agenda. People just don’t seem to get it that they’re not looking to be just be left alone, they are looking to make themselves the majority and drive out any semblance of decency from our country. As has been pointed out, there will be many lawsuits as a result of this in the future and eventually, they will be directly attacking any religion that believes homosexuality is wrong. They will take away our freedom of religion in favor of theirs–and they ARE a minority.
Since they are a minority, though, they can’t do it without the approval and assistance of others who aren’t homosexual. Thus, this push for tolerance and teaching in the schools that homosexuality is just A-OK.
You gay-supporters are so blind. All you see is the here-and-now: Intolerance is a bad thing. There’s nothing wrong with two people who love each other, of whichever sex, getting married. It doesn’t hurt anyone. Etc., etc., etc.
Fine, as has been stated, keep it behind closed doors. Anti-hate laws give you all and any of the protection you need, unless, of course, that won’t be enough for the homos. Maybe they want any type of homo-persecution to carry the death penalty, too?!
Sodomy is wrong and against nature (not to mention God). Just look up how many nasty bacteria reside in the lower intestinal tract. NASTY STUFF. What about having to wear a cholostomy bag because the rectum has been damaged due to anal sex?! I don’t see any of those problems with normal intercourse. Thus, anal intercourse is against nature.
Now, I’m not saying straight sex is without danger–it is fraught with them. However, that’s because, once again, man has violated God’s laws. Multiple sex partners instead of one man and one woman who are married and committed to each other. Nevertheless, anal sex is far more dangerous in any case than straight sex. It’s just disgusting to even think about putting the male sex organ into a LITERAL CESSPOOL.
Glancing over the comments, I see some statements to the effect that if sodomy is wrong, so is oral sex. And calling anyone who participates in oral sex but condems anal sex, hypocrites. There’s a problem with that. The mouth is very involved in sex. Should people who consider sodomy wrong stop kissing (not just mouth-to-mouth)? I know that kissing is very sensual even, and sometimes especially, other parts of the body than the mouth: neck, shoulders, belly, back, etc., and for women, being kissed on the breasts–and more which I won’t describe as we all know what goes on–is usually quite a turn-on. I don’t know about these perverts, but I love kissing a woman all over, EXCEPT IN HER ASSHOLE (word used for emphasis)! And, I haven’t EVEN IMAGINED rubbing assholes together as in a kiss!! No shit (I use this word to get acroos the grossness of it) comes out of anyone’s mouth, strictly speaking, but it does from their assholes.
The mouth was made to be involved in sex, the asshole is where the body’s shit (it’s waste) comes out of. It was not made to be involved in sex, gay or straight, unlike the penis and vagina. No normal man would even consider sticking his member into a LITERAL CESSPOOL!! But homos like to play with shit, don’t they. A common thing for them to participate in is enemas for pleasure. Again, straights do too, but I would call them perverted, also. However, I would venture to guess (as i don’t feel like looking through any of this crap anymore) that on a PERCENTAGE basis, it’s much higher in the homo community. Perversion, itself, is 100% in the homo lifestyle–as it’s wrong to begin with.
I use the word “homo” since they like to call themselves homo, queer, fag, queen, etc. If they accept and use it among themselves, then I should have equal rights, no?
June 20th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
You know what is really funny… that the people who say homosexuality is a choice alsways shut right up when you challenge them to PROVE IT and make the choice to be gay themselves.
Just for 1 minute. Choose to be gay. Choose to stop being attracted to women, in any way, and choose to find a nice hard man totally sexy.
I know I can’t do it. I can’t choose to stop liking women.
June 20th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
wtf?
Hidden agenda?
June 20th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
I live in a tourist region of Canada and gay marriage is legal. There was a flurry of same sex marriages for about a year and now hardly any. Keep it legal here. I hope the U.S. never allows it so all the gay couples come here to get married then stay a while and spend tons of cash. Invite all their gay friends and even the straight ones cuz hey we even love their money.
June 20th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
S_R:
I notice that, in cowardly fashion, you chose not to answer any of the comments I had directed your way. I challenge you to do so.
June 20th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
I think someone mentioned that things are the way they are and that those who oppose them should leave the country. Since when should the majority have to kowtow to a minority in a (supposed) democratic society? As of right now, only two states have legalized gay marriage, that means it’s illegal and/or NOT recognized (or allowed) in the other 48!!
Even if all states legalized it, it would still be wrong and evil. And how’s the saying go? Something to the effect of all it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing…
Call me bigoted, hateful, going against what Christ preached (stated, usually, by those who don’t know much, if anything, about the Bible) or whatever. The fact is that I don’t hate homosexuals, or even necessarily dislike them on an individual basis. If they want to pursue a lifestyle that condemns them to hell, it’s their choice. Just don’t be a flaming idiot and don’t push your lifestyle on my country! We’re not to hate men, but we can hate acts and sin! But the liberals seem to keep confusing the two.
June 20th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
So when will this hit the top for the most debated issue?
June 20th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
S_R: You are an utter fool. In fact is there even one part of your brain not infected with bigotry, stupidity, and conspiracy theories?
How the hell could the homosexual community ever become the majority? They make up somewhere around 2% of the population. What you figure we’re going to have 49% of the population switch orientation because we treat gays and lesbians the same as hetero couples?
As far as anal sex goes (not my specialty, but I’m no idiot either), proper sanitation and not dipping your wick in one orifice and then moving on to the next should obviate most of the risks. From conversation with others, I realize that relaxation and practice and lubricant lower the risk of fissures as well.
Gross to me, but for others, what business is it of mine? or yours for that matter.
and this comment of yours “I use the word “homo” since they like to call themselves homo, queer, fag, queen, etc. If they accept and use it among themselves, then I should have equal rights, no?” was unnecessary and inflammatory and for no other purpose than to be mean. I don’t like mean.
June 20th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
jake ~ http://listverse.com/bizarre/top-10-bizarre-biblical-tales/
June 20th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
S_R:
(TMI WARNING !)
maybe you have neglected to read my earlier posts…
but I am a woman who ENJOYS anal sex! yes! not all the time, mind you, and certainly not to the point that I enjoy it over vaginal sex, but I have found it to be, well, the #1 way to a guaranteed orgasm 100% of the time my partner and I have it!
yes, the colon has lots of bacteria in it. yes. we do defecate from it. but when it’s not holding stool, the colon is basically a very elastic 8-inch tube. just like more traditional vaginal intercourse, done correctly, anal sex has little chance of causing pain or damage to the rectum and colon.
but what is in a vagina? lots of bacteria too. and yeast. and they are normal to be there, because it maintains the health of the vagina. hey-guess what? women not only bleed from the vagina once a month, they pass large blood clots as well!
so… a man’s penis is used to urinate. how many men actually wash their hands after holding themselves to urinate? not to many. so by the time you come home and have some hanky-panky with your wife, you may have just injected her with Corneybacterium diptheriae, Staphylococcus aureus, Micrococcus luteus, Staphylococcus epidermis, and Pityrosporum ovale. all of which are good for the skin, bad for inside the body.
I’m willing to bet that the idea of a woman swallowing, a shaved vagina, a woman on birth-control, or GASP! a couple who use sex toys to enhance their love-making are unnatural too.
go home and masturbate-WAIT! that’s against God, too! but… how are you to know what you like if you don’t try it yourself? either way, next time you have sex, have it missionary. I ‘ll bet your partner fakes orgasms so you roll of of her and she can get back to cooking you dinner.
If there is any ONE special interest group in America with a hidden agenda, it’s the mainstream Christian Fundamentalists like yourself. You want us all to believe in what you believe, and then the world would be just great.
that’s faulty reasoning and you know it.
ringtailroxy
June 20th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
gay is not ok, nor is it natural. what is the evolutionary purpose of this thing we call love?
Baby-making of course!
Done. Case Closed.
don’t try to call me a homophobe or a closet gay, i am secure in my manhood.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
As a TV judge in America, David Young, an admitted homosexual who likes to use quotes from the Bible to lecture people says: It’s wrong, it’s wrong, it’s wrong… Did I say it’s wrong?
June 20th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
actually, homosexuality is completely natural, completely part of evolution, and good for society.
people who think with such small minded concepts of ’sex makes babies issue closed’ are simply ignorant of how nature actually works.
homosexuality is an evolutionary advantadge and it is sad to say that the major reason people cant understand how is because they are ignorant and do not have the capacity for critical analysis so the concept is roped into perpetually inner dichotomy, i.e.-
‘if gay is natural then EVERYONE would be gay and we would die out, it must be unnatural’
Is practically admitting you don’t know anything about the subject.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
RTR ~ Hey, lay off the missionary style, it gets the job done just fine. Just kidding. All your talk of anal sex reminds me of a bit Richard Jeni used to about how women become Elvis impersonators when guys try to stick it up their ass. Maybe you had to be there. I’ll try to find a video clip. He used to be a funny comedian, what ever happened to him?
June 20th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Calling something wrong over and over again doesn’t make it wrong.
Thank god for science. The more we move away from religion and ignorance, the more idiots make it easy to show how completely baseless their views are.
Science and the professionals who actually study biology, anthropology, socio-evolution, you dont see the best in their fields debating this: it’s a non issue, they know its natural.
Frankly, homosexuality is GOOD for society.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
S_R…
okay. I’m going to say one more thing, and then I won’t say anymore. (unless you prompt me to by pandering your politically incorrect and judgmental views)
Right and wrong. Good and Evil. these are not matters of fact, but of individual and public OPINION.
iI have been striving to eliminate such words as “good, evil, right wrong” out of my vocabulary for months now. i find they are too vague to accurately be descriptive of any concept.
i am replacing these terms with more elaborate adjectives, and am finding i am better understood and spend less time repeating myself.
example:
How was your day at school, honey?
old way- “it was bad.”
new way- “my World Religion professor seems to dislike my atheist contributions to class discussions”.
example:
Did you see the news? Some man hid in the ladies room of a Publix in Miami and raped a little girl!
old way- “That’s horrible! what an evil person to harm a child!”
new way- “I hope they catch that sick individual and put him away for life! ”
it’s not hard to do. it’s just eliminating such phrases as
“Oh my God” ,”Jesus Christ! (or any of the various forms of that profanity”,”Good Luck”, “Good Boy! (said to a dog)”,”Bad timing”, “The milk’s gone bad” etc.etc.etc.
*sigh*
finally S_R, in case you where thinking it,I’m not going to Hell. Because Hell only exists in the minds of believers and followers of Christ.(and any other religions that believe in an eternal place of punishment)
You may need the threat of a horrific place of eternal damnation and isolation from your lord to scare you into “good” behavior. I, however, do not. I am most likely more ethical, kind, giving, compassionate, loving, sincere, accepting, tolerant, and admired than you will ever be. And that’s what makes me a better citizen than you.
ROXANNE
June 20th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
rushfan, he committed suicide
June 20th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
MPW ~ That’s too bad. I didn’t know that. He was a really funny guy.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Yes, but not happy apparently:(
June 20th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
It’s always shocking when someone who seemingly has a lot going for them takes their own life. To bring this back to the topic at hand, it’s sad that the suicide rate is higher for gay teens. I think it’s going down tho because it’s becoming a bit more socially acceptable.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
John 1:
10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
John 3:
19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Kudos to Roxanne. You tell ‘em girl. How do these people live with themselves anyway? Freaks. Buncha haters. My only hope is that Jesus comes back. And that he’s a flaming poufter–like many of my friends.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I love 566. Run an axis 5 on this guy. Whoa! The imagery, the self-conscious use of profanity. The self-loathing. Clearly has issues. Freud would have said that he was stuck in the infantile anal phase–a homosexual. Gasp! Hey ess underscore arrr! Me thinks though doth protest too much. Y’oughta get out there and try a big steaming plate of manwich.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Well it official….I have completely fallen for roxy…she is the only athiest for me.
your knowledge of bacteria is stunning!
June 20th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
S_R:
You said: “No normal man would even consider sticking his member into a LITERAL CESSPOOL!!”
I must not know a single “normal” man, as “ITB” seems to be considered the ultimate goal with many of the straight men that I know.
You also said: “going against what Christ preached.” It’s been a while since I studied the Bible, but I remember learning that God is the only one who can pass judgement on anyone, right? not you, not me, not Randall (well…maybe Randall…).
As far as my opinions on the nature/nurture thing, I really think there is something more than those two, tho I can’t truly explain it. I think something else (maybe God, or FSM, or whoever) determines a lot of preferences. For example, I didn’t one day choose that I didn’t like Zucchini, I didn’t learn not to like it either since both of my parents & my sister love it. It makes me gag. Being that the rest of my family likes it, I doubt it’s a genetic thing either…really, a gene for hating Zukes? doubt it. Seems like something along those lines would go for sexual preference.
I’m all for gay marriage, I just don’t see a valid reason not to allow it.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
S_R-
I think you might be the minority bud…at least on this site.
You know, when you spew hate like that it comes off as unintelligent and ignorant. I’m glad I dont surround myself with “people” like you.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Call me bigoted, hateful, going against what Christ preached (stated, usually, by those who don’t know much, if anything, about the Bible) or whatever.
Well, I grew up southern baptist. I have read the entire bible, cover to cover, and of course went to many bible studies. You know what I gained from it? That religion is not what Christ wanted. Christ’s message was simple. Love one another. Since you love to quote scripture, let’s get a good one. ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever belives in him shall not perish but have everlasting life’. John 3:16. It does not say ‘whosoever(except homosexuals) believes…’ I find it hard to believe that the books in the Bible were the only scrolls written in that time. We all know that is not the case. Religion was formed to control the general public so they wouldn’t riot against the royal families. I wholeheartedly believe that all of you fundamentalists will find that out the hard way.
Oh, and by the way, I’m with you Roxanne! My hubby and I have a very exciting sex life. Not only do we engage in oral and anal sex, we also use toys, restraints, role-playing, and I could go on. Want to know how a marraige lasts and stays fun? Go to a pleasure party.
June 20th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
amanda:
Right on, sister! I, too, was a Southern Baptist by choice at age 15 when I was in the state foster care system and placed with a wonderful Baptist preacher and his family for 6 months. I was immersed in a loving family (for once!) & thought they really where onto something.
They where kind, seminary-school educated people, but after I began to actually read the Bible (and I have read it, in it’s entirety, 4 times over the years.) I began to have many questions. (starting with Genesis 4:13-17), to which my preacher never gave satisfactory answers to.
I am a proud atheist, but I accept (and respect!) those of the religious persuasion… so long as they don’t condemn me or tell me I’m wrong or try to “save me” (I was ’saved’, baptized, and now, I’m a born-again secular humanitarian of sorts)
I, for one, am exhausted of all the “God Hates Fags so I Should Too” mumbo-jumbo. God also was a cruel, vengeful, tyrannical, and wildly eclectic individual. Jesus was supposed to be God’s ‘feminine’ side, a gift to the world for all humanity. and I find very little Christians actually following in His disciples’ sandal-marks.
Anywho, kudos on your acceptance of the true beauty of our bodies, the capacity for carnal pleasures, and your open-mindedness in experimenting with (and enjoying!) the wonderful world of human sexuality.
now if I could only convince my man to tie me up and gag me…
ringtalroxy
June 20th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
JayArr -
yup. hopefully it will be. meanwhile you can take steps to protect yourself if you’re concerned about your email being spammed. you can set up an email addy specifically for commenting..here or anywhere. i love Google products so i use gmail and i’ve set up multitudes of personas/emails for various places/reasons. that way my personal email addy i use almost exclusively for friends and family gets much less spam. and i have more privacy online. if not Google/gmail there are many other options for free email. and can be set to redirect to your primary addy. if you have a blog you want publicized you can include that as your website. or even set up a blogger blog off your gmail account. so there are options available to protect your privacy. register. participate. and cut down on spam. for this site and any other place you comment routinely. cuz fact is…no site is spam free or glitch free. they all have down times. they all experience coding issues ..especially in commenting…at one time or another.
ROFLMAO…kinda like ..if ya wanna ‘play’ bring your own ‘rubbers’. consider it ’safe’ commenting to use disposable email addys. fake websites/or redirects. and different usernames/personas. hey….you never know who’s reading.
better paranoid. than not.
June 20th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Roxy: Babe, you got to stop. My head is going to explode. Doc Johnson has a good selection of ball gags if you need a place to start.
Everyone still on the Hate the Gay wagon. I’d love to speak with you in person! Maybe I could put a different Idea in your head, at least that front part of it.
June 20th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
None of my business. Who’s it hurting.
June 20th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Crimanon:
if your head is going to explode, loosen your kung-fu grip there, big guy!
;P
June 20th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
my least favorite part of these discussions is that people say that marriage is inheirently religious. Mariage was around longbefore christianity, and as any budding anthroplogist knows, the reason marriage was pressed by the church was to create many cristian babies. You can also say that the romans sort of made homosexuality a nono to the christians. to keep ze answer short, a pagan ritual to guarantee the passage of posessions and ownership of children has nothing to do with christianity.
To answer the qestion at hand I was awaitig the descision to allow gay marriage again, after it’s hours long existance the first time. This is in california I mean.
June 20th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Roxy: That’s right, talk dirty to me….. oh, wait…… muffle muffle mif muf muffle…..
June 20th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Even if you were insanely religious, it’s quite easy to disprove the Christian justification for homosexual persecution. I can out scripture anyone who wants to use the bible as a reference for justifying their own bigotry and intolerance. Try it, S_R.
The truth is, the agenda is there to find any excuse to rationalize the ugliness you are spewing. Hate-mongers simply conveniently ignore when science proves them completely wrong.
And science has shown homosexuality to be natural, furthermore, good for the species, and furthermore than that, there is no evidence that homosexuals function drastically different than heterosexuals in any way other than sexual preference.
S_R, you are quite simply, wrong. You are wrong on the scripture, wrong on your ignorance, wrong on your hate, wrong on society, human evolution and culture, and wrong on the science involved.
Obviously no one can change the mind of a closeminded bigot- everyone knows that. The sad thing is so many of them take so long to eventually open their eyes and waste so much of their time defending their incorrect views just because they lack the courage to change and try to convince themselves they are wrapped in a blanket of conviction when it is really just cowardice.
June 20th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
“gay is not ok, nor is it natural. what is the evolutionary purpose of this thing we call love?
Baby-making of course!
Done. Case Closed.
don’t try to call me a homophobe or a closet gay, i am secure in my manhood.”
except for that fact that you ARE a homophobe
animals are gay too, if natural means occuring in nature, then homosexuality is completely natural. marriage is more unnatural than homosexuality.
June 20th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Crimanon:
that’s what you said… as my thighs clamp down over your ears…
are you AND bucslim both peeping in my windows agin???
rtr
June 20th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
S_R, I want to tell you a story.
A very dear friend of mine was deeply in love, and the relationship had been ongoing for a over a decade. When his love entered his fatal illness, my friend had no rights. He could only see the love of his life for 10 minutes during visiting time. He was not considered family, even though they had lived together for more than 10 years. The family of my friends love (whom I also knew and liked very much, but had not known nearly as long), told him that the following week they were going to take their son (whom they had disowned when he had “come out” 20 years previously) from L.A., home to New York to die.
The young man was at deaths door, and did not want to die among people who hated him. He wanted to die with the one he loved.
The next day, my friend did the only thing he could think of.
He brought a gun with him to the hospital, and during his 10 minutes he shot his true love through the head, then did the same to himself.
His body fell across the body of his love.
This didn’t have to happen.
If they had been married, he would have had the rights to stay with the man he loved. The “family” couldn’t have threatened to kidnap their son across the country.
Love trumps blood.
June 20th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I don’t know what bucs kink is but I often find myself drawn to, sexually or no, a very strong mind and steadfastness to ideals. No windows needed when you have an imagination like mine.
June 20th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
segue: devoted surely, but that, I believe, was a bit much.
June 20th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
You know what–the funny thing is that it will all probably go as the homosexuals and leftist liberals want it anyway. It was foretold and no matter what anyone does (including me) it’s all going to just get progressively worse till Christ’s return. But I, for one, will not go out without using my freedom of speech to voice my objection to what is happening–evil becoming prevalent and the norm. I wrote this in another forum regarding the Hadron Collider where people are debating whether it’s possible the collider could produce a catastrophic incident that would end the world:
I think the people with concerns have a right to have their concerns addressed in court. Personally, I don’t think it will be the end of the world. It’s obvious the Tribulation hasn’t occurred nor is that the way the end of the world is described in the Bible.
However, that’s not to say that it might not cause some kind of domino effect that will bring about the end, or that knowledge gained from its use won’t do the same. As for me, I don’t care. Collider or no collider, the end is near and there’s nothing we can do to change the outcome (or even the series of events that must take place). I welcome the end as I know where my eternal resting place will be. Do you?
Revelation 22:
20He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon.”
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.
21The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God’s people. Amen.
June 20th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
****
#605. Crimanon
segue: devoted surely, but that, I believe, was a bit much.
****
I can’t argue with that.
My point, however, was that if they had been afforded the ability to pledge their love through marriage, then none of that would have happened. Of course, the man would still have died, but my friend would have had the power of family, of “spouse”, and would not have had to take such tragic measures.
Thats all.
June 20th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
SEGUE – If I were gay and could not have the legal rights of a marriage, I would have a contract drawn up with my partner ensuring that we each had the same authority as a legal spouse would; including child custody, executor of the estate; and next of kin decision making.
While a gay person does not have the right to marry a same sex person; they absolutely have the right to draw up a legal document establishing intent. To not do this is irresponsible and inconsiderate.
I don’t know anything about your friend and am not judging them; but if the legal rights of a marriage are so important, why wouldn’t they take the initiative to write up their intent?
June 20th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
S_R: You Know that the end is inevitable, you even welcome it. Why then are you so against embracing it? Let the world do it’s thing, and your Precious end will come. Do us a favor and let us have our fun before we go, Heaven or Hell. Just stay at home and read if you don’t like how the world looks.
You get on your knees and bask in your Gods Light, We will get on our knees and bask in anothers beauty. May all of your prayers be answered by a purgatory of an unatonable sin. Sleep well.
segue: You call it what you want, I’ll keep with my anti-suicide stance.
June 20th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
I wonder if it’s a sin to want to make out with Jesus. Among other things.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
As disingenuous as these arguments reach, there are issues that are somewhat clouded over those are the ones that need to be breached. For whatever reason one is gay there is an overwhelming sense of sadness that society itself reaps when truth itself becomes unimportant. For all the arguments ‘for’ gay marriage, you see no attempt at even debating why homosexuality is a lie to begin with. So therefor all other arguments for gay marriage are also lies. Pro homosexual behavior advocates jump through a series of inelegant hoops to create a fantasy world wherein two people of the same gender clumsily imitate natural heterosexual pairings properly designed for procreation.
Even gay sex is a crude, man-made aping of the natural heterosexual reproductive process (only the fallen mind of man could concoct such depraved and foul behavior, then celebrate and find pride.)
Homosexuality is a dead end. It’s emotionally, spiritually, and physically sterile. But it’s not surprising that, those trapped in the aptly named “queer” lifestyle desperately seek affirmation of their behavioral choices.(Gay pride.) Deep down, I believe most of us know when we’re doing something immoral, let alone unnatural and unhealthy, and so we want others to convince us otherwise.Yet no matter how many or by whatever means are taken you still are starting with a lie. Wrapping it in pretty tissue paper and saying it’s normal still does not make it so. Forcing society to accept this does not enhance a society’s progress. It simply instills more shoddy thinking in an already weakened structure.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Hoo….Bible arguments. OK.
*cracks knuckles*
We are speaking about the God in the Bible, right? The God who “hates fags” as the Westboro Baptists and other fundies love to shout from the sidewalks.
Abraham – a “man of God” as most would agree, and his wife Sarah, being up there in age, could not conceive a child. Therefore, Sarah told her husband to bonk her handmaiden and knock her up. Adultry from a “Man of God” remember?
Onan – oh, the fun tale of a man punished for masturbation, right? Uh uh. God told him to go knock up his dead brother’s wife. Onan refused and “spilled his seed” upon the ground. Now, maybe it’s me, but it seems that he “pulled out” (btw, the fave method of birth control of Catholics) instead of going, “No, God, I’m not gonna knock her up, I’m just gonna whack one off right here.” Seriously, that make sense?
Wow, seems to me the Bible may not be the be all, end all of “acceptible sexual behavior” here…
And how do you know by any doubt that there isn’t a “gay gene”? We have yet to map the entire human genome. Who knows, somewhere hidden in a DNA helix is a little pink triangle shaped gene going, “Yoo hoo! I’m over here honey, and I look FABULOUS!”
June 20th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
nice way of using big words to spread your hate, “oldwolves”
and “aptly named queer”? uh… that’s what you call it, because you don’t try to stop yourself from using words that are only meant to offend. good job.
and for the love of Go… er, whoever, we don’t need any more people on this earth anyway. We can’t feed the ones we have as it is.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Would everyone like the info on Jesus being At Least bisexual?
June 20th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Melissa: “Now, maybe it’s me, but it seems that he “pulled out” (btw, the fave method of birth control of Catholics)”
I just want to point out that the Catholic Church forbids birth control in any way – and that “pulling out” is condemned as much as any other type of contraception. If members of the Church do it – they are doing it against the teachings of the Church and are considered by the Church to be committing a mortal sin – the type that sends you to hell.
This is not to say that I don’t agree with your comment on the whole – I just want to be sure you are accurately citing the Church laws
June 20th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
12. Nogaymarriages:
“Illegal. It’s not natural, unless you can pull a baby out of your dickhole”
Exactly! In the same respect, other people who should not be able to marry (because the purpose of marriage is not proving one’s love, it is producing children): an old couple, an infertile couple, a couple who otherwise does not plan on having children, any couple where the man/woman has a disease or infection where sexual organs had to be removed, etc.
To continue, a woman past her menopause is of no use to anyone and should be dismissed of her duties. The man must then find another woman with which to copulate.
I am not religious but I must say, for people who do believe in a higher power: any idiot knows that it is not allowed to have same-sex marriages, but marriages for greed are A-OK as long as they are male and female! It says so in the Bible, and the Bible is RIGHT about EVERYTHING as it has been proven so many times.
June 20th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Gay women should be allowed. Gay men should be destroyed because they are nothing but disease spreading freaks.
June 20th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
****
608. Melanie
…I would have a contract drawn up with my partner ensuring that we each had the same authority as a legal spouse would…if the legal rights of a marriage are so important, why wouldn’t they take the initiative to write up their intent?
****
Melanie, this all happened back in the late 80’s. No one was thinking like that then. But your point is spot-on valid for today!
My reason for telling the story, as old as it is, was to point out the harm that can be done when people are denied perfectly ordinary civil rights for some peculiar reason.
I love your solution, but I wonder if it would hold up in court?
Any attorneys on the List?
Can one make an end-run around what seems to be a very convoluted and varied law? And if so, could enough of these *successful* end-runs actually over-turn the law?
Melanie, you are going to have me up half the night pondering this.
Thank you.
June 20th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
i’m muslim and to me its just a no. its against my religion
June 20th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
I think I’m going to get married to a lesbian so we’ll have a legal gay marriage. See what these hate mongering Christians say to that.
June 20th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Roxanne-
I love it when other women take control of their sexuality! For lack of a better term, You go girl!
June 20th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
First off, I’m for gay marriage. If two consenting adults wish to marry, so be it. Now, here’s why:
1. Civil unions DON’T work. Insurance companies, hospitals, ect. don’t care if you’re ‘in a union’. If it’s not marriage, they don’t want to hear about it. Legally, they don’t need to, either.
2. If you don’t like gay marriage, DON’T HAVE ONE. That simple. AMAZING, isn’t it?
3. Why should YOUR religion ruin someone’s LIFE? Yes, a lack of marriage can ruin lives. Hospital visits can be denied, medical decisions can’t be made, property can’t be inherited as easily…. the list goes on.
4. In the US, we are promised liberty, life, and the pursuit happiness. How can we have happiness if a minority’s rights are being denied DAILY?
5. If marriage is so religious, why can I go get married right now in Las Vegas? Why can criminals, STILL IN JAIL, get married? Why can I be married for under an hour, then get a divorce? The religious aspect of marriage died long ago.
6. Live and let live. If I go marry a girl right now, will any of you die? Will you suddenly be unable to be happy with life? If so, maybe you need to reorganize your priorities.
On a final note, as long as gay marriage is illegal, minorities are being denied rights, happiness is being crushed, and lives are being ruined. Most of all, we’re promoting hate. We’re sending the message that people should be hated. Why? All because they love someone of the same-sex.
It’s sad when we live in a society where it’s more acceptable for two men to be holding guns instead of hands.
As for the nature vs. nurture debate–
What does it matter? If it’s a choice or it’s genetics, why should that stop the pursuit of happiness if no one is harmed in the process?
Again, don’t bring up your religion. After all, isn’t God supposed to make the final judgment? What about loving your neighbors? Or did all of that just go out the door, and it’s suddenly okay to hate people for being different?
June 20th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Sorry, I’m late. I’ve been next door saying ironic things about New Zulland. I have now switched my dead-pan, tongue-in-cheek irony producer off for the duration. What follows is utterly serious.
Sorry if any of this re-states something someone’s already said.
All the sexual behaviours that cause a greater or lesser amount of squeamishness to various people all have in common that they are contraceptive: masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, sex during menstruation (maybe), animals, young girls, old women and, of course, homosexuality. For most of human existence, the survival of one’s personal gene stream, tribe, nation and possibly the whole human race depended on producing as many children as possible. Instinctively, most people recognise this at some level. Strong cultural taboos have also developed. The exception to this is incest, which has quite often been/still is conceptive, but most societies recognise it as a bad genetic bet.
You can’t argue that marriage is simply religious: it has many legal consequences – authority over children and inheritance for eg.
You can’t argue that the state has no right to interfere in homosexuals’ bedrooms without also arguing that it has no right to interfere in the bedrooms of paedophiles and wife-beaters.
You can’t argue that marriage is purely about reproduction without denying it to the elderly, or to the infertile. (How many people find out that they are infertile after they are married.
You can’t argue that the bible teaches against homosexuality without also arguing that the bible teaches that we are all sinners, so don’t judge other people, and that we must put our children to death for repeated insolence to their parents. Not so long ago, and still, people sincerely argue(d) against inter-racial marriages on biblical grounds. Now, very few people would. (I have just married a Korean woman.)
There is a spectrum of sexuality. I simply couldn’t chose to be homosexual, or to do homosexual acts. My best friend in Australia simply couldn’t chose to be heterosexual. In the middle, there are many of both sexes, who dabble, or occasionally swing, or look at same-sex porn. A sexually ambivalent person might not meet the person of their own gender who rocks their world, but might meet a perfectly nice person of the opposite gender with whom there are sufficient reasons to get married and reproduce. Oscar Wilde springs to mind.
There is no single “cause” of homosexuality. Genetics, inter-uterine influences, upbringing, societal mores and opportunity are all mixed in.
In Korea, “marriage” is a purely civil procedure. Many people then choose to go to a church for a Christian service, or to a wedding hall for the (over-the-top) trappings. There may be a Buddhist wedding ceremony, and traditional weddings also take place.
I am quietly going to say that same-sex marriages should be legal, on the grounds that we don’t allow discrimination against homosexuals in any other area of life. I am happily heterosexual, I believe that there are two genders for a reason, but I have to admit to the self-evident fact that many voting, tax-paying, productive members of society are homosexual.
Sorry this is so long. It’s a relief to be able to express myself in complete sentences and paragraphs.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
You’re my hero Lynn
The Bible tells Christians not to judge others, but the conveniently forget that so they can attack that which they fear.
June 21st, 2008 at 12:13 am
To oldwolves and S_R:
If you read anything in my last post and then posted what you did after it, you are nothing more than a liar.
Let me reiterate, to be quite clear: I will happily go toe to toe with you on biblical scritpure to prove to you that the bible is no basis for the persecution of homosexuals.
Secondly, on a secular level, I will happily correct your ignorance and destroy your bigotry publicly if you insist on using outdated and unintelligent biases that predetermine your judgement on the homosexuality issue.
I can show that homosexuality is GOOOD for society, that it is an evolutionary advantadge, that it is completely natural, and that it exists for a reason. I do so without resorting to character assassination or cheap semantic tricks.
However, everyone on the board can see, none of the bigots will take me up on my offer.
Read any of my previous posts on this. They are all based in scientific knowledge, not half assed opinions from armchair warriors.
Again, I offer, to anyone who thinks that homosexuality is wrong, to expose your ignorance in front of everyone here. All you have to do is provide a critical analysis of logic that supports the foundation of your stance.
Also, it is very clear that S_R is no Christian. If you read through his writing, he is practically the exact opposite, which is sad, because if he read the bible, he might learn a thing or two.
June 21st, 2008 at 12:26 am
Ok, my argument about homosexuality not being genetic has been shot to bits because apparently genes can skip generations or whatever…
Can someone give me more informed reasoning for why genetics cannot be held accountable for sexual orientation.
I believe all the arguments about the physical traits of a man begin genetic but sexuality, come on… someone, anyone, help me out here.
Some people like to do it with animals, so that means beastiality must be genetic, right???
June 21st, 2008 at 12:28 am
Oldwives: especially you. S_R is a brainwashed lost cause, but you are simply spreading outright untruths. I will happily counter any real and logical argument you wish to provide as evidence that homosexuality is wrong or unnatural.
For example, You said:
`For all the arguments ‘for’ gay marriage, you see no attempt at even debating why homosexuality is a lie to begin with. So therefor all other arguments for gay marriage are also lies.`
This is an outright lie and falsehood in an attempt to redirect the issue that anyone with a highschool education can see straight through as decietful. Nothing in your statements validates the assumptions created by the first sentance, and it is ignored and carried over as a factual basis when it has none, into the following statements.
Now, unlike you, I will provide logical critical analysis of your point in order to deconstruct it so that it can be shown as false and wrong, rooted in your bigotry and ignorance.
To start, you make an Argument of Authority. If you don`t know what that means, you shouldn`t be spouting on debate forums and you need to go back to school.
Following, your AfA blends into a Reverse Slippery Slope argument, which anyone with any training in logical deduction just finds laughable.
Concluding, you encapsulate the issue within what is called Straw Man arguments and rather than provide any real points that back your bigotry, you write eloquently as if said ignorances are `Secret Truths` that are self evident or axiomatics. Those Secret Truths are actually just your own barriers and tools of denial and ignorance.
All of these tactics are incorrect and false, and I will be happy to show you why everything you wrote in your statement was completely wrong, if you perhaps have the stones to actually engage in a learning, two way exchange.
Pardon my cynicism, but I doubt you do.
June 21st, 2008 at 2:33 am
BTW the google ad at the top of my page right now, for italianweddings.com, shows a heterosexual couple.
June 21st, 2008 at 4:17 am
This seems to be going around in circles
Here’s my *whole* opinion on the subject- feel free to argue or not. This isn’t arguing against anyone, it’s just stating how I see it-
First- the whole “Gayness is unnatural” issue.
1. How can something not be natural? At the start, all there is is nature- therefore everything is natural. What else can it be? Well, if you’re religious you could say it’s God or gods, y’know if you’d rather believe Homosexuality was created by God/s rather than Nature. The only two options.
2. Animals and things without social restraints frequently engage in homosexual activities. Like the things we evolved from!
3. So it’s not considered “natural” (no matter how stupid it is to think that)- so what?
4. Freudian Psychosexual stages, in case people have forgot- Oral Stage, *Anal* Stage, Phallic Stage, Latent Stage, Genital Stage. It’s just as much a valid area as Oral.
Second- the whole “Gays shouldn’t be vocal” part
1. As a persecuted minority, they have every right to bring their situation attention.
2. The way they’re doing it, with parades and such, is very responsible indeed- considering one of the traditional outlets for persecuted minorities is terrorism and violence.
Third- the whole “Gays shouldn’t adopt” business.
1. It’s completely wrong to make personality assumptions about people based on their gender or sexuality.
2. Everyone is different in any case. Who’s to say what is “needed”?
3. Single parents do fine. In other cultures children are brought up communally and do just fine. Restricting it to one male, one female is a well ethnocentric view in addition to the rest.
4. All restriction does is harm the kids in question. There aren’t enough families adopting as it is- restricting it needlessly isn’t helping, it’s just for the sake of it- to uphold some archaic non-applicable beliefs and opinions of some individuals. A kid with a family is gonna have more of a chance than a kid without.
Finally- the “Should Gay Marriage be Legal” fracas.
1. Yes! Completely! Even if marriage is required to have religious backing, it isn’t restricted to one religion is it? Secular Humanism has nothing against homosexuality- and it’s a religion.
There’s zero reason why it shouldn’t be legal.
Anyway, that’s where I stand
June 21st, 2008 at 4:26 am
On the subject of the influence of genetics on homosexuality, have any studies been done into the incidence of homosexuality in identical twins?
Further to my last comment: I have qualms about the parading of homosexuals in public. I’m heterosexual, I am neither proud of that not ashamed of it, and have no desire to flaunt that in front of anybody else in public.
June 21st, 2008 at 6:39 am
Segue; Your story is heart-wrenching. And totally preventable by marriage, not a written statement of intent. It needs to be mentioned that they are contested and over-turned by families in court far too often. Similar to the ignoring and overturning of donor cards and living wills.
Astraya; Our gay pride parade here is way over-the-top. Of course it is as much a protest as a pride event so it does attract the militant types. Much the same as pro-life/pro-choice events attract mostly the crazies. It is unfortunate that in this day and age, due to attitudes espoused by S_R and his bigoted ilk, that there is a need for this type of event at all.
June 21st, 2008 at 6:41 am
Have you all noticed that S_R has not answered one specific query yet? Just keeps spewing the same dead rhetoric and repeating himself? Answer Randall, answer Mr. Graves, answer Me.
He doesn’t because he can’t.
June 21st, 2008 at 6:50 am
“At what point does the state have a right to legislate for or against issues which are traditionally left to a person’s conscience?” – I Hope that’s a joke…
June 21st, 2008 at 7:03 am
it deosnt really matter. they are going to stay together whetther society likes it or not so…. i deosnt matter. i guess im neutral about the situation. if it doesnt affect u y do u care
June 21st, 2008 at 9:59 am
Of course it should be. Who are we to judge the utterly harmless activities of two consenting adults?
June 21st, 2008 at 10:19 am
We are the tolerant society. Nothing much angers us any more. Nothing, that is, except someone who is not as tolerant as we are! We can tolerate anything except the person who won’t tolerate anything! No wonder our favorite Bible verse is Matthew 7:1, “Judge not that ye be not judged.”
The new “unpardonable sin” is “judging.” What a blessing this “new commandment” is to “Easy Christianity.” Hypocrites can flaunt their violations of the Word of God and yet parade unchallenged as Christians. No one dares call them hypocrites for (“Oh, Horrors!”) that would be “judging them.”
Tell anyone nowadays that he or someone else is doing wrong and you will be immediately rebuked, “Don’t Judge!” Is such a use of this verse proper? It clearly is not.
It can’t mean that we must give up all spiritual discernment in order to be “loving Christians.” Five verses later Jesus says, “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine” (Matthew 7:6). This command assumes the exercise of spiritual discernment. A few verses later Jesus said, “Beware of false prophets…You will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:15,16,20). Again Jesus demands spiritual discernment. In Jesus’ view it is not “judging” to conclude that someone is a false prophet.
Is it, perhaps, our duty to keep such discerning conclusions to ourselves in order to avoid “judging”? Emphatically not! Matthew 7:1 does not teach that it is sinful to confront and, if necessary, publicly expose evil. If this were so, how could Jesus say, “And if you brother sins, go and reprove him…?” How could Jesus go on to say, “And if he refuses to listen…tell it to the church”? (Matthew 18:15,17). How could Jesus’ apostle, Paul, say, “Do you not judge those who are within the church?…Remove the wicked man from among yourselves” (1 Corinthians 5:12,13).
Matthew 7:1 does not forbid us either to form or express our opinions…Jesus expressed such an opinion in this very passage. In Matthew 7:5 He said, “You hypocrite.” John the Baptist expressed his opinion of the Pharisees publicly to their faces, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” (Matthew 3:7). We must do the same…It’s time for Christians to stop being bound by such false interpretation and to start dealing with sin. “Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law strive with them” (Proverbs 28:4)
So what does Matthew 7:1 mean? In this context, Jesus is forbidding forming or expressing conclusions about others by those who won’t see or deal with their own sins. Matthew 7:3-5 says, “And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?…You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”
If, on the basis of Matthew 7:1, you refuse to form and express (when necessary) moral opinions, you are confessing your refusal to see and deal with your own sins. The refusal to exercise moral discernment is a confession of moral bankruptcy! May God embolden you to stop tolerating sin in yourself and others, to your hurt and to theirs!
http://www.vor.org/truth/sew/easychr/easych11.html
June 21st, 2008 at 10:21 am
I like how some people think that if a gay couple get married, the penis of every man on the face of the earth will magically disappear and humanity will be doomed. Yeah, that’s what’s gonna be the end of the human race. Two people getting married. Fuck global warming, fuck the crime. Gay marriage, that’s what’s wrong with this world. Yup.
June 21st, 2008 at 10:39 am
S_R-
Do you think that the non-religious or followers of other religions care what some anonymous writer masquerading as Matthew says?
June 21st, 2008 at 10:39 am
Tolerance mongers seem to have found the one absolute truth they are willing to live by. How many times have you heard someone say, “Judge not lest you be judged”? The statement has become the great American open-mindedness mantra when anyone has the courage to declare that someone else’s belief, actions or lifestyle is morally amiss.
Another form of the same non-judgmental judgment is “that may be true for you, but it’s not true for me.” The logic behind the statement goes something like this: “Your truth is your truth and my truth is my truth. We are both right, and I hold to my opinion of truth.” The last time I checked, it was impossible for two chairs to occupy the same space around my dining room table, but evidently such rules of time, space and logic don’t apply to tolerance philosophy.
Postmodernism’s live-and-let-live concept of truth argues that even two opposite and wholly contradictory claims can both be true. This is as stupid as saying that black and white are the same color. Yet, it clarifies the absurdity of the postmodernism we are all supposed to blithely accept as the fundamental principle by which we respond to each other’s ideas – the “please and thank-you” of philosophical respect.
So beware. If you dare claim that another person’s truth is not, in fact, truth but is, in fact, wrong, you are not only being intolerant but you are also being – Mantra forbid! – judgmental.
In his book “True for You, But Not for Me,” Paul Copan describes the fallacy in this all too common thinking:
It has been said that the most frequently quoted Bible verse is no longer John 3:16 but Matthew 7:1: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” We cannot glibly quote this, though, without understanding what Jesus meant. When Jesus condemned judging, he wasn’t at all implying we should never make judgments about anyone. After all, a few verses later, Jesus himself calls certain people “pigs” and “dogs” (Matt 7:6) and “wolves in sheep’s clothing” (7:15). … What Jesus condemns is a critical and judgmental spirit, an unholy sense of superiority. Jesus commanded us to examine ourselves first for the problems we so easily see in others. Only then can we help remove the speck in another’s eye – which, incidentally, assumes that a problem exists and must be confronted.
Those that tell you not to judge, quoting Matthew 7:1 grossly out of context, are often some of the most mean-spirited, judgmental souls you could ever meet. It’s not, of course, that they don’t want anyone to judge anything, because they want very much to judge and condemn your commitment to lovingly speak and practice your Christian worldview. You see how these tolerance rules work? We must tolerate them, but they don’t have to tolerate us. The logic is consistent, anyway.
Read more at:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44270
June 21st, 2008 at 10:43 am
Ephesians 5:
10and find out what pleases the Lord. 11Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. 12For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. 13But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, 14for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said:
“Wake up, O sleeper,
rise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you.”
June 21st, 2008 at 10:45 am
Phillipians 4:
8Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. 9Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.
June 21st, 2008 at 10:53 am
S_R is going to be the next leader of Heaven’s Gate. Nutcase.
I love how you promote close-mindedness. You don’t even try to hide it.
June 21st, 2008 at 10:55 am
Oh, and I’m glad you’re the authority on what Jesus meant. How convenient that we can twist the scriptures around to mean what WE want them to mean. I bet you’ve never even read a real translation, you probably read out of that NIV or King James Version crap.
June 21st, 2008 at 10:58 am
S_R -
if you can’t comment w/ original text then don’t bother copy/pasting other’s words…some of which may well be copyrighted.
you need to reference non original text w/ link only.
got it?
June 21st, 2008 at 11:00 am
I’m guessing S_R is Fred Phelps in disguise
June 21st, 2008 at 11:04 am
Fair Use:
Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107, reprinted here:
“Notwithstanding the provisions of sections and, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors
June 21st, 2008 at 11:10 am
S_R -
frankly. i just want you to stop commenting.
take your hate somewhere else.
June 21st, 2008 at 11:11 am
They weren’t saying you CAN’T use the Bible. They were asking that you take your head out of your ass and try to make a point without the use of your paper crutch.
June 21st, 2008 at 11:15 am
S_R: Lay off the bible quotes, you’ll find no converts here. You’ll change no ones mind by spewing hate. If you would be so kind as to return to the topic.
If I haven’t mentioned before, I love my email. So, naturally, I saw that you quoted Maya Angelou to further your point. I’d like to point out that in trying to use a peacemakers words in a hateful light you’ve defeated yourself. If you’ll excuse me, I haven’t eaten today, I think I’ll go snack on a bible. I could use the roughage.
Blessed be to you S_R, may you impale yourself on the crucifix that you pleasure yourself with at night.
June 21st, 2008 at 11:16 am
S_R, take your hate speech somewhere else, just stop commenting on this site full of people who aren’t close-minded like you.
June 21st, 2008 at 11:19 am
I think it is fine.
It should be legal.
You love who you want.
It shouldnt be up to the government to decide whether you should be married or not.
And all you people who say “It’s not natural” and “They can’t have kids”… They can adopt if they really want to. You don’t HAVE to have kids when you get married. Why do you care anyways? It’s not like they are making you get married to someone the same gender. If it was legal, you would have more options. The government shouldnt have a say in what your personal life is like and who you can marry. If there is a god, I dont think thats what he would want. I know people say it is a sin, but you need to be tolerant abot what others believe in. Being gay is one of those things you need to accept. Personally [[and dont attack me about this]] I think even though the bible and what not says otherwise, God would just want you to be happy. its ot like you are hurting anybody. I think hating other peoples beliefs and hating on them for supid reasons like that is way worse than simply being in love with the same sex.
June 21st, 2008 at 11:21 am
And US Copy right laws don’t apply here. It’s not a US based web site. And these are Jamies Rules.
June 21st, 2008 at 11:22 am
I’m with Csimmons
I’d like to see someone with some actual points instead of made up “facts” about how homosexuality is the downfall of every major country in the past or crap like that, or how it’s against the Bible. You know what else was against the Bible? How about wearing clothing made of two different types of material. Men having long hair is also a sin, according to the Bible. Tattoos are also a horrible sin. Also, if your children talk back, you’re supposed to kill them. People ignore this and say “oh that actually meant blah blah blah” and take other sections literally at their convenience. It’s pretty sick.
June 21st, 2008 at 11:24 am
Oh my someone linked The World Nut Daily. I think it would be a good exercise to allow third graders to logically examine the World Nut Daily. I think even they could refute its lies, illogic and inanity.
S-R, somehow manages to create a new being the “tolerance monger” who lives by a single absolute truth. I suppose this is the antithesis of the intolerance monger who lives by a single absolute truth: the Bible as an unerring moral guide and the absolute word of god. Allow my to wallow in your hypocrisy S-r. You wish to discuss the “morally amiss” lifestyle? Ok, I think it is immoral to live like a hypnotized sheep and never think for yourself. I think it is immoral to expect the entirety of a democratic country to live by the rules of nomadic ancient sheep farmers. I think it is immoral to create strawmen like the “tolerance monger”.
What else does S-r have to say? The “that may be true for you but it’s not true for me” fallacy. Who says this and in what context? Is this a massive movement I’ve never seen or heard? Did you just create this phenomenon out of single instance of hearing it? Could you be misunderstanding the “truth” implied in this statement? It is possible that what is true for me is not true for you. I’m an atheist. What is true for me (there is no God) is certainly not true for you (there is a god). There is no real evidence for god nor can there logically be evidence that there is no god. What is the truth in this situation? Should I surrender my ability to judge for myself to you, to allow you to tell me the truth of a disputer fact? Would you allow me to make that call for you?
Moving onto your mangling of post-modernism, a philosophical and artistic movement that no one takes seriously anymore. You now conflate tolerance of particular races, religions and social movements with an entire truth category. The sun is stationary and the Earth moves around it in an orbit. That is a true statement. Black people are not inferior. That a true statement based on social consensus. I imagine that you would openly agree to both statements, while understanding the difference between the two. Christians are people and atheists are people, is another statement you would agree with. Both are due respect for their opinions is a truth you might disagree with, while I agree with it. Both your chairs, metaphorically, exist in the same spot. That’s not post modernism, that’s democracy.
Moving to your last paragraph: “It has been said…” You start this way. Odd for someone who is so interested in truth that you begin with an amorphous anecdotal “fact”. Who says this? What do they base their facts on? Do we know it is true? You follow this with a bunch of biblical parsing.
Then you move onto this gem: “Those that tell you not to judge, quoting Matthew 7:1 grossly out of context, are often some of the most mean-spirited, judgmental souls you could ever meet.” Really? You haven’t even established that there are any number of people quoting Matthew, then you move on to give a sweeping generalization to your strawman, establishing motive and inherent opinion. Why are they so mean spirited?
Because:”It’s not, of course, that they don’t want anyone to judge anything, because they want very much to judge and condemn your commitment to lovingly speak and practice your Christian worldview.” Bull Shit. I don’t judge the christian worldview as a choice. I judge it’s attempt to infiltrate a democratic society. I judge its attempts to create a theocricy. I judge it’s attempts to demonize gays because their bible tells them to, not because they have any facts or truths to do so. I judge it’s lying and inherent inanity in the realms of science and its attempts to usurp factual truth and make its bible the referee of the single greatest method of truth gathering we have. I judge it’s inability to see the difference between my judgement and what you say my judgement is. So spare me the victimization routine and pompous claim to ultimate truth.
June 21st, 2008 at 11:26 am
just to clarify. i’ve been admin’ing these last few comments. so please don’t assume ‘these are Jamie’s rules’.
first off. it is preferred to use paraphrasing and linkage before copy/paste of original text. it is preferred that comments be kept a reasonable length.
2ndly. personally..speaking for myself not J or this site. what possible good does hate filled commenting do for anyone?
if you take issue w/ my admin’ing…take it up w/ J.
jamie@frater.com
but honestly…what does quoting scripture and poetry contribute to this post? what does hate filled commenting contribute?
not a damn thing. so cool it!
June 21st, 2008 at 11:41 am
Cyn: Just saying that Jamie, Himself, has said that you should reference your quotes. That was the only point I was making. Not trying to admin, just trying to avoid the wrath of the admin.
Didn’t work too well.
June 21st, 2008 at 11:43 am
while I definitely don’t agree with gay marriage, I don’t think anyone as the right to make it illegal.
June 21st, 2008 at 11:47 am
Yes, Mom424, I understand that a letter of intent, even one written up by a lawyer and properly notarized, would not stand up in court. However, it could, presented at the proper time, tie things up in court long enough for nature to conclude things all in their proper time, thus avoiding the horrible events that did occur.
It took about another 15 years for all of the men I had grown to adulthood with, the gay ones, the ones I worked with, my friends, those I loved like family, and whom my children loved like family, to die of AIDS.
I saw the changes in the way they were treated, from year to year. Changes for the better.
Oddly, while the medical world was maturing in it’s view of HIV/AIDS, the religious bigots were becoming less and less human. One of the results, for myself, has been to reject Christianity. I want no part of a god who preaches hate, and if the ranting Christians on this particular thread are a good cross sample of the breed I’m glad I opted out.
June 21st, 2008 at 11:48 am
Crimanon -
i’m sorry. i was probably a bit too heavy handed w/ that. you were certainly not the target.
its just as horrible as lunatic ravings of a homophobe in dire need of medication and/or therapy is …as a lover of poetry, someone starts using art to support hate and it sickens me. and then add even more salt to the wound…as an atheist, to have someone toss around scriptures…is just so repugnant to me.
so my apologies if i’ve over reacted on a personal level here.
but i will continue to support civil rights for all Americans. i will continue to support gay marriage and gays adopting. and i can only hope people will try to be more civil w/ each other here. regardless the kinda crazies you gotta read.
June 21st, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Truth is truth regardless of wheter or not one chooses to believe it. Choosing to “believe” that God doesn’t exist in now way negates his existance. Choosing to “believe” that hell doesn’t exist in no way negates it’s existence. Choosing to “believe” that there is no actual right and wrong… Well, you get it, right?
All it does is pit you against God. And that is not a place I would want to be come judgment day.
June 21st, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Cyn: Understood, not trying to offend the Greater Minions of this site.
Far from being Atheist, I feel the same way about hate mongering. Say what you want, but do it with Class. There doesn’t seem to be enough of it today. Look at Sinatra, Hated jews, but it didn’t keep him from being respectful to them when need be. That was one Classy asshole!
If I had my way, we’d all be screwing in the streets and sharing the love. Up side, a dire urgency to cure disease. Clapping without all of the dripping! What a world!
Tolerance without respect, is about as effective as whipped cream without the whisk.
June 21st, 2008 at 12:07 pm
S_R -
and w/ the hate you spew, i’ll be more than happy to welcome you to hell.
just be sure to stay w/ your own kind in the special spot in bizarro world hell for hate mongers.
June 21st, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Crimanon -
and now, can we please get back on topic?
June 21st, 2008 at 12:12 pm
God would be ashamed of your intolerance S_R
hey look at me I’m speaking on God’s behalf like I know him personally! I didn’t realize it was so easy!
June 21st, 2008 at 12:13 pm
S_R: Fine, you fight that “Good” fight. Stay righteous! whatever that means to you. I’ll live and breathe by My Gods word. In the end we’ll go to our respective corners.
Can you now, Give a justifiable reason why Gays shouldn’t marry, Other than saying it’s Just Wrong? Can you give us a non-parchment based thought?
June 21st, 2008 at 12:14 pm
he’s just going to say “gays spread aids” even though 50% of people with AIDS are heterosexual.
June 21st, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Sorry but I feel compelled as a member of the much derided Christian community to stand up and clarify what I believe are the views at least of my church (what I’ve heard taught by our leaders) and what I believe are representative of the views of many other Christians like myself.
First, we do believe that God created the world, he created us and that he created the rules by which we gain the promise of eternal life. If you choose not follow that paradigm then that’s fine, its between you and God.
Second, nowhere does God teach that its ok to hate another group of people because of their choices. Christ taught that “judgement is mine” and whether someone will ultimately be punished because of their choices in life is really only God’s business. Christ DID teach that our discipleship to him reaches its highest level when we begin to love our enemies and can pray SINCERELY for them. By the way, praying sincerely was also covered in the good book. Remember that Christ condemned those who made public display of their piety and religious devotion.
So, my church teaches that homosexuality is wrong and that marriage between a man and woman only is condoned by God. But they also teach that we should love and embrace all people regardless of sexual orientation. In fact, I know of and have known individuals who have acknowledged their sexual orientation as being gay or lesbian and yet choose to live their lives within the confines of the doctrines of my church and thus are very active participants in all facets of church activity.
Lastly, I would like to point that when the last president of my church recently passed away, Westboro Baptist protested at his funeral because of his liberal stance on homosexuality and his willingness to extend a hand of fellowship and love to homosexuals.
So while many Christians are like those at Westboro Baptist and others who have posted, please don’t lump us all together because most of the Christians I know and have known are fine decent people who don’t feel it necessary to tout any form of bigotry.
June 21st, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Choosing to believe there is heaven does not create heaven. It goes both ways. Truth is not a matter of faith. Belief is not truth. Confusing the two is the root of your argument.
As for the illogical trope that an atheist must choose to believe there is no god. Do you chose to believe there is no Easter Bunny, or do you begin with disbelief and seeing there is no good evidence to counter that disbelief remain skeptic? Keeping this on topic, do you KNOW that homosexuality is bad or do you believe it is bad? If the latter how do you know? How do you know that same-sex marriage is bad? Is it a matter of fact or faith? Logically it is a matter of faith, because there is no evidence to support that it is bad. Why then, should same-sex couples suffer for YOUR faith, particularly when you conflate your FAITH to be TRUTH.
June 21st, 2008 at 12:19 pm
To reiterate (since my previous comments semm to have gotten lost way up the list and maybe some didn’t read my “original thoughts”–emphasis added):
Homosexuality is wrong. Homosexual activists are destroying this nation with their obvious AND hidden agenda. People just don’t seem to get it that they’re not looking to be just be left alone, they are looking to make themselves the majority and drive out any semblance of decency from our country. As has been pointed out, there will be many lawsuits as a result of this in the future and eventually, they will be directly attacking any religion that believes homosexuality is wrong. They will take away our freedom of religion in favor of theirs–and they ARE a minority.
Since they are a minority, though, they can’t do it without the approval and assistance of others who aren’t homosexual. Thus, this push for tolerance and teaching in the schools that homosexuality is just A-OK.
You gay-supporters are so blind. All you see is the here-and-now: Intolerance is a bad thing. There’s nothing wrong with two people who love each other, of whichever sex, getting married. It doesn’t hurt anyone. Etc., etc., etc.
Fine, as has been stated, keep it behind closed doors. Anti-hate laws give you all and any of the protection you need, unless, of course, that won’t be enough for the homos. Maybe they want any type of homo-persecution to carry the death penalty, too?!
Sodomy is wrong and against nature (not to mention God). Just look up how many nasty bacteria reside in the lower intestinal tract. NASTY STUFF. What about having to wear a cholostomy bag because the rectum has been damaged due to anal sex?! I don’t see any of those problems with normal intercourse. Thus, anal intercourse is against nature.
Now, I’m not saying straight sex is without danger–it is fraught with them. However, that’s because, once again, man has violated God’s laws. Multiple sex partners instead of one man and one woman who are married and committed to each other. Nevertheless, anal sex is far more dangerous in any case than straight sex. It’s just disgusting to even think about putting the male sex organ into a LITERAL CESSPOOL.
[T]he asshole is where the body’s shit (it’s waste, word used for emphasis) comes out of. It was not made to be involved in sex, gay or straight, unlike the penis and vagina. No normal man would even consider sticking his member into a LITERAL CESSPOOL!! But homos like to play with shit, don’t they. A common thing for them to participate in is enemas for pleasure. Again, straights do too, but I would call them perverted, (as well). However, I would venture to guess (as i don’t feel like looking through any of this crap anymore) that on a PERCENTAGE basis, it’s much higher in the homo community. Perversion, itself, is 100% in the homo lifestyle–as it’s wrong to begin with.
June 21st, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I appreciate your level-headedness gabriel1836, but where in the Bible does it say that homosexuality is wrong? The only places I know of are in Genesis and Exodus, but they are in the context of rape and prostitution (as I’ve stated before).
If it’s because of procreation, then there’s really no need for that rule anymore anyway. We have quite enough people on this earth already, many of which are dieing because we can’t provide for the people that are already here.
I just don’t see what problem God could possibly have with consensual sex between two adults that doesn’t hurt anyone. It’s not going to convert anyone, it’s not going to corrupt anyone, it’s not going to harm anyone at all. If you don’t like homosexuality that’s fine, don’t have homosexual sex, but what is it going to hurt anyone else?
June 21st, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Of course it should be legal. Speaking as a gay man, I would love to marry my partner of many years. We have talked about this, quite often. But, what it really comes down to is that a piece of paper will not change how we feel about each other. In the eyes of our friends, family and the creator we are already married. So how would an antiquated ceremony change anything?
June 21st, 2008 at 12:24 pm
S_R -
shut up.
June 21st, 2008 at 12:25 pm
S_R, so, you think homosexuality is wrong because it defies “god’s” word and their sex is unnatural, wow, go find a cliff, now jump off.
June 21st, 2008 at 12:25 pm
hey S_R, did you know some straight people engage in anal sex?
and your accusations are disgusting
I’ve never “played with shit”, I’ve never received an enema either.
and I don’t know any homosexuals who are trying to make homosexuality the majority. that’s just some bullshit you made up on the spot to further your point. go the hell away, no one wants you here.
June 21st, 2008 at 12:26 pm
S_R, as Crimanon has stated, you are getting no converts here, none, we aren’t close-minded assholes like you
June 21st, 2008 at 12:28 pm
S_R’s gotta be a troll. His/Her most recent post has been posted before- it’s a copy/paste. Probably from some website.
June 21st, 2008 at 12:29 pm
S_R,
How’s the view up there from your pedestal ?
June 21st, 2008 at 12:31 pm
S_R is mad that he can’t get any anal
June 21st, 2008 at 12:34 pm
S-R fulminates:
“Homosexuality is wrong. Homosexual activists are destroying this nation with their obvious AND hidden agenda. People just don’t seem to get it that they’re not looking to be just be left alone, they are looking to make themselves the majority and drive out any semblance of decency from our country”
I defy you to present a single shred of objective evidence to support this. Not your opinion, not the ravings of religious activists in faith promoting books or from rightist web sites, but objective, critically reviewed evidence. Prove that your statement, “homosexuality is wrong” without appeals to subjective “truth” (since one can believe in the Bible or not, biblical authority is subjective).
What you are asking for me to believe is what you say is, de facto, truth. I have no reason to accept your statement. So, forgetting anything you’ve said in the past, show me your objective evidence. I defy you to present even an ounce. Thus, I can say, absent objective evidence, that the issue of gay marriage is a social question that has no “absolute” truth, and is, thereby, an issue of tolerance. So, why should I forfeit my understanding of tolerance to your subjective sense of intolerance?
June 21st, 2008 at 12:34 pm
okay kids! chill out. or no dessert for anyone!
got it?
please stay on topic. and at least try to be civil.
June 21st, 2008 at 12:35 pm
objective obviously isn’t in his vocabulary. he’s nothing more than a sheep. the Bible even calls it’s followers sheep and they don’t seem to notice/care.
June 21st, 2008 at 12:36 pm
S_R: your opinions are based only on your hate aren’t they?
You only need to worry about your own sexuality, not that of others.
June 21st, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Cyn: i want some dessert!
June 21st, 2008 at 12:37 pm
S_R,
Would you explain this “hidden agenda”, I’m gay and have not heard of this one ?
June 21st, 2008 at 12:39 pm
S_R: when you show me evidence of the “hidden agenda” or any of your other claims about homosexuality, let me know
June 21st, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Csimmons – only if you behave!
Wolfgang – please do not encourage S_R. hopefully ‘it’ will just fade away. like a bad smell in a summer breeze.
June 21st, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Fair enough, now who has these desserts ?
June 21st, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Cyn: but I want some dessert now!
June 21st, 2008 at 12:42 pm
how about some magic brownies?
June 21st, 2008 at 12:43 pm
*opens up the freezer and passes out the icecream bars*
happy?
June 21st, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Good idea about ignoring him/her
now about this dessert thing, brownies or pie?
June 21st, 2008 at 12:44 pm
yummy! now how about some magic brownies, I feel like going to mars…
June 21st, 2008 at 12:44 pm
icecream in deference to the season.
and the freaking heat!!
June 21st, 2008 at 1:04 pm
never mind.
June 21st, 2008 at 1:06 pm
so…can we please stay on topic? this is a website for entertainment purposes not someone’s ‘bully pulpit’ for their own peverse bigoted agenda.
k?
June 21st, 2008 at 1:19 pm
S_R- Should gay marriage be legal?
Doesn’t matter about you as an individual with your beliefs- should gay marriage be legal for those who wish to be married? I haven’t seen you answer this question yet. We *know* you’re against homosexuality- what about this issue?
June 21st, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Keeping with the topic/s at hand. Should gay marriage be legal, Is being gay right, Is being gay Against God?
I want someone else to chew this over….http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/jesus.htm… and tell me what they think.
June 21st, 2008 at 1:26 pm
@CK2005:
In terms of biblical context, you are correct that many of ther references involve homosexuality along with other sexual sin such as rape or incest. The instance cited often with Sodom and Gomorrah does involve the idea that the men of the city wanted to rape Lot’s visitors. However, I would have to say that Leviticus 20:13 is fairly clear:
” 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a bwoman, both of them have committed an cabomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
Keep in mind what I already said once:
“we do believe that God created the world, he created us and that he created the rules by which we gain the promise of eternal life.”
Since as a Christian, I believe that our purpose on earth is really to have the opportunity to make choices that will help us grow to be more like God and receive the gift of eternal life, it only follows that as a Christian I would subscribe to the rules He has set down for receiving said gift.
I don’t personally feel compelled to ask what God’s reasoning is behind every rule he sets down because I have faith that these rules are ultimately geared toward me gaining the greatest happiness possible. As Christ said, “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” (John 7:17)
As far as the issue of gay marriage is concerned, I believe that there are issues of life, liberty, and property at stake in the argument. I will say honestly that at one point I was very decidedly against any form of legal protections for homosexual couples, but an individual shared a personal experience of his with a man who in the end was separated from the individual whom he loved most and who most loved him and it was his family (who had not known him for many years as a result of his lifestyle) that was with him at the end of his life and who handled his final affairs.
I personally feel that such a matter falls into the realm of basic human rights, that the people we love and who love us should have the ability to handle our affairs in any event that would require such things regardless of how that relationship is arranged. I also feel that separate but equal is not equal and so its not right to say that heterosexuals can marry but homosexuals can do a living will, etc that would provide presumably some of the same protections. Its for that reason that I support the government coming up with a legal status, whether it be a civil union or otherwise that will allow any two consenting adults (gay, straight, or just otherwise) to form a legal partnership. That way, us religious nuts are feeling boxed in about gay rights and the whole ‘marriage’ thing and everyone gets equal treatment under the law.
June 21st, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Your View: Should Gay Marriage Be Legal
that is the topic. this is not about homosexuality..moral, immoral, genetic, learned, whatevah….. got it? please stay on topic.
and yes, it is a seperate topic. *geesh*
June 21st, 2008 at 1:34 pm
gabriel: I could hug you right now. I need to work on being more articulate.
June 21st, 2008 at 1:36 pm
S_R, I’m still waiting for you to take me up on my offer to publicly debate scripture so I can expose you in front of everyone. I studied with right wing fundamentalists every weeks for years and it’s pretty obvious from your statements that not only do you not read the bible, but you are simply a parrot chirping out whatever greasy preacher you follow.
I understand that being exposed as thus must be terribly frightening to you, but if your conviction to champion your ignorance, which goes against both the Bible and nature, then you should have no problem proving me wrong.
It’s obvious of course, that you aren’t even Christian. It’s also obvious that in all of your references to the bible, you haven’t actually provided a valid passage that pertains exactly to justifying persecuting homosexuals. The passages you provide are justifications of hate-mongering.
The claims you make are baseless and have no relelvance to real life, human society, spirituality or nature.
For example, a claim that homosexuals are ‘destroying the country’. Let’s look at that, because it is so laughable I think the last time I heard someone say it and believe it I was in elementary school.
Now, what do the homosexuals gain by destroying your precious country?
Secondly, if this is true, then why is there not a massive influx of homosexuals in the Military? In order to ensure an effective coup against a society you must have the backing of the military. Say your hypothetical gay agenda takes over. It only takes one die hard Christian general to destroy it.
Third, all of your arguments hinge on the idea that people have a choice in whether they are gay or not. This is absolutely false and completely ignorant.
Please, though, let us get directly into scripture to debate this topic. I know for a fact, because I have done it before, that it is completely proveable that persecuting or judging homosexuals is not endorsed by the bible or Christ.
You have a predetermined agenda. It’s obvious in the face of anyone who can use the very basis (the bible) of your bigotry to prove you are wrong in front of everyone, frightens you, and you lack the intellectual courage and ability to actually engage the topic.
Instead you dance around half truths and innuendoes that serve to justify your opinion, while critical analysis shows you are actually just running away from the request for you to actually prove your stance is justified.
Grow some stones.
June 21st, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Cyn: Just trying to remove the religious aspect of the argument. God=Jesus, Jesus=unknown sexual practices, God is a non issue.
June 21st, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Mr. Graves -
S_R is in ‘time out’.
and not able to respond to you at this time.
June 21st, 2008 at 1:38 pm
@S_R:
You make a hasty and rash assumption that I was singling you out. I’ve been around this site quite a bit though I don’t often comment and I have seen a lot of intolerance. In fact, I find it very interesting that many people while claiming to decry intolerance, are very intolerant of others views. I guess, I finally felt compelled to stand up and simply present my feelings that religion and Christianity in particular often gets a bad rap because of the way that we present our views to others and the way that they frequently interpret our taking a stance.
As far as my responsibility as Christian is concerned and how that relates to my comments on this site, I have some experience in proselyting and sharing my views. Done correctly, it can lead to repentance and conversion. I’ve seen this many times in my life and rejoice in every story that I’ve been a part of. However, when our views are shared incorrectly (whether it be timing, place, or audience, or what we say or how we say it) then the experience is to the detriment of all. I’ve seen a lot of that myself and have even been the perpetrator of such disheartening discussions.
I don’t care if you think my approach is soft. That’s between myself and God.
June 21st, 2008 at 1:42 pm
@Crimanon:
Thank you. Coming from someone as active on the site as yourself I consider that high praise.
June 21st, 2008 at 1:42 pm
again..on topic.
gay marriage. yay or nay.
leave religion out of it. stick to the legal issue of marriage. thanx.
June 21st, 2008 at 1:48 pm
@gabriel1836- you said:
‘In terms of biblical context, you are correct that many of ther references involve homosexuality along with other sexual sin such as rape or incest. The instance cited often with Sodom and Gomorrah does involve the idea that the men of the city wanted to rape Lot’s visitors. However, I would have to say that Leviticus 20:13 is fairly clear:
” 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a bwoman, both of them have committed an cabomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”’
If you really are a Christian you should know exactly why Leviticus has no relevance to the issue of homosexuality. You seem to be much more level headed than folk like S_R so I don’t want you to think I’m attacking you. I just happen to have no tolerance for people who *claim* to be Christian and then behave in the exact opposite manner of the beautiful aspects of the spirituality. (Again, I’m not saying that applies to you, I only say it to explain why I don’t think many people actually are Christians)
There is no evidence anywhere in the bible to support condemning homosexuality, not even in Christs speech in the New Testament forbidding idolators, liars, men who lie with men, (and many more) from entering Heaven.
If you are interested in a level and even discussion on the scritpures, I would be happy to exchange ideas with you. My disgust of homophobia is directed towards bigots like S_R, not people like you.
June 21st, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Graves has said we are all wrong, evolution* loves gays, but he has yet to offer evidence to this fact, instead covering his incompetence by saying we know nothing.
here’s your chance, prove your point, show me what you know.
*perhaps i could take a stand saying i don’t believe in evolution, just for giggles.
June 21st, 2008 at 1:49 pm
okay
i would strongly recommend those of you who insist on repeating yourself ad nauseum or who insist on engaging in off topic debate do so in forums.
http://listverse.com/forums
June 21st, 2008 at 1:49 pm
well, back on topic, gay marriage should be legal, as I have stated before. people should be to love whoever they want, and they should also be able to marry like heterosexual couples do. and why should the government be able to tell you that you can’t marry this person? its wrong.
June 21st, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Sorry Cyn. Just trying to respond to S_R. However I really must point out that any discussion of an issue that is viewed by so many as a moral issue will ultimately involve religion. If you don’t want us discussing religion then we shouldn’t be discussing issues that for most people are rooted in their own personal value systems.
I question I often wonder about though is this:
Will it be sufficient to simply provide the same legal status to anyone wishes to gain the legal protections, rights, etc that we currently associate with ‘marriage’ or is there something more that is wanted here than just gaining a legal status? In other words, does the fight over gay marriage go deeper than just the legal implications of a marriage status?
June 21st, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Purple Dinosaur Alert! Use caution when reading the following song.
“I love you
You love me
We’re a happy family
With a great big hug
And a kiss from me to you
Won’t you say you love me too?
I love you
You love me
We’re best friends
Like friends should be
With a great big hug
And a kiss from me to you
Won’t you say you love me too?”
I don’t much like Barney but even Children are taught tolerance. Love who you want and do what you want, just as long as you aren’t forcing yourself on other people everything is fine.
June 21st, 2008 at 1:51 pm
sorry cyn, i was typihng while you posted your last comment.
but, to be honest, i dont see how you can extract the reliious issue and have a real discussion on the topic- the entire basis of the anti-rights sides is rooted in exactly that.
otherwise you just get a forum with one word yes or no replies.
June 21st, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Just let people be.
June 21st, 2008 at 1:55 pm
@Mr Graves:
I don’t have time to respond right now, but when I get a chance I’ll post something to the forums and then provide a link in this list so we can have this discussion.
Keep watching…
June 21st, 2008 at 1:57 pm
gabriel1836 -
actually. it is possible to view this simply as a legal issue. practice seperation of church and state. it then becomes only a legal issue.
and then its a civil rights issue in a democratic country founded on the seperation of church and state.
June 21st, 2008 at 1:59 pm
If we can’t expound on our answers, then every response should be limited to a “yes” or “no” answer!
June 21st, 2008 at 2:01 pm
alright! first thing S_R has said that makes sense!
oooh..here have a cookie!
June 21st, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Cyn: If it’s Simply State then, Yes, it should be legal. But it’s not just a state issue, How can you define marriage without a ceremony with religious aspects. Who is it then that Defines marriage, Websters dictionary? Or the People who vote?
June 21st, 2008 at 2:04 pm
okay..so yes or no is rather simplistic. and yes, this is a complex and controversial issue. but no, it does not have to be riddled w/ hate and religious prejudice.
so play nice. and you’ll all get cookies!
June 21st, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Why do you hide the fact that my posts are being deleted?
June 21st, 2008 at 2:08 pm
having never been married..*shudder at the thought* – correct me if i’m wrong but…
even for a ‘church wedding’ you have to get a license from the courthouse. but you do not have to get permission from Preacher Joe to get married in a courthouse?
k? so it is a legal process. the religion thang is just some bizarre dessert topping.
June 21st, 2008 at 2:08 pm
@Cyn:
Under that pretext the decision has to be predetermined unless you suck as a human being. If its just a matter of civil rights, then the arguments and responses have already been predetermined by hundreds of years of persecution under the guise of religion, or separate but equal, or evolutionary discrimination or name any other weak excuse for perpetrating inhuman acts against a people.
Its our personal values systems (which for many of us is very strongly influenced by our religion of choice) that make discussions like this interesting and worthwhile in my opinion.
I suspect that if we limited this to a discussion of the purely legal ramifications and legal reasons for or against most of us who have commented would have either not been able to contribute much or would have limited to a very boring ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Really where is the fun in that?
Keep in mind that although the US Bill of Rights defines a separation of church and state, its purpose was not to create an agnostic form of government but rather to ensure the freedom to practice whatever religion one chooses. Just look at all of the references to God that our Founding Fathers put into the government, etc. So at least in the beginning, God was very much a part of politics in America.
June 21st, 2008 at 2:09 pm
S_R: You insult a group, we insult you, there Is a difference. Do you catch what I’m saying? Can we play nice?
June 21st, 2008 at 2:10 pm
S_R hide? delete?
you were told before to stop. and yet you keep posting the same thing over and over again. your points have all been made. no need to rinse and repeat.
behave. or i’ll take your cookies away.
June 21st, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Cyn, the original question put to this topic was this:
“This is a topic which keeps coming up again and again in the press as various countries, cities, and states legalize or debate the legalizing of same-sex marriage. So it seems like a good topic for debate on the site.”
Minimizing this to “yay or nay” is not on topic, for yes or no is not a debate, it is a collection of responses. Indeed, the list author says the following:
“My answer: I am going to be controversial and political with my answer, which is: Should the state have any say in a moral issue such as this anyway? At what point does the state have a right to legislate for or against issues which are traditionally left to a person’s conscience? Deeper than the issue on abortion, gay marriage, prostitution and the like, is the problem of governments believing they have the need (and the right) to tell people how they should live their lives”
This would seem to suggest that the issue is deeper and more worthy of discussion than simply yea or nay. Since the list author casts the debate so widely why are you narrowly limiting discussion? Surely the religious response to the question in general can not be ignored and is a great part of determining “morality”. I would suggest it is more relevant than this comment:
*opens up the freezer and passes out the icecream bars*
happy?
I would love to see how you define “debate”.
June 21st, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Cyn: there is still, no Authentic separation off church and state. Too many politicians put their beliefs into what His people tell him to do. “I know what is best for My people” When we finally have Unbiased politicians that do what We tell Them to do Then we can truely define Marriage without God. Religion is still there.
June 21st, 2008 at 2:13 pm
LOL!
June 21st, 2008 at 2:13 pm
hat “LOL” was directed at:
I would suggest it is more relevant than this comment:
*opens up the freezer and passes out the icecream bars*
June 21st, 2008 at 2:15 pm
S_R hide? delete?
you were told before to stop. and yet you keep posting the same thing over and over again. your points have all been made. no need to rinse and repeat.
behave. or i’ll take your cookies away.
Who are you to decide whether all my points have been made?!
June 21st, 2008 at 2:15 pm
@Cyn:
Look for my original post. Marriage became an institution of the state because of religious influence. I work with a guy who lived Norway for a couple of years where (from what I understand) agnosticism is a predominant force, they simply have a partnership status. Its a legal tax status but has absolutely none of the religious and cultural baggage associated with a ‘marriage’.
I keep arguing that what’s really fair is to dump the gay marriage argument and lets try to pass legislation that makes so that people like “Chuck and Larry” and homosexuals and anyone else (even a brother and sister) (and including current traditional marriages) can form a legal partnership that provides the same legal rights and protections as a traditional marriage does now. Then we can get past the ramifications of using a term and idea that is so loaded with religious and cultural heritage.
P.S. S_R, if you want me to see your responses Cyn has already said that you can post to the forum and then you could provide a link here. Do I understand that correctly Cyn?
June 21st, 2008 at 2:16 pm
And you still keep deleting my remark directed directly to Gabriel! Why aren’t all the other “chatty” comments deleted?
June 21st, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Gabriel, I’m not going to register at this site’s forums. I will try to see if someone I know will host it on their site and try to post the link. Thanks.
June 21st, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Cyn, did you miss post #726?
Here’s a highlight from it:
Minimizing this to “yay or nay” is not on topic, for yes or no is not a debate, it is a collection of responses. Indeed, the list author says the following:
“My answer: I am going to be controversial and political with my answer, which is: Should the state have any say in a moral issue such as this anyway? At what point does the state have a right to legislate for or against issues which are traditionally left to a person’s conscience? Deeper than the issue on abortion, gay marriage, prostitution and the like, is the problem of governments believing they have the need (and the right) to tell people how they should live their lives”
June 21st, 2008 at 2:23 pm
S_R: You’re missing the point. You comments are derogatory, have some sensitivity. Don’t censor your comments, just make them a little more friendly.
June 21st, 2008 at 2:25 pm
okay…so this is a huge issue for some people. for me its quite simple..its about equal rights. its about love.
there is no religion. there is no religiously contaminated morality. morality exists on its own merits.
just the right to live and love.
and from the standpoint of the state and legislation…its an easy fix. simply remove the wording ‘man and woman’ and replace w/ ‘partners’.
people would marry legally. have all the same rights, privileges and obligations of any marrieds. employers would be by law bound to provide services or whatever. no discrimination.
then let the religious fanatics fight it out behind the closed doors of their places of so called worship.
see? simple.
and forums is for forums. if you want to engage in more heated debate. take it there. keep it there.
and cool it w/ the stupidity of incest and beastiliaty. gross! just more fear mongering.
June 21st, 2008 at 2:29 pm
S_R: Any response to my comment, 505? Pretty good on the marry who or whatever.
June 21st, 2008 at 2:31 pm
S_R – Again, do you believe that gay marriage should be legal?
If you believe it has to have a religious basis- well, Christianity isn’t the only religion.
June 21st, 2008 at 2:34 pm
S_R
stop repeating yourself or being an ass and you’re comments will stand.
obviously each of us will not budge in our own intrepretation of this ‘your view’ or this topic.
we’re either ‘preaching to the choir’ or pissing into the wind.
btw..legitimate debate does not involve hate mongering. fear mongering. or just being nasty.
ya’ll have worn me out.
break time! now play nice.
later.
June 21st, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Can’t answer to anything directed at me as I’m being deleted by a PREJUDICED moderator!
June 21st, 2008 at 2:38 pm
@Cyn:
Ok, but you’re reasons for supporting gay marriage have to do with your personal values system right?
I think that you need to accept that a personal values system is a complex thing. Its determined by years of exposure within our individual cultures and families. Its determined by our personal experiences and the way that we interpret those experiences and relate to them. For a lot of us, its determined through exposure to one or more religions and their doctrine.
For me, it is incomprehensible to separate my values system from the religion that instilled me with most of them. I suspect that for many of of the other posters it is the same.
I don’t mean to sound like I’m jumping on you but it does seem like you want us to discuss this issue and that we can cite our reasons and how we feel about the morality of the issues involved but you can’t stand the fact that we have to drag religion into it.
Whether you agree or not, whether you believe that religion is the harbinger of all things evil shouldn’t matter, because like it or not so much of everything comes back to religion. You can’t escape it. We won’t let you…
June 21st, 2008 at 2:39 pm
S_R
stop repeating yourself. now go away.
oh! look a shiny..go chase. bye.
June 21st, 2008 at 2:40 pm
I tried to say the same thing, Gabriel, but mine got deleted…
June 21st, 2008 at 2:41 pm
But a moderator that is INTOLERANT of another view.
June 21st, 2008 at 2:41 pm
OOPS–”by” not “but”
June 21st, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Gabriel, I lost half of what I had written to you. I do remember that one of the things I pointed out was that I AM a fallible human. I make mistakes and I sin. The difference being that I don’t cover up my sin, I acknowledge it, ask forgiveness and try to do better. I had also written how I don’t try to call “evil good and good evil.” I don’t embrace sin, I hate it, but I can’t deny its power over me, either, as a human. Thus, the reason for me posting the poem earlier.
I’m going to try to answer you in “snippets” so that some might get through this censorship being directed at me.
June 21st, 2008 at 2:51 pm
@S_R:
When you make the rules you get to pick favorites and you get to decide when someone just irks you.
Such abuses of power might be frowned upon but what can I say, I’m not sure that I blame Cyn. You shouldn’t piss off an entire community because they may just decide that you should be the one who gets stoned.
Like I said, if you find somewhere’s else to post then I’d be happy to read your responses and post a response if I feel its warranted.
June 21st, 2008 at 2:52 pm
S_R you did not!
Gabriel -
i’m an atheist. so don’t particularly care about religion of any kind. and yes, i was raised Baptist. so i know the drill. only too well. i take responsibility for my own morality and consequences thereof… i don’t need Big Sky Daddy threatening punishment to behave. so once folks accept responsibility for their own actions and consequences then we can discuss true morality. so i’ll stand by this country being founded on seperation of church and state. therefore church is not an issue. morality is not religion based. so that point is moot too. so it does come down to a simple issue of equal before the eyes of the law. a civil rights issue. no religion. no religion dictated ‘morality’. simply being non discriminatory on the bias of sexual orientation and/or gender etc etc etc.
let the courts decide. enact the law. enforce the law.
at some point the bible thumpers and other religious fanatics of different flavors will have to accept that being loud and obnoxious does not trump the law. and people will get on w/ their lives in peace. and the fanatics can go do whatever it is they do w/in the confines of their own churches/mosques/whatever.
and we’ll go on w/ having a true democracy.
and yes, i’m a fan of that John Lennon song…’..call me dreamer..’
if we just keep putting it before legislature after legislature…we will hammer this one home.
June 21st, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Gabriel:
That’s why I do get mad and offensive at times after years of hearing “them” decry “censorship” and “intolerance” all the while doing the same. It’s OK for them to yell, cuss, insult, blaspheme all they want, but when someone from the other side does anything but preach “love and tolerance” they jump on like a pack of wild wolves.
I just noticed how Cyn stated, “at some point the bible thumpers and other religious fanatics of different flavors will have to accept that being loud and obnoxious does not trump the law.” But that’s EXACTLY how the homosexuals have been acting from the beginning to get their views into the mainstream.
June 21st, 2008 at 2:59 pm
@Cyn,
Awww… I apologize if my last post to you seemed harsh Cyn.
Now I see that you are simply arguing your viewpoint. Which on this point you and I agree. I’m a fan of Locke and the idea that we all have the certain inalienable rights. And like you, I think that separate but equal is a crock.
I think the only we disagree is that rather than trying to force the religious right to shift a point where they can accept the idea of gay marriage or like you said switch the verbage to ‘partners’ why not push legislation that removes marriage from the picture. That way the religious right doesn’t feel that a time honored definition of marriage is being put on trial and everyone gets equal rights. Marriage was originally a religious institution, why not just move it back to where it belongs?
June 21st, 2008 at 3:02 pm
@S_R:
You’re right. Every minority that currently has equal rights has had to be loud and obnoxious and it frequently came at the expense of life, liberty or property for those that spoke out.
We would all do well to remember that whether we like it or not we’re all in the same boat in one way or another. The fact is that human nature does not change and neither do the issues that we face even though they may assume different names and faces.
June 21st, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Gabriel:
It’s OK if I get stoned by the leftist, liberals. God tells us to hold on to the truth “even unto death.” I’m not saying I would like it or consider it a privilege as some other (much better than I) Christians have done, are doing, and will do. I would hate it! It would hurt. But that doesn’t mean I’ll capitulate to them, either. Nor renounce my faith as some preacher is being forced to do in Canada (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66704) because of his beliefs that homosexuality is sinful. Say what you will about that source, but fact is fact and they didn’t just pull this out of thin air.
June 21st, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Listen up – I don’t mind if this debate takes on religious overtones – I don’t mind if people wish to discuss the morality of homosexuality to support their point for or against marriage – what I will not allow are comments that are base and vulgar. I don’t wish to read about enemas and other such things. I will remove comments that go down that path. Please stick to the topic and use logic to debate.
June 21st, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Cyn, jfrater, and all who stick to topic:
The other day I made some extra homemade Lemon/Blueberry Cake w/ Lemon glaze. It’s currently frozen, but if you want dessert…
June 21st, 2008 at 3:22 pm
One thing I had stated in my original response to you about your church was that we ARE to welcome homosexuals into the church! They are sinners just as the rest of us who need God’s grace in order to be saved from their (our) sin. Everyone is born into sin. Jesus said it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. We are all born sick. We all need salvation, and that is the message they should be hearing.
However, there is no denying that God, because of a person’s continual rebellion–embracing their sin and renouncing Him and his ways–God has given some over to a reprobate mind.
No, I don’t agree with the Westboro Baptist Church whatsoever. I think that what they’re doing IS cruel and evil. I won’t attack someone just because they’re gay. Unless, and I mean this in a non-violent way, they keep hitting on me or are “flamboyant” in public where the rest of us have to see it. Just as I don’t approve of heterosexual couples making out and groping each other in public. Or when they’re trying to force acceptance and even the embracing of their lifestyle on the rest of us.
But, to continue regarding those God has given over to a reprobate mind: They should not be allowed to CONTINUE with the fellowship of the believers. Paul tells us to call them on their actions a few times and the to expel them if they don’t show any sign of repentance. Now, I’m talking about those who have been in the fellowship some time and yet continue practicing homosexuality. And, a PRACTICING homosexual should NEVER be allowed any position of leadership, authority, or ANY other position in the church.
June 21st, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Gabriel:
I also went on to write about the instance(s) where men in the Bible–INCLUDING Jesus–were angry and used words, and even actions (the moneychangers’ tables) to express their righteous indignation.
June 21st, 2008 at 3:28 pm
JFrater,
I ask this as respectfully as I possibly can. You don’t want to hear about those sick practices (written in a non-approving manner), but it’s OK for NUMEROUS posts of a sexual nature to be made by a couple of girls and some guys as was earlier in the posts? She’s talking about how she likes to take it up the (rear) and they’re talking about bodily fluids and such?
June 21st, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Oh! Gabriel.
One last thing I forgot to mention. I do have a passion regarding this subject because I was raped by a homosexual as a young adolescent.
June 21st, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Can’t you reconcile the legality of it with your religious beliefs in that, as a society with multiple religions and the option of none at all, people have freedom of religion? And that just because you judge it to be wrong has no bearing on the law?
You don’t have say you agree with it, just that people have the right to “sin” or not to “sin” if they so choose, and it isn’t up to people to impose their ideas of “sin” on other people so long as what those other people are doing isn’t doing harm to others?
I mean, if a person is homosexual but hides it or doesn’t act upon it because of legality- because of the restrictions made by other people- what effect would that have come judgement day? Wouldn’t god know the nature of the person?
So if we remove any legal hindrances on acts that are seen as sinful but don’t harm anyone else- wouldn’t that be more in line with the whole “sinner or not a sinner” business? ‘Cause the only factor in whether people “sin” or not is because of their devotion to their religion?
Just trying to get on the religious level- I don’t believe any of it, but that’s how I’d see it if I did.
June 21st, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Jfrater: I just logged on as S_R. Will this be a constant problem, cause its sorta scary that anyone can get my email by chance.
June 21st, 2008 at 3:54 pm
S_R: I agree with you, if you are a practicing Catholic priest and have taken a vow of celibacy. No problem. But otherwise, why the hell not?
June 21st, 2008 at 4:05 pm
segue: Please wrap up a slice and send it to … Republic of Korea. On second thoughts – darn. (It’s just after breakfast time here, anyway.)
June 21st, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Obviously, as my earlier statements would lead you to believe, I am in favor (favour, the way I was taught the word first is so much nicer) of gay marriage.
*S_R*, it’s you, and people like you, who got me to renounce Christianity.
Christianity, NOT God. Big difference.
Love is something with which we have been blessed. Love is not limited, unless you happen to posses a rather limited ego yourself.
I’m not even going to comment on what I think might be the state of your ego.
Love between any two consenting adults should be legal, regardless of sexual orientation, race, or creed.
June 21st, 2008 at 4:36 pm
The reason homosexual marriage cannot be tolerated in any respect is because of the effect it has on us, as individuals (i.e., teaching our children to tolerate more and more sinful practices–that’s a whole other issue, by the way, what’s going on in public education) and as a nation. America used to be a great nation–THE GREATEST in our time. Look where we are today because of our tolerating more and more sin. America has truly fallen, both in the eyes of God and the rest of the world.
It affects us as a country because we have fallen from grace, and, therefore, we are in rapid decline in our standard of living, in our power, and as a world leader. Legalizing homosexual marriage may just be the straw that broke the camel’s back as homosexuality one of the sins listed as an “abomination” to God.
I write “may just be the straw that broke the camel’s back” because we have already tolerated so much sin! And look where it’s gotten us: A sky-rocketing divorce rate, indecency, irresponsibility, intolerance TOWARD decency, people wanting more perversities allowed in publications, on the air, taught in our schools, allowed in public, infringement of churches’ rights, infringement of Christians’ rights (which are, supposedly, guaranteed by the Constitution), rampant drug use (both legal and illegal), abortion on demand, unbelievable political and corporate greed, diseases (such as AIDS), ad nauseum!
If homosexual marriage is allowed, all kinds of minorities–and some that even the liberals on here would find disgusting–would demand equal treatment. Where will it end?
All right, I know where it will end, and that it’s futile to try to stop, or even change, what has been foretold in scripture. But that doesn’t mean we, as Christians, have to lie down and shut up. On the contrary, we are called to speak out against it every step of the way, even, as I posted elsewhere, “unto death.”
June 21st, 2008 at 4:36 pm
I think I’m done with this topic. I’ll probably pop in when something piques my interest.
June 21st, 2008 at 4:38 pm
OOPS: The “unto death” statement was in one of my censored posts to Gabriel.
June 21st, 2008 at 4:39 pm
@#
@GAYDAY!
You said:
‘Graves has said we are all wrong, evolution* loves gays, but he has yet to offer evidence to this fact, instead covering his incompetence by saying we know nothing.
here’s your chance, prove your point, show me what you know.’
My reply:
Actually I think you just admitted to the forum you haven’t even rad the thread. I provided the evolutionary impetus for homosexuality as a species benefit more than once in my previous posts.
I’m not worried though, it’s quite easy to see through what you are doing and note that you have no interest in actually learning. You are using a self denial technique. All the information you request of me then accuse me of not providing, I put forth long ago, more than once. Try reading the forum before you resort to straw men and character assassination.
That is the difference between me calling you ignorant and you calling me ignorant. Your judgement is based on a lie and a false premise. By posting what you did, you simply proved for me that the quality of ignorance applies to you.
Read the thread. It’s already in there. I’ll post it again if all those words are intimidating to you.
June 21st, 2008 at 4:43 pm
@S_R:
I don’t want to give you the impression that my church allows anyone who fails to follow certain basic commandments to participate fully in church activities. In fact, in order to obtain membership or retain it, all members are required to follow certain basic commandments. So anyone who fails to follow the law of chastity as prescribed by our church doctrine (namely that one engage in sexual relations only with one’s wife or husband) cannot participate fully within our church.
What I was saying is that there are individuals within our church who have recognized that their sexual orientation is homosexual and as such do not date or get married but they also do act on their inclinations for companionship of the same sex because they (like all members of our church) have a conviction of the doctrines of our church.
June 21st, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Why is tolerance such a bad thing to you?
You say homosexuality is a sin, right? You say we, as people not as gods, should discourage it- not allow them equal rights and whatever. Do you think that, if there is a god and a judgement day, that this god isn’t gonna know if people are only not “sinning” because of the laws and such created by other people, rather than not “sinning” out of a desire to do what god says?
I mean, if a person is forced to go to church by other people, but doesn’t really believe and wouldn’t go to church of their own volition- wouldn’t god know that? So forcing people not to “sin” has no purpose even for the religious.
Again, I don’t believe a word of it- just trying to see both sides.
June 21st, 2008 at 4:47 pm
There is no logical reason to persecute or condemn homosexuals. Even if you are Christian, there is no basis in doing so.
Homosexuality is not only completely natural in mammalian species, but an evolutionary advantage that helpa the species as a whole.
Yes, that’s right having 10% of your population comprised of homosexuals is a GOOD thing.
Using the quantifiable interaction equation for rates and interests in homosexual behaviour shows verifiable proof that is is completely in line with human evolutionary traits.
June 21st, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Speaking of which, in that statement, Gabriel, I answered you about us possibly find ourselves as the ones being stoned to death.
I wrote that if it’s to be, then it will be. There are myriad Christians who have been killed throughout history into the present, and will be in the future, for standing for God and his word. I don’t seek it out. In fact, the thought scares me–I’m not a sadist. There are Christians (much better than I) which with if I should be compared, I should be ashamed, who considered it an honor to die for such ideals. God forbid that that’s what it’ll come to, as it already has in places, here in the good ol’ USA.
It is after all, a fight (for a short while) between good and evil. And, for a time, evil will appear to be winning. Praise God, though, that this time will pass and holiness, righteousness, goodness, love, etc., will prevail for the rest of eternity. Also, we are told that many will become martyrs for the cause. (During the tribulation, for example, the only way to be saved will be by not accepting the “mark of the beast.” And the penalty for doing so: Being beheaded. But terrible times will be upon us–and already are, but it will still get worse–before then.) As such, Christians will be, and are being in parts of the world, killed because of their faith.
June 21st, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Fine, *whatever*. Back to the issue at hand?
I wanna get this over with- my fellow tolerance-mongers and gays and I don’t have time to waste if we wanna put our hidden agenda into action.
June 21st, 2008 at 5:03 pm
@Hobolad
Tolerance is the enemy of conviction, and with the church being proven completely wrong on a daily basis now, they must desparately ensure that their members do not engage in any form of critical analysis and simply harp and parrot what the man on the pulpit says.
Were they to think for themselves, they wouldnt need priests or preachers to tell them what to think. They wouldnt need the church either, because they can read the bible themselves (which most so-called Christians dont actually do).
True Christians are amongst the most beautiful, caring, kind hearted and compassionate people on the planet. It’s just sad that 99% of the people who call themselves Christians, are almost the exact opposite.
Alos, I don’t think there is anyway to discuss legitmizing gay marriage or not without addressing the only thing it’s opponents have as a basis for their bigotry and hatred and generally doing the work of satan while claiming to be christian.
Take S_R for example… classic textbook.
June 21st, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Gabriel,
Regarding your post in #768, that is if no more posts are deleted: Thank you for clearing that up. I find myself to very like-minded with you. I just have more impetus than some to speak out against homosexual activity in any form being forced on the rest of us (see post #758). And, having been so vocal in my beliefs, not just about this, but also about abortion, and many other things, over the years, and feeling the “love” the liberals lavish on anyone who differs from their beliefs, I know that as a fallible human, I have been hardened in some ways.
Just to make it clear–I do not condemn homosexulas, what I hate is their lifestyle, beliefs and agenda. And that is what I am condemning. A homosexual, unless he’s been given up by God to a reprobate mind (and who am I to judge who has?), can at any time, accept God’s gift of salvation and be with us in heaven. And the angels would rejoice, as would we.
June 21st, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Gabriel:
They crucified the Lord, are we to expect any less? We are, for the moment, in the thick of the battle, unfortunately.
June 21st, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Are we not; all people ( even us gays) created in Gods image ? You should all give this tied topic a rest and focus on real world problems. Who really cares if we gays can marry or not a piece of paper will not change how i feel about my partner.
June 21st, 2008 at 5:21 pm
I still say the world should deport all gays [QUEERS] to some faraway island and then ….
NUKE ‘EM!
June 21st, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Thank you Jason for your witty, insightful comments. Your Mama must be so proud!!!
June 21st, 2008 at 5:52 pm
By the way, no one is proposing that anyone be forced to go to church or to even accept Christian beliefs. All I, and others like me, are saying is that we don’t want their deviant behavior LEGALIZED. I am not saying it should be illegal, either–to each their own. Each individual will answer for his own actions. But by passing laws to legalize it, we are, as a people, accepting, nay, even embracing it. And that will have serious spiritual (that will be manifested in the physical realm) repercussions.
As the admitted homosexual above wrote, “Who really cares if we gays can marry or not a piece of paper will not change how i feel about my partner.” Of course, there are those arguing for the “supposed” protection of the law in order to be with their dying loved ones, be able to make legal choices for them regarding such matters as burial and property, etc. I say they can fight to make any legal arrangements made by two homosexuals to be ironclad. You don’t see them fighting for that, instead, they want to marry. And, again, are forcing their lifestyle on the rest of the people that make up the majority of this country.
You say “there’s no agenda”?!
It used to be until a few short years ago that people were ashamed to admit they were homosexual because the public at large found it sick and deviant behavior. (In fact, homosexuality used to be listed as a mental disease.) Now, don’t anyone try to twist this to state that I am in any way condoning any type of violence against homosexuals because I AM NOT! Anyway, then the homosexual activists (as well as atheists, et. al.) got all revved up and saw their chance when God was taken out of the schools to fill the void. So, we started teaching our children “tolerance.” We reaped what we sowed–a new generation more accepting of defying God than ever before. Of course, this is oversimplification as there were many steps taken along the way to put us on a stray path, but I can’t possibly list all the ways we’ve messed things up! Notice I write “we,” because whether or not all of us were willing participants doesn’t matter because, AGAIN, we are ALL suffering the consequences.
Now, we are being pressured to make marriage legal for homosexuals. As I stated earlier (I don’t know if it got deleted or not), what next? Other “minorities” wanting their disgusting and perverted behavior condoned by the law? They will have legal precedent on which to stand. And their behavior may not be the kind that even the most “tolerant” and “accepting” individual pushing for the marriage law for homosexuals will find “accepting.”
No, our “do whatever feels good” and “live in/for the moment” generation(s) doesn’t stop to think about such things.
June 21st, 2008 at 5:56 pm
BTW, post #779 was mine, not Wolfgang’s. Again, private info. is being disclosed by this “bug” in the software.
June 21st, 2008 at 5:58 pm
I would like to say thanks to all of the people on this “your view” who have put their points across in a mature and respectful manner. You prove that after nearly a year, the quality of commenters here is much higher than that found on most other sites! Keep it up!
June 21st, 2008 at 5:59 pm
S_R: I have corrected that for you.
June 21st, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Thank you.
June 21st, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Agenda?? The only agenda I have is to pay my bills, be a nice person anf serve humanity and my country as best as possible.
June 21st, 2008 at 6:17 pm
S_R, you continually reaffirm that your entire basis for your stance is rooted in God’s will and what god wants and what is scripturally mandated.
Yet you refuse to engage in a debate of scripture and its philosophical points with me, because, as I am sure, you know quite well that your limited knowledge of the bible will make it incredibly easy to expose the difference.
The entire basis of persecution of homosexuals is founded in the mass-cult religions. Sadly, the cult followers don’t even read their own texts and just blindly follow what other (very fallible) humans tell them.
I’m offering you the chance to provide the mandate issued by the lord to show everyone why your stance is right.
You, run away from the chance that I can completely deconstruct any argument based in biblical text that advocates persecution.
I would wager you are very very afraid of change.
June 21st, 2008 at 6:33 pm
S-R, Here is what I want you to respond to:
You say that atheists and homosexuals are trying to do away with God in the public sphere (as far as I’m concerned, a requisite for a country with a non-establishment clause). You also refer the dark ages of homosexual persecution and misunderstanding. What you don’t understand or refuse to, is that whatever you are feeling about your religion being attacked the homosexuals actually experienced much worse. Because of this they demand equal rights. No one is taking your ability to worship away or even wants to. No one is taking away your right to attend whichever church you want or what you pray for or how you interpret God. The only limitation anyone is asking is that you don’t usurp the constitution, science or secular education. All of those demands are based on the Constitution and common sense.
Since you have the desire to be allowed to follow your conscience how can you deny it to others to be allowed the same freedom?
June 21st, 2008 at 6:42 pm
@Mr Graves:
Am I correct in assuming that you either are Christian or fancy yourself an expert in Christian theology and thus are qualified to dispute why any other Christian would be ill-informed to claim that homosexuality is contrary to original teachings of Jesus Christ?
I will tell you in all forthrightness that I don’t see how you can lay the basis of refuting any particular denominations teachings on your expert opinion and interpretation of the Bible seeing as how any other Christian you would go up against would simply be using a different expert opinion and interpretation of the Bible.
Having engaged in “Bible bashing” sessions I can only say that doing so is both pointless and ultimately fruitless. I’ve never seen anything worthwhile come from such an endeavor.
I will tell you that the reason that I stand by my convictions regarding homosexuality and God’s stance on it is because I know that God’s church is on earth with apostles just as it was at the time of Christ and that those apostles today have stood firmly by the doctrine that marriage is a sacred ordinance originally ordained by God and sanctioned by Him only when it occurs between man and woman. There is no equivocation on this stance.
June 21st, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Randall: somewhere, way up there, you told about being raised by your mother, and you knew two other boys in the same circumstances, all of whom turned out fine…thus dismissing the argument that children “require” two parents of opposite sexes.
I raised three children alone, from the time they were 4, 5, & 6. I made the decision to forgo even dating until they were all out of high school and off to University, so they could have my undivided love and attention (the attention *had* to be shared with work or we’d all starve). They turned out fabulously. All managing to start University as Sophomores, and all with at least *some* scholarships and grants. The rest they got student loans for, and campus jobs, and all have multiple degrees, including grad degrees.
They are honest, upstanding, moral, level-headed people.
Children, you bigoted know-nothings, need love, attention, and guidance from whomever is there to honestly give it, be that one parent of either sex, two parents (one of each), or two of one sex.
Love.
It’s all about love.
Once you understand that one little fact, everything becomes crystal clear.
Love.
June 21st, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Gabriel, I admire your calmness and temperance in posting. I believe that we have all been called to a certain position within the body. Sometimes I wish I was more like you, but then my ways will put me (and others like me) in places where no one else can go for whatever reason. Just as your ways will put you in places I can’t go due to my more aggressive nature. Neither is better or worse, but both are needed. Everything has a time and a purpose (under the sun–he-he!).
June 21st, 2008 at 7:09 pm
The homosexual agenda:
It is an agenda that they basically set in the late 1980s, in a book called After the Ball, where they laid out a six-point plan for how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior — in a decade-long time frame…. They admit it privately, but they will not say that publicly. In their private publications, homosexual activists make it very clear that there is an agenda. The six-point agenda that they laid out in 1989 was explicit: Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible… Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers… Give homosexual protectors a just cause… Make gays look good… Make the victimizers look bad… Get funds from corporate America.
According to Dr. James Dobson:
Those goals include universal acceptance of the gay lifestyle, discrediting of scriptures that condemn homosexuality, muzzling of the clergy and Christian media, granting of special privileges and rights in the law, overturning laws prohibiting pedophilia, indoctrinating children and future generations through public education, and securing all the legal benefits of marriage for any two or more people who claim to have homosexual tendencies.
And the phrase was used by Justice Antonin Scalia (among many others) who wrote in his dissent in the landmark case Lawrence v. Texas that the “law-profession culture… has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_agenda)
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
To overcome Americans’ deep-rooted aversion to gay men and women, psychologist Kirk and ad man Madsen propose a massive media campaign designed to correct stereotypes and neutralize anti-gay prejudice. PW termed this “a punchy call to arms, Madison Avenue style.”
Review by a reader:
By A Customer
As a summary of methods to manipulate and control opinion, this book is an example of how to achieve a goal (public opinion modification), without recourse to fact, reason, or fair play. A propagandists dream, it is best summed up in two of its own quotes “Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are ‘not Christian’ and the propoganda can further show them as being criticized, hated and shunned}”…. “Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic or proof…. the person’s beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not” (p. 152-153) Answers questions as to how a group of less then 2% of the population, can attain political and media clout completely out of proportion to their size or condition.
http://www.amazon.com/After-Ball-America-Conquer-Hatred/dp/0452264987
June 21st, 2008 at 7:12 pm
OOPS–The editorial and customer reviews were about After The Ball.
June 21st, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America’s media
Read below: The powerful, sophisticated psychological techniques that the homosexual movement has used to manipulate the public in the media…
http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm
June 21st, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Governor ignores official Council vote – will install radical lesbian activist as Mass. family court judge.
http://www.massresistance.com/docs/gen/08b/monk_0610.html
Throw out the Constitution, throw out Democracy, just so long as the homosexual agenda advances, nothing else matters.